# The cyber-civility thread



## legalskier (Oct 16, 2009)

With all the interest about what is/is not acceptable online behavior, perhaps it's a good time to start a thread like this. A blogger summed it up well: _"The topic of civility on the internet has gotten a lot of ink recently. People flame each other online in ways they would never do in a public meeting. And this tendency is most extreme in anonymous postings on blogs and web sites. *What is it about anonymity that sometimes brings out the worst in people?*  Fundamentally it is the separation between speech and accountability that sometimes poisons anonymous speech. Plato speculated about the Ring of Gyges in the Republic: how would people behave if their actions were entirely untraceable?.... And, by the evidence, there are a fair number of people who will take the cloak of anonymity as permission to express outrageous, harmful, and fundamentally disrespectful things to and about others."_

She notes that this is nothing new; e.g. in the 1700s the Black Act banned "going about in a mask and conveying anonymous, often threatening, letters," usually as a tool of coercion. On the other hand, anonymous communications have been used as "a way for powerless people and groups to express and advocate their claims without repression...constraining the power and behavior of the high and mighty."  Jurgen Habermas' ideas about the public sphere as a place for open and civil debate encourages publicity as "an essential component of a democratic polity: people engage with each other in a public space, and they embody an ethic of mutual respect that permits profound disagreements to occur without the collapse of civility." (http://changingsocietyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/anonymity-and-civility.html)

Except that civility sometimes breaks down. That's where this thread comes in. Do you think the current system of free-wheeling anonymous forums is acceptable? Should there be any constraints on it? Do you prefer the anything goes TGR model or the self-policing AZ model? Do you know of any examples of bad, or good, cyber-behavior elsewhere than AZ? How anonymous should posters be? Instead of touching on the subject in the context of other snowsports threads, this thread can focus on it exclusively.


----------



## legalskier (Oct 16, 2009)

*Subpoenas for posters' identities*

Here is a situation that involves a school superintendent who reportedly insisted that people address him as "doctor." The state discovered he had obtained his doctoral degree from an unaccredited online school, which boosted his salary, and advised him to cease, but it did not reduce his salary to the prior level (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/nj_reviews_degrees_held_by_fre.html).  A number of people posted anonymous criticisms of him on an online forum.  Now it's reported that subpoenas have been issued for the personal identities of the critics. Should they get the identities? Should the critics try to quash the subpoenas? Being that they posted on a "news" website, should they be protected derivatively through the newsperson's status? Should they reach out for the ACLU?  Being that we are all "posters," this case ought to be of interest to all....


_*Freehold Regional school district wants name of Web site users*
By ALESHA WILLIAMS BOYD • STAFF WRITER • October 15, 2009 

ENGLISHTOWN — Freehold Regional High School District school board has subpoenaed a news organization's Web site for the names of people who have criticized the district leadership in postings. According to the subpoena, the district wants to identify forum posters before the board in a disciplinary hearing -- an indicator officials are hunting for district employees.The board is demanding the full name, address and e-mail addresses registered for about 20 user names on the site, New Jersey Online, nj.com. Listed user names have criticized Schools Superintendent H. James Wasser's obtaining a doctoral degree from an unaccredited online school. The degree had meant the district paid tuition and a $2,500 annual stipend to the superintendent. Some posts also include unconfirmed allegations about Wasser and district officials. Howell representative William Bruno on the school board said he was in favor of the Aug. 31 subpoena. "If they have nothing to hide, what's the problem?'' Bruno said. But residents say this is the last in a line of attempts to intimidate and silence residents, including one residents' claim he was assaulted by a district security guard and the board's refusal to officially extend public speaker time limits from three minutes to five at meetings. "(District officials) rule by fear and terror and this is part of it,'' said Jim Sage of Marlboro, a frequent critic of the board. "If it's true (a subpoena has been filed) I think this is a waste of taxpayers' money yet again. Is it an attempt to silence the critics? Absolutely.''_

http://www.app.com/article/20091015/NEWS/91015064/1001/rss


----------



## billski (Oct 16, 2009)

I am an advocate for full disclosure.   Your user name is your real, verified name.   The Wall Street Journal insists upon it.  The level of civility is high and the trashy comments are nigh.  Then again, are we writing a letter to the editor, or is this an experiment in social media.   How many times do you go into a social setting and only give your first name?   You chat with a dozen or three people, discourse ensues and you go home, veritably traceless.   The only difference is that civility does reign, even in pseudo-anonymous social settings.

