OK, I'll bite, +Jeremiah McCoy
"There is no threat of physical violence on the internet."
So is the argument that because you've got the internet in one category, which contains things like print media, mass media, etc where physical violence is impossible because all interactions are mediated through impersonal channels there is no violence on the internet? I cannot get punched on the internet. It's impossible. That sort of thing?
And that's true, of course.
Read on its face, "there is no threat of physical violence on the internet" sounds like nonsense because a lot of us are reading it as, "there are no threats of physical violence made via the internet." What you mean to say, I think, is that "there is no possibility of violence happening on the internet." Right?
But, of course, what is categorically different than an anonymous death threat received in the mail than a functionally anonymous death threat made online? And should we really have to sit down and parse any differences (time of composition?)? Is that really
And the internet makes this all worse, not better, because there are crowds involved. If people post something horrible that they otherwise would be too afraid to do because of proximity or anonymity or both, that doesn't make the post less threatening. It also encourages
those with similar positions to speak out. The meatspace stalker that spends all day obsessing over someone most likely knows that their behavior is deviant. On the internet, we give you corroboration.
Does that make sense?