I want to discuss the Cubing Community and my experience

[shadowslice e]

I didn't say online was private, I said the competition(s) I referred to were private, which they were, it's on private property. Online I see similarly because people make the choice to go to YouTube and read or post comments, it's not an atmosphere people need to pass through.

Content creators "need" to pass through it and they're usually the ones getting the stick.

 

[Loiloiloi]

Content creators "need" to pass through it and they're usually the ones getting the stick.

Comments are optional, and you don't even have to read them, and you don't even have to post a video if you get a good solve.

 

[potatoman]

The reason you think this is wrong is because you see it as harassment. Anyone should be free to joke about anything, even offensive things, but that doesn't make harassing and bullying people okay. People like Mats Valk and Mitch Lane have no problem swearing in response to a WR because they're in a private environment where they shouldn't have to censor themselves, and I see online jokes the same way.

I'm kind of confused. You said that it's not okay to harass or bully others, yet it's okay to joke about it online? What exactly is the inherent difference then? If people are going on channels and commenting "hey you suck, feliks is better" as a "joke", does that make it acceptable or not? Kinda confused at your wording.

I didn't say online was private, I said the competition(s) I referred to were private, which they were, it's on private property. Online I see similarly because people make the choice to go to YouTube and read or post comments, it's not an atmosphere people need to pass through.

Yeah see, the problem with that logic is that everything on any type of media/social gathering would be "private" because you have the "option" to see it or not. Hell, you can even say "it's okay to bully someone in real life as a joke because they can just close their eyes and ignore you"

 

[shadowslice e]

Comments are optional, and you don't even have to read them, and you don't even have to post a video if you get a good solve.

By your definition, there's no such thing as a public place then. No one ever has to "pass through" anywhere. A much more sensible definition of a public place is one where anyone could go whether they choose to or not.

 

[Loiloiloi]

By your definition, there's no such thing as a public place then. No one ever has to "pass through" anywhere. A much more sensible definition of a public place is one where anyone could go whether they choose to or not.

I use the same definition of public space/private space that is widely accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
Someone has to pass through roadways or sidewalks to get to school or work. Someone doesn't have to read the youtube comments on their video. Your definition of a public place is difficult because it implies personal information like credit card number and social security number are public information, because if someone chooses to hack me then they can see that, and also someone can choose to log in to my bank account and steal all my information because it's on the internet.

Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.

 

[shadowslice e]

I use the same definition of public space/private space that is widely accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
Someone has to pass through roadways or sidewalks to get to school or work.

They don't have to pass through any specific place. They can take another route if they really want to. that is what your definition really implies.

Someone doesn't have to read the youtube comments on their video.

Even though the comments are really there to help them improve their content? How do you propose they improve without real constructive criticism? In addition, you can argue that no one "has to go" anywhere (see above). You also don't cover how a private entity can still own a place which people may "have" to pass through.

Your definition of a public place is difficult because it implies personal information like credit card number and social security number are public information, because if someone chooses to hack me then they can see that, and also someone can choose to log in to my bank account and steal all my information because it's on the internet.

Not anyone can access it without breaking various laws. In this way I would define such a place as somewhere in which anyone can access without breaking any laws.

Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.

My definition of a private place is simply the converse of the definition of a public place which is: "A public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people". This seems to pretty clearly cover youtube comments among other things such as this forum and open facebook groups. A public place is not a place where someone has to pass through; it is a place where people have the right to be whether they choose to or not. A private place is somewhere in which a person or people have the right to restrict access whether they choose to or not.

Your definition is that of property ownership (ie privately and publicly owned property). Mine is the legal right to access a place and how someone is legally required to act in those places (ie it is more to do with public spaces which I believe is more applicable in this case.)

Also, potatoman has some very good points in his latest post in this thread which I think your arguments may need to address.

 

[Daniel Lin]

By your definition, there's no such thing as a public place then. No one ever has to "pass through" anywhere. A much more sensible definition of a public place is one where anyone could go whether they choose to or not.

Isn't the internet technically a private place? Since it isn't government owned...

The people in charge of youtube can set whatever rules they want. There really aren't many rules though (other than you can't post nude videos). So that means you can talk trash/insult youtubers in the comments section. That doesn't mean it's okay to do (makes you a jerk), but it's not illegal or anything

Yeah see, the problem with that logic is that everything on any type of media/social gathering would be "private" because you have the "option" to see it or not. Hell, you can even say "it's okay to bully someone in real life as a joke because they can just close their eyes and ignore you"

you kinda can tho (1st amendment) as long as you're not physically harrassing anyone. but if you're on someone else's property they have the right to kick you out
like here on the forums, if some guy started insulting people, their posts/account would get deleted by the mods

 

[Dom]

Everyone, please understand that although we all have our opinions of what WE consider private, the LEGAL definition is not keeping up with how quickly technology and communications are changing. This is a big debate in the legal field right now and I don't think this forum is the most appropriate place for this debate... In my opinion.

Back to the original topic: let's all agree to be more welcoming and less troll-like online. Agreed?

 

[shadowslice e]

Isn't the internet technically a private place? Since it isn't government owned...

The people in charge of youtube can set whatever rules they want. There really aren't many rules though (other than you can't post nude videos). So that means you can talk trash/insult youtubers in the comments section. That doesn't mean it's okay to do (makes you a jerk), but it's not illegal or anything

As I said above, less to do with property ownership, more to do with people's right to be there and how they should not display "antisocial behavior" or whatever. Also, idk about America because of your precious first amendment but there are laws that cover verbal abuse and slander over here across the pond becuase oftentimes the scars from verbal and psycological abuse will last even longer than those of physical.