I agree with the black-mask syndrome; we lose our inhibitions and let our primal forces loose.  This group, being rather stable, has a fairly steady level of civility.  Over time our identities are easily known, even if we never meet in person.   

I have no proof, but I suspect that the TGR group attracts a very young demographic, who are experimenting and learning about how to get along with people in life.  With anarchistic tendencies, the more mature are sent packing, leaving the group no balance at all.  As in life, there are social circles of various levels of maturity.   I'm sure you've heard the group of teens who can't complete a sentence without two or three vulgarities inserted?  Then there are other more serious minded teens too.  Do we censor the more vulgar group?  Of course not, we just don't socialize with them.

If this group was to degenerate into a TGR-like discourse, I'd be gone in a NY Minute.   We pick the groups that are attractive to us, and I have no problem with that.   The challenge is that it is much easier for the  "wrong" person to join the "wrong" group, which is why moderation is so important.

I run a research discussion forum where we keep focused on the research topic.  Personal attacks are grounds for immediate removal.  But that's because we've kept the scope of the group focused, which is critical to success.  Stick to you mission and don't be distracted.


----------



## Greg (Oct 16, 2009)

I have been purposely un-anonymous since day one here. I've also met probably over 100 AZers in the past several years. What you see here is what you get, like it or not. Yeah, I've probably said some stupid things over the years, but overall, I don't have any regrets. I like knowing that nothing I've ever posted will ever come back to haunt me, and hopefully most people don't think I'm a douchebag prior to meeting me in person based on what I've posted online. Some might, but hey, I can't please everyone... :lol:


----------



## Grassi21 (Oct 16, 2009)

Greg said:


> I have been purposely un-anonymous since day one here. I've also met probably over 100 AZers in the past several years. What you see here is what you get, like it or not. Yeah, I've probably said some stupid things over the years, but overall, I don't have any regrets. I like knowing that nothing I've ever posted will ever come back to haunt me, and hopefully most people don't think I'm a douchebag prior to meeting me in person based on what I've posted online. Some might, but hey, I can't please everyone... :lol:



I think you are a douchebag and I hang out with you at least 20 or so days a year.... ;-)


----------



## Greg (Oct 16, 2009)

Grassi21 said:


> I think you are a douchebag and I hang out with you at least 20 or so days a year.... ;-)



Misery loves company.


----------



## Grassi21 (Oct 16, 2009)

Greg said:


> Misery loves company.



Then we can throw Brian, SteveO and Pat on the list too...  Can't wait to hang with you fools this winter.


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2009)

Grassi21 said:


> Then we can throw Brian, SteveO and Pat on the list too...  Can't wait to hang with you fools this winter.



Eat my ass, LX boy.

Or I'll break your other binding.


What was this thread about again?


----------



## Grassi21 (Oct 16, 2009)

Marc said:


> Eat my ass, LX boy.
> 
> Or I'll break your other binding.
> 
> ...



That reminds me, add Marc to the D-Bag list.


----------



## legalskier (Oct 16, 2009)

Well this broke down pretty fast.  :-?   Too bad--I had some other interesting stories/issues I wanted to get to eventually.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 16, 2009)

legalskier said:


> Well this broke down pretty fast.  :-?   Too bad--I had some other interesting stories/issues I wanted to get to eventually.



It's not that we're not interested in the deeper psycho-social ramifications of online message boards, it's just that it's not often that we get into any sort deep philosophical discussion.

Unless Marc's been into the goat pen again.


----------



## 2knees (Oct 16, 2009)

billski said:


> I am an advocate for full disclosure.   Your user name is your real, verified name.



because you use the name "Bill" in your screen name doesnt make you any less anonymous then someone refering to themselves as lavalamp or whatever.


