fascist.

anyone online now would to censor all their content, has to have complete visibility in to every single place any user anywhere can generate content. comments, messages, anywhere: there'd be the need to monitor it all.

human solutions FTW!

to me, this is key: we need to constantly "rehumanize" this conversation to avoid misrecognizing both problems and solutions as purely technological

powerful advice to look at and learn from the cultural frameworks that intersect activities like publishing online

The metaphors shape our emotional relationship to the conversation. Is a blog a home?

I refer to this sentence in my annotation above, as it seems at odds with Mike's earlier statement that this is a tools debate, not a legal one.

Not trying to nitpick, but I'm a bit confused between this statement and the one below where Mike says "We're vulnerable to state-sponsored attacks, he says, because we are too narrowly technological in our solutions."

So far in this debate I've been thinking that we are too quick to jump to technical solutions (as Mike's latter point would suggest) when I don't think the issues online are categorically different than they are offline. While certainly tools can help shape social relations and culture, we also have social/cultural mechanisms to deal with situations generated via online tools.

Abuse is not limited to online activity and remedies for abuse are not purely technological. If a person abuses another offline, we have (imperfect) mechanisms to address that abuse. Are we considering those offline mechanisms in our confrontation with online abuse?

Pew Center report.