I keep reading about 'Internet Bill of Rights'. Then people try to get other people to come up with censorship algorithms. "I don't like pictures of scarey clowns" meanwhile the site has a 'block user' feature. Use the feature. No site redesign needed.

And as far as a site goes, if someone is abusing other people through it, making threats, then treet it at the level of credibility. If the site is said to have upwards of 20 million viewers, and someone is posting lurid and desgusting images and making threats to hurt 'you peasants' or whatver, then does that person get surprised when a real person shows up? And says 'explain this'? I think that creeps get what the give, in that sense.

I make minetest things. I do it in minetest, and I do it locally. So I have thought about 'how come I don't pout up my own creations on a page and let other people see it.' then I thought 'well, I shoudl at least go and see what other people have. so I set up and went into a world. It was easy. I had to give myself a name and apassword and then I was in, that easy. So what did I find?

It started out where I was way underground and all the stuff was dumping on me, the whole place was blocks of quarry material and water everywhere so I said 'get out of this'. Eventually I reached what would be called 'the surface' but it had the sense of a skyworld (a sky world is built in the sky. There is no bottom. It's all sky and no die (youcan fall but you won't hit anything). OK you can always hit something. (maybe not). It's a video game. There doesn't have to be a 'ground'.

When I got to the surface there were other players there. I am not sure if these were real players as the sprite, or it was some kind of AI> What I saw was that the whole topside was burning or covered over in lava. What I also realized that for something the 'revert if chnged' feature seemed to be in force. So I went on a rampage of tryign to put out a lot of the fires and it occured to me that no matter what anyone was trying to make there were other people, probably jealous, who wanted to destroy it all. Or why? Myabe not jealousy but just maliciousness? They don't think that it's anyone's something? They have to dump lava all over it.

And isn't that what the channels are, in a sense? But even though there were those placing lava-source nodes above other people's work, there were still people in their trying to toil out something. What? It was intersting stuff. But the world builder mods were not there. So it was all single block click stuff, one block placed at a time and no tiling or stacking or anything complex and gigantic. Those things are easy to craft in a world builder world.

The larpers and the pelicans and the concern fraggers at teh channels are akin, in some sense, to those who place lavesource in someone else's creation in a minetest world to try and ruin things. In the minetest world you could disable the lava source node. Or you could have it self expire if it encounters something that someone has built? But then it's not the same game anymore. The lava is something that lets other things happen. If you bring water to it it will make all kinds of interesting minerals that can then be transformed into useful building materials. That is the way that the game is supposed to work (in that mod).

The reason for the world ruiners? Selfishness of some sort? Perhaps as a way to try and get people to go to a different world, the one that they run? Is that what is happening on the chans when the sick larpers start in with their threats? Someoen posted 'did anyone talk to the three letter agency' about the Pennywise clown picture. I guess you could. What are thy going to do? go talk to the fool? who will probably say 'no, we do this to see what we scare up. And to harden people to the diabolical meanness of certain aspects, I'm hnot really an evil clown creation of popular fiction come to life on the infinity channel. I'm just a bunch of pixels on the screen. I'm a nothing burger.;

At which point let's hope that our dreamy whitehat Fed (with gigantic concern as well as biceps, he's the kind of guy you love having as a neighbor.) tells the larper that 'yes, it's an anonymous channel but you still can't put out threats of genocide clown behavior and threaten to anhillate, muee hee hee, your oposition.

"But I have free speech . . . "

Yes, for some behavior, even if it is roll playing (role playing?), the larping could also be seen as criminal incitment and threatening. You want to push your free speech to the limit? The speech is free, the behavior (posting threats) is real, criminally real. There are no excuses, fools. Stop with the larping.

Remember this: if someone is really planning horror, they aren't usually going to 'dress the part'

As far as an Internet Bill of Rights? I think that the ideas involved still need a lot of work. There is no easy answer as to what constitutes Internet 'freedom'. And the idea of 'open systems' is only as far as the end of the cable. The one it connects to? It's a black box and perhaps not open at all.

One thing is certain: private international conglomeranters, fronts for secret wells of capital set up by ? ? ?; and run by ? ? ?; should not own and control the dissemination of data, the collection of data, the storage of data, and the surveylance to makes the data. And the making sure that the larpers are not real . . . so that everyone is safe (which is an important part of any real civil society. (the fake civility of the incivil society where they would rather have to talk to their hand and don't really care what you are saying? )all of that.

These things need to be better worked out. And all data shouldn't be in a system run by one giant entityt or corporation. So I'd say 'the right to privacy' includes data. But what about data that is needed under a court order. Give the court order and if the data isn't provided than treat it the same way that it would be if they were paper records.

Here is a run down of some current accusations concerning the networking infrastructure and surveylence society that has sprung up, like kudzu, in our wonder world: The problem some say, the recent problems are,(some say) that some few have access to stuff (stuff: data and records, dossiers, of copious information; access to hidden methods, 'back channels' to devices, are alledged, as well as 'hacking of the brain' through various methodologies, much of which is derided in constant attack when ever it is discussed on a chan which says that it's not just crap or they wouldn't waste their time trying to counter it and that leads me to the idea of the singing toilet that a crazy person (in a Kafkaesc story) thinks is TP ULTRA (why not TB for toilet bowl?) and that his toilet was compromised by a bad plumper and that it talks to him while he is sleeping through the singing of the drips . . . and it's trying to get him to . . . do things. It sings out . "Flush me. Flush me!". He finds himself sleep walking at the toilet and flushing it. "I suppose that's better than needing to change your sheets at 3AM because you wet the bed." his friedn snarks at him. trying to make it all just seem like a joke.

So, yes, the story might be seen as a joke: that the brain can be hacked and that elctromagnetic or aucustical singals can create a different method of hearing and that would be a way to 'get into someone's head'. But they would still have free will and can then tell the voices in their head to STFU (shut the faucet off?)

I'd finish that little snippit of fable by having the friend remind his adled companion that the dream was to do something that was reasonible and useful: flushing a toilet after using it. "If the toilet ever tells you to do something wrong, I am sure that you will be wise enough to not do it."

"That's right. Just because I think doesn't me that the thought is a direction to action. Sometimes it's just the residue of something else, and without any purpose or use. I really don't have to follow along and do whta it 'says'." Fable complete (needs work) point of it: you might hear 'voices' in your head. You don't have to listen or agree. You really can tell them to Shut the faucet off.

That doesn't actually get to the other point, which I obfuscate, perhaps unintentionally. There are some allegations that some aspects of the system of failsafes and controls can be compromised, though it would be extrodinary and non sanctioned use of those systems. In fact this does imply a misdesign of those systems: in that they could be used for ill purpose so easily once the gear got known. If this is true we have a serious situation. People would have access to data and methods and controls, and recording equipment that they shouldn't have access to, and they could use the data and controls to do really horrible things, black mail, plane crashes, car crashes, etc. The accusation that has actually happened . . . would reasonable be answered through indictments or libel lawsuits. Will there be indictments? Will there be lawsuits? We are still waiting.