----------



## Grassi21 (Oct 16, 2009)

legalskier said:


> Well this broke down pretty fast.  :-?   Too bad--I had some other interesting stories/issues I wanted to get to eventually.



Don't mind us.  This thread will get back on track with our crack moderators.  

I'll help....

I would say there are 5 or 6 posts a day that I type out, proof read, and then delete because because I would never throw the comment out in person.  I think I have a decent personal filter.  There are many on AZ that let the insults fly with no regard for others feelings.  I will only cuss at or make fun of the guys I know personally.

Sorry for the hijack...


----------



## 2knees (Oct 16, 2009)

Grassi21 said:


> Don't mind us for I play lax.  This thread should be about lax and will get back on track with our lax moderators.
> 
> I'll help....
> 
> ...



what?


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 16, 2009)

Grassi21 said:


> Don't mind us.  This thread will get back on track with our crack moderators.
> 
> I'll help....
> 
> ...



I delete 5 or 6 a day without posting because I find that I dont' actually care enough about the topic to pay enough attention to follow up if there are any responses to my post.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 16, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> I delete 5 or 6 a day without posting because I find that I dont' actually care enough about the topic to pay enough attention to follow up if there are any responses to my post.



Me too.  That, or my response just wouldn't bring anything new to the table, so it's not worth wasting everybody's time.


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> It's not that we're not interested in the deeper psycho-social ramifications of online message boards, it's just that it's not often that we get into any sort deep philosophical discussion.
> 
> Unless Marc's been into the goat pen again.



There's only one verifiable incident, and there's no longer and evidence... and furthermore, I didn't _know_ it was a goat at the time.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 16, 2009)

St. Bear said:


> Me too.  That, or my response just wouldn't bring anything new to the table, so it's not worth wasting everybody's time.



I'd agree with that, but my post count exposes the lie. It's probably more accurate to say that I make 5 or 6 posts a year that add value.

Unlike, of course, this one. Consider your time wasted. It's a service I provide free of charge.

:beer:


----------



## mondeo (Oct 16, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Unless Marc's been into the goat pen again.


Marc's life story coming to the big screen:


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 16, 2009)

My online life has always been fairly transparent... perhaps even more so than my regular life. You can find out more about me by digging around online than you could talking to me for an hour or two. I don't know why, but I have generally operated like that since 96 or so when I threw my first personal web page up. For some reason, I never thought twice about putting everything possible into an "About" page. I have on occasions posted something slightly out of line on the internet, but I don't think I have ever broken down into complete flaming. Perhaps that publicness makes it so I am no more of an ass online than I am in real life, for the most part. However, I think no one is immune from flaming away every once and a while when your blood boils up about something (or you have had a beer or three).

Any ways, I don't think there is any need to touch it. It is what it is and it will work itself out as it has with ski forums. Those who don't care post to TGR. Those who do care seek out forums where moderation keeps things in check. Self selection. And as internet arguments and lame behavior increases, I think we will see more and more online communities spring up in which people are more forthcoming with who they really are.

Look at FaceBook. WOW can you only imagine a community in which everyone uses their real names 10 years ago? People did not even want to create a user ID to go shopping online 10 years ago and creating a user ID to post in IRC was risque to the world at large (those crazy chat rooms!!). Now communities like FaceBook and LinkedIn and increasing and more and more people are being themselves online as people realize this whole internet thing isn't that crazy. I think it is still a developing trend but younger folks are leading the charge... those that came of age as Web 2.0 came about never knew a world in which you were not online as yourself through FaceBook. It will never be completely transparent, but I think we will see an increase in communities where transparency is encouraged and appreciated.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm both an online asshole and a real-life asshole so suck it bitches!!!


----------



## billski (Oct 16, 2009)

2knees said:


> because you use the name "Bill" in your screen name doesnt make you any less anonymous then someone refering to themselves as lavalamp or whatever.


 Agreed.  And I never said I practice what I preach.  I chose "billski" so I could "fit in" here, after looking around and seeing that "full disclosure" was not embraced.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 16, 2009)

2knees said:


> because you use the name "Bill" in your screen name doesnt make you any less anonymous then someone refering to themselves as lavalamp or whatever.


