Read-Only Moderation is Crucial
The internet can be an extremely educational playground when used appropriately. However, as in the second grade, there are bullies just waiting to steal your lunch money and walk all over you.
The latest example of this is from a site autoadmit.com which made NPR headlines in this article about the slandering of female law students at Yale. The site labels itself as "The most prestigious college discussion board in the world." which it proudly stamps at the top of its homepage. I had never heard of the site before listening to the story so I decided to check it out. My first reaction to the initial presentation of the site was positive. I liked the layout, it’s not the prettiest and definitely not the easiest to navigate, but that in itself can be a quality for a discussion board such as this.
I figured that since the site wasn't the most user-friendly, the comments might actually be viable and worth my time as a reader... a quick search proved me wrong. Of course being a student at The University of Cincinnati I immediately search Cincinnati to see what results are returned. I find a thread discussing why UC is such a rotten school that is only considered a backup school for local Ohio residents and that no one can understand how UC receives funding when average SAT scores are so low. It is true; UC was considered a backup school for many a few years ago, but not so much anymore, and only in certain fields (this is not going to turn into a post defending my university... but it was rather frustrating getting through that thread).
Back to the original story. Two females from Yale are suing > $200K for comments made about them on the AutoAdmit discussion boards which they fear has influenced possible employers to not pursue them for open positions. There is a board on this site where apparently local students talk about these girls in very derogatory terms, talking about what they wear and what they do before and after class. Comments make up facts about the girls having certain diseases or preferences... and when you search their name on Google, guess what shows up?
AutoAdmit refuses to moderate these comments with concern commenting, “deleting posts is a slippery slope that could lead to broad censorship”. According to present day, internet law, website owners are not liable for comments users make on their site. The poster themselves can be held liable, but herein lies the issue. The site has anonymous posting enabled, which is a serious mistake. With the internet being so open and possibly dangerous in this present day, I am a firm believer that identification is a necessity. I'm not saying Bush needs to be sent daily emails with your cookies and history (which I'm sure he would be very happy to sign a bill putting that into play) but I'm saying that when it comes to your comments, your discussion, only cowards hide their faces... and there are many cowards out there. If this discussion board had a mandatory log in feature, this issue could be dealt with in a professional fashion.
I know people can be more honest when from an anonymous face when dealing with the honest opinions about a university they might attend, but as long as you don't use a self-identifying alias you should have nothing to worry about. If you threaten someone, your information is then compromised through the terms and conditions of the board to the proper authority. No one would have to know who you are just from reading your posts.
I personally have never had a problem with my identification online... however, I see this as a very large issue in the very near future. Web admins need to start taking responsibility for their sites content and the safety of their users. I am against censorship, however, as made evident by AutoAdmit, a level of read-only moderation is crucial.
[edit: yes i am aware i have anonymous comments enabled on my blog... maybe if commenting ever takes off on this blog i'll rethink my security settings, but until then....]
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Fark]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/fark.png)
![[Google]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.pwlk.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Something is Seriously Wrong
Guess the percentage of military units coming back from the war in Iraq have some form of post traumatic stress disorder...
40%
FOURTY PERCENT
THAT IS 2 OUT OF EVERY 5 PEOPLE SENT TO IRAQ
Something is seriously wrong. I found this news from NPR very disturbing indeed. Yes, I know NPR tends to be on the way Left, but statistics don't lie.
People may ask, well are all 40% walking around clucking like chickens or what defines post traumatic stress disorder? Research was done by and for the Pentagon, which realized that 20% to 25% of soldiers going to Iraq are coming back with "serious mental health symptoms". The issue that is trying to be solved by the Pentagon now is getting help for these troops that have these mental issues.
When research was being conducted for this study, it was found that it was dangerous to be labeled as mentally unstable. Officers who found out their subordinate was with mental issues would sometimes punish them by making them clean the latrines or other foul tasks. Our nations finest? Apparently the Pentagon has decided they need better training, better instruction and more information telling the soldiers what possibilities there are. And then after the battle we need more specialists.
I disagree.
If a major corporation releases information that 40% of their employees are now labeled with post traumatic stress disorder and 25% of their employees are labeled with "serious mental health symptoms" there would be uproar. What makes our government so different?
War is a nasty, ugly, but a sometimes-necessary evil. We need a new game plan for Iraq (period).
Come on Mr. President, I like your immigration policy, now let's see what you've got for your foreign policy.
Whose Pants are These?
Have you heard? A Superior Court Judge from Washington DC is suing a dry cleaners for $54 million of lost pants!
The Chung family who own the dry cleaners and are immigrants from Korea do not speak english and are mortified by this series of events. Apparently the judge went in dropping off four pairs of trousers for alterations, and when he went back to pick them up, only three were there. The dry cleaners had mistakenly put a different pair of pants with the other three which had cuffs. This made the judge furious because he "refuses to wear pants with cuffs".
So apparently the dry cleaner attempted to settle the claim at $10,000 but the judge would hear nothing of it. BTW the Judge is coming from a recent divorce which has left his pocket cash to a minimum.
How silly is this... basically it is someone who knows the system very well trying to take full advantage of the little guy with all the loopholes.
I imagine the court room scene went something like this:
Defendant's Lawyer: So Pearson, you took your pants to the dry cleaner to get alterations, and when you came back someone elses pants were there instead of yours, correct?
Pearson: That is correct.
Defendant's Lawyer: How did you know the pants in question were not actually your pants?
Pearson: They had cuffs, I refuse to wear pants that have cuffs.
Defendant's Lawyer: But you took your pants for alterations... is it possible that one of the alterations was adding cuffs to the pants... and that these are actually your pants?
Pearson: ...... uhhhhh...... These are not my pants
Defendant's Lawyer: Well then who's pants are these?
Pearson: I don't know
Defendant's Lawyer: So since you have someone else's pants does that mean they're going to sue Custom Cleaners for $53 million also? Wouldn't that make Custom Cleaners bankrupt and leave you with nothing?
Pearson: I'M BROKE ALREADY... I'M A GOVERNMENT WORKER THAT DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO NOT SPEND MONEY.... i just want my pants...
OK, so maybe not exactly like that.... but its fun to imagine.
Have a happy Thursday!
Bob Barker gone Political
Have you heard? California is trying to make it illegal to own a cat or dog that isn't spayed or neutered without a permit.
The actual name of the proposed bill is the 'Healthy Pets Act' and it is discrimination to non-pure bred cats and dogs. The bill states that permits could be permitted to pretty much only purebreds... that so called 'muts' are not worthy of kittens and puppies. The supporters of this bill say this will help the stray pet population. I say that it won't.
Somehow, I don't think lots of people who find their dog having puppies are just going to throw them out into the street... the stray population is being supported by the stray population, and they are already spayed or neutered when they are picked up. What this bill seems to be doing is saying that purebred dogs are 'better' than mixed dogs. Now I'm a proponent of spaying and neutering your pets in the first place... I don't see it as a bad thing, but at this point in time I don't think that it is even slightly a bit of the government's business to be telling you whether or not you have to. Apparently Bob Barker after taping his last 'Price is Right' went straight to the phone to start lobbying for this bill to pass.
I don't know if any of my readers are from California. But if you are, please voice a negative opinion on this matter.
Yes, help control the pet population... but don't let the government force you into something that currently is none of their business.
Cheers.