For what it is worth, if you poke around, billski is anything but anonymous and has a lot of personal info out there on them interwebs. Not that I am some creepy stalker or anything.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2009)

billski said:


> Agreed.  And I never said I practice what I preach.  I chose "billski" so I could "fit in" here, after looking around and seeing that "full disclosure" was not embraced.



I thought your last name was really Ski.  What a disappointment...


----------



## billski (Oct 17, 2009)

bvibert said:


> I thought your last name was really Ski. What a disappointment...


 
I'm very sorry about that Mr. Vibert  
I petitioned the government of Poland, but they said "no."   

Steve's right, it's pretty easy to find out who I am.  In fact, I use the same name in almost every group I belong to.  So, if I ever commit a crime, the FBI will have an easy time chasing me down!:flag:


----------



## ckofer (Oct 17, 2009)

I don't really care what others do. If a forum sucks, I leave.


----------



## marcski (Oct 17, 2009)

bvibert said:


> I thought your last name was really Ski.  What a disappointment...



Bill and I are related.  You guys just figuring this out now?


----------



## drjeff (Oct 18, 2009)

marcski said:


> Bill and I are related.  You guys just figuring this out now?



So you're related to BOTH Billski and Marc??? God help you!   :lol:


----------



## billski (Oct 18, 2009)

drjeff said:


> So you're related to BOTH Billski and Marc??? God help you!   :lol:


 
I thought there was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on this forum.  :razz:  No? :-(


----------



## Marc (Oct 19, 2009)

Everyone's going to claim relation to me when I'm rich and famous.

I'm expecting that to happen any day now...


Yup.  Any day now.......


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 20, 2009)

Hey legalskier, I'm interested.  Don't shy away.  I'm new here, but what these guys are doing is the equivalent of goosing each other or giving internet wedgies.  It comes from chumminess, not callousness or mean-spiritedness.

I've always thought one of the fun things about these forums was having a handle.  A nom de plume more so than a nom de guerre.  Where is the line drawn between agitating and trolling for a flame out?


----------



## billski (Oct 20, 2009)

witch hobble said:


> what these guys are doing is the equivalent of goosing each other or giving internet wedgies.  It comes from chumminess, not callousness or mean-spiritedness.



+1 
A lot of teasing and taunting goes on here.  It often gets lost in the translation. Using emoticons early and often is essential (I got burned on that one.) and it's easy to lose the thought.  I also get burned a lot having a very sarcastic sense of humor which really struggles to come through in text...


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 20, 2009)

billski said:


> +1
> A lot of teasing and taunting goes on here.  It often gets lost in the translation. Using emoticons early and often is essential (I got burned on that one.) and it's easy to lose the thought.  I also get burned a lot having a very sarcastic sense of humor which really struggles to come through in text...



I'll second the latter thought, but I abhore the use of emoticons, so if something I write is mistaken, so be it.


----------



## legalskier (Oct 20, 2009)

witch hobble said:


> Hey legalskier, I'm interested.  Don't shy away.  I'm new here, but what these guys are doing is the equivalent of goosing each other or giving internet wedgies.  It comes from chumminess, not callousness or mean-spiritedness.
> 
> I've always thought one of the fun things about these forums was having a handle.  A nom de plume more so than a nom de guerre.  Where is the line drawn between agitating and trolling for a flame out?



That’s what I was hoping to explore, at a minimum. This is a developing area which “etiquette” and the law appear to be lagging behind.  Ever since the Sugarloaf incident last winter, which generated intense responses around the country, as well as the behavior of certain unnamed individuals here, I’ve been intrigued. The problem is that general questions/principles/platitudes only take you so far. What I wanted to do was to look at specific real world situations that may provide a sense of where the boundaries exist, if at all. It might sound academic, but it does have real world application. My thick skin and firm belief in freedom of speech means I have no problem with spirited debates and good-natured teasing.  If people want to have fun, by all means be my guest. Then again, if there are no boundaries, anything goes, and people, and their reputations,  can get taken advantage of. I do have other things to present, but right now my schedule has other ideas.


----------



## Marc (Oct 20, 2009)

Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put.


----------



## Beetlenut (Oct 20, 2009)

Marc said:


> Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put.


 
You tell em' Yoda! 

That is all! 
Just wanted to post in this epic thread on civility!


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 20, 2009)

Marc said:


> Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put.



Good Old Boy from Arkansas was walking around the Harvard campus one day, when he stopped a student and asked, "Hey, where's the library at?" The student looked at him, in that totally non-condescending way that is so common to yankees, and said, "Sir, at Harvard, we do not end our sentences with a preposition." "Aw'ight," said the GOB, "where's the library at, asshole?"


----------



## legalskier (Oct 22, 2009)

*"Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is [anyone] protected from getting his feelings hur*

So says a blistering editorial addressing a school board's efforts to subpoena from a news website information identifying its anonymous online critics, an effort it describes as "nothing less than official bullying designed to silence people."  I posted about the situation earlier and was surprised that it engendered such little attention, as the ramifications reach out far beyond one small town.  The editorial board put it very well IMHO: "It is stunning that someone in charge of educating young people — students who should be taught about the virtues of the Bill of Rights, including the freedom to speak one's mind without fear — chooses instead to emulate the worst excesses of American demagoguery, from Richard Nixon's enemies list to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's witch hunts."
http://www.app.com/article/20091020/OPINION01/910210319/1029/OPINION

Meanwhile, the anonymous posters have retained counsel, who is pushing back. The subpoenas, he argues, were procedurally defective and legally insufficient. Additionally, the news website is refusing to turn over any information. A law professor observes: "(Court decisions on online anonymity are) in flux, but in New Jersey I think there's fairly solid protection (for anonymous posters),"  much to the relief of the posters.
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910150359
However, a radio commentator who says he was contacted by a poster indicates that they are unhappy about having to pay attorney's fees.


----------



## legalskier (Nov 19, 2009)

*Courtney Love's Twitter libel case*

...and other disturbing cases/issues regarding cybermanners.

_"In a case that would have been impossible even five years ago, bad-girl rocker Courtney Love is being sued for libel by a fashion designer for allegedly slamming the woman on Twitter. The suit claims that after a disagreement over what Love should pay Dawn Simorangkir for the clothes she designed, Love posted allegedly derogatory and false comments about the designer -- among them that she had a "history of dealing cocaine" -- on her now-discontinued Twitter feed. But as technology evolves faster than the laws that govern free speech online, it's not just the famous who are finding trouble.***"_

Here's the link:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html
Interesting reading.


----------



## legalskier (Feb 17, 2010)

_*Student’s Facebook Tirade Against Teacher Is Protected Speech*
By David Kravets
The score is 2-1 in favor of the First Amendment when it comes to three federal rulings this month on the limits of students’ online, off-campus speech. The latest ruling, which supports the student, concerned a former Florida high senior who was reprimanded for “cyberbullying” a teacher on Facebook. Katherine Evans, now 20, was suspended two years ago after creating a Facebook group devoted to her English teacher. The group was called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met!,” and featured a photograph of the teacher and an invitation for other students to “express your feelings of hatred.”
 “It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior,” Magistrate Barry Garber of Florida ruled Friday. The decision came two weeks after the nation’s first two appellate opinions differed on the matter of whether students have a First Amendment right in the online world beyond the schoolyard gates. Those conflicting decisions are the closest within the Supreme Court’s reach for review. Dozens of similar cases dot the legal landscape.***_
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...d:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))


----------



## legalskier (Mar 8, 2010)

*Human-flesh search engines*

...cyberposses and online harassment.  

_Human-flesh search engines...have become a Chinese phenomenon: they are a form of online vigilante justice in which Internet users hunt down and punish people who have attracted their wrath. The goal is to get the targets of a search fired from their jobs, shamed in front of their neighbors, run out of town. It’s crowd-sourced detective work, pursued online — with offline results.***[It's] not just a search by humans but also a search for humans, initially performed online but intended to cause real-world consequences. Searches have been directed against all kinds of people, including cheating spouses, corrupt government officials, amateur pornography makers, Chinese citizens who are perceived as unpatriotic, journalists who urge a moderate stance on Tibet and rich people who try to game the Chinese system. Human-flesh searches highlight what people are willing to fight for: the political issues, polarizing events and contested moral standards that are the fault lines of contemporary China._
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Human-t.html?scp=4&sq=sunday magazine&st=cse

Think it can't happen here?


----------



## legalskier (Aug 10, 2010)

*Well this isn't very cyber-civil...*

_*Massive Censorship Of Digg Uncovered*
A group of influential conservative members of the behemoth social media site Digg.com have just been caught red-handed in a widespread campaign of censorship, having multiple accounts, upvote padding, and deliberately trying to ban progressives. An undercover investigation has exposed this effort, which has been in action for more than one year. “The more liberal stories that were buried the better chance conservative stories have to get to the front page. I’ll continue to bury their submissions until they change their ways and become conservatives.”-phoenixtx (aka vrayz)
Digg.com is the powerhouse of social media websites. It is ranked 50th among US websites by Alexa (117th in the world), by far the most influential social media site. It reached one million users in 2007 and likely has more than tripled that by this point. Digg generates around 25 million page views per month, over one third of the page views of the NY Times. Front page stories regularly overwhelm and temporarily shut down websites in a process called the “Digg Effect.”*** [Digg's model makes] it very susceptible to external gaming whereby users from certain groups attempt to push their viewpoint or articles to the front page to give them traction. This was evident with the daily spamming of the upcoming Political section with white supremacist material from the British National Party (articles which rarely reached the front page). The inverse of this effect is more devastating however. *Bury brigades could effectively remove stories from the upcoming sections by collectively burying them*._
http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/

A "bury brigade?" That's a new one on me.


----------



## legalskier (Dec 28, 2010)

*Is reading wife's e-mail a crime?*

_Oakland County prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker. Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair. He now is facing a Feb. 7 trial. She filed for divorce, which was finalized earlier this month. *** "It's going to be interesting because there are no clear legal answers here," said Frederick Lane, a Vermont attorney and nationally recognized expert who has published five books on electronic privacy. The fact that the two still were living together, and that Leon Walker had routine access to the computer, may help him, Lane said. ***
Several area defense attorneys were astonished by the filing of the criminal charges. *"What's the difference between that and parents who get on their kids' Facebook accounts?" attorney Deborah McKelvy said. "You're going to have to start prosecuting a whole bunch of parents."*_

Full story (including a reader poll): http://www.freep.com/article/20101226/NEWS03/12260530/&template=fullarticle


----------



## legalskier (Apr 5, 2012)

Yikes. :-o

_*Arizona pushes law to make 'annoying' comments illegal
What if obnoxious or aggressive remarks made on Facebook and Twitter ended in criminal charges? Some free speech advocates are saying that's what a new law in Arizona could do.*
*** On one hand, advocates of this law say it would make it easier to criminalize perpetrators who stalk their victims online or with text messages; but, on the other hand, free speech advocates say the law's language is too broad making any "annoying" or "offensive" comment made on the Internet illegal. ***_
Story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57409617-93/arizona-pushes-law-to-make-annoying-comments-illegal/


----------



## Nick (Apr 5, 2012)

Heard about that law, without getting political, that is just ridiculous. 

I think about it fairly often ... during the grown / explosion of the Internet it really has been an electronic "wild wild west" where everything goes. tax free sales; say whatever you want, anonymity, etc. 

I wonder how long that will last. There's not a doubt in my mind in 10 years people will be amazed there was no sales tax on the Internet.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 5, 2012)

Nick said:


> Heard about that law, without getting political, that is just ridiculous.
> 
> I think about it fairly often ... during the grown / explosion of the Internet it really has been an electronic "wild wild west" where everything goes. tax free sales; say whatever you want, anonymity, etc.
> 
> I wonder how long that will last. There's not a doubt in my mind in 10 years people will be amazed there was no sales tax on the Internet.



Nick, I have zero worries that the trolling scene here will go on unscathed.


----------



## Nick (Apr 5, 2012)

Thanks :lol:


----------

