freedom of speech is fine, but where is the limit?

[examplens]

user interiawp is completely exposed, begging for money under the pretext of a donation for the victims of the war in Ukraine. obviously some immature kid.
to all objections that it is necessary to attach some evidence, he negative tagged all of us. I don't see it as a problem, usually, every scammer gives me a negative rating with some nonsense explanation.
but where shall we draw the line? In this case, he is here calling for the kill, no matter how naive and stupid it sounds should we allow such speech here?
freedom of speech is fine, but do we need users like this here?

[PrimeNumber7]

That would likely be something that qualifies to be removed from the various trust profiles, as it is spam. There is also an argument the sent ratings amount to death threats, which would be against another rule.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

but where shall we draw the line? In this case, he is here calling for the kill, no matter how naive and stupid it sounds should we allow such speech here?

I look at it as a death threat, which I don't think is allowed here according to the forum rules. Personally, I wouldn't be rattled by any form of death threats by a random online scammer, but we are a community of different people who react differently.

Such users are usually banned, though I am not sure if admin has ever removed or changed such feedback left by users.

[sheenshane]

I remember this attitude the same as GameProtect was spamming in trust profile those who support the flag that was created.

At that time I used the ignore button and completely forget the name who was spamming negative feedback on my profile which is I know it's a nonsense explanation because I know that the Trust System is decentralized and it's unlikely to happen that it will remove by any staff here that left by that user.  Though considering it's a death threat I think ignoring that user might help you at a moment.  But I'd like to hear the staff about this if this is possible to remove which is death threats is against the rule and should be a bannable offense.

Anyway, I supported the flag, and let's see if that user tagging me too.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yeah, that feedback is inappropriate for sure, but it's not exactly a death threat.  Nor is it likely to cause anyone to act on his call for those members to be killed--so in other words, it's just empty internet trolling and we've seen crap like that on bitcointalk before. 

That feedback should probably get removed by the mods if they're willing to do so, and I don't think it's restricting anything but some immature asshole's anger.  I couldn't care less if this forum deletes nonsense like that; I've had plenty of posts deleted by mods.  I care way more about Youtube and other social media platforms censoring what viewers get to see, because it has infinitely more influence on how people think about things than a silly little case of an angry shitposter.

Youtube just took down an upload of the movie "The Day After" which had been up for years.  A lot of you probably aren't familiar with it, because it was a made-for-television movie from 1983, but it deals with nuclear war between the US and what was then the USSR.  I thought it was time for a rewatch, and it had been there as recently as a month ago...but now it's gone, and I'm guessing it isn't the uploader who pulled it.  Shit like that makes me want to pull some hair out (and perhaps not my own).

[examplens]

Yeah, that feedback is inappropriate for sure, but it's not exactly a death threat.  Nor is it likely to cause anyone to act on his call for those members to be killed--so in other words, it's just empty internet trolling and we've seen crap like that on bitcointalk before. 

That feedback should probably get removed by the mods if they're willing to do so, and I don't think it's restricting anything but some immature asshole's anger.  I couldn't care less if this forum deletes nonsense like that; I've had plenty of posts deleted by mods.  I care way more about Youtube and other social media platforms censoring what viewers get to see, because it has infinitely more influence on how people think about things than a silly little case of an angry shitposter.

yes, I guess everyone on this forum can recognize such nonsense, I just wonder if that's enough to ban such users. from such people, we cannot expect any constructive participation in the discussion.
Because all other networks are full of trolls like this, maybe this forum, as a bearer of crypto communities can insist on rules of civilized behaviour.
Just my two cents.

[Rikafip]

The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, 'limit' the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals.

So you couldn't say all these things using your own words but instead you wanted to sound smart and just copy/pasted someone else's word. Punishment for plagiarism is ban, unless you can prove that you are behind the original text, which I doubt.

The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, ‘limit’ the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals

[Falconer]

yes, I guess everyone on this forum can recognize such nonsense, I just wonder if that's enough to ban such users. from such people, we cannot expect any constructive participation in the discussion.

First, the forum doesn't moderate scams but the user deserves a negative tag from DT to prevent other users from being scammed. Admin don't ban any users even if they are well-known scammers, but admin may be able to ban users who spread death threats for violating rule No.8.

There are several things that might make it banned based unofficial rules and they are:
3. Not trolling
7. Not Begging

If the user violates the above two rules then I think the admin can decide to ban him and delete all the feedback he sent to some users.

[Lucius]

freedom of speech is fine, but do we need users like this here?

Of course we don't need them, but the policy of the forum was determined a long time ago and gave such people too much space under some pretext of "freedom of speech". They know this very well and use this "freedom" to the maximum without any sanctions, except for negative feedback or a flag that means nothing to them anyway. It is paradoxical that because of one plagiarized sentence you can get a perma-ban, and you can steal millions of dollars and still have an active profile with all the privileges.

As for these pointless feedbacks, it would definitely make sense that in the case of a perma-ban member who left them, such feedback would be automatically deleted.

That feedback should probably get removed by the mods if they're willing to do so...

Ordinary mods can't do that, and I'm pretty sure such powers don't have global mods either. Only admins can do such things, and as far as I can remember it has happened maybe once or twice in all these years that I have been on the forum (at least for those cases that were public).

[The Cryptovator]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean we can threaten anyone. It has been added to the unofficial forum rules that some activities should avoid. This means that aren't included freedom of speech. Freedom doesn't mean we can make trouble for others. These feedbacks are nonsense, though it's not a direct death thread it indicates if he found then he would kill. I am not sure how the forum administration will treat it, but I think this feedback should be removed and disabled leaving feedback for that user. Otherwise, he will continue to abuse the feedback/trust system.

[Bitcoin SV]

obviously some immature kid.

It seems to be true

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;threads;u=3357990;sa=showPosts;start=20

[Igebotz]

freedom of speech is fine, but do we need users like this here?

As for these pointless feedbacks, it would definitely make sense that in the case of a perma-ban member who left them, such feedback would be automatically deleted.

You make an excellent point. It would be a nice idea if such feedbacks were removed whenever a user was banned, but what about scammers who would be free if the person who left them negative feedback was banned? Not all banned users are scammers or trust abusers. The second point should always be taken into account.

I am not sure how the forum administration will treat it, but I think this feedback should be removed and disabled leaving feedback for that user. Otherwise, he will continue to abuse the feedback/trust system.

We'd have a lot of feedback removal applications on the Meta if the admin started moderating feedbacks. We've seen circumstances when a veteran user left some personal foolish threats feedback without reference to a follow established member. Things like this will continue to happen.

[Lucius]

You make an excellent point. It would be a nice idea if such feedbacks were removed whenever a user was banned, but what about scammers who would be free if the person who left them negative feedback was banned? Not all banned users are scammers or trust abusers. The second point should always be taken into account.

Perhaps the automatic deletion of feedback should be limited to the starting ranks (Newbie, Jr.Member, Member) because it is unlikely that such users will tag someone for some scam and then get a perma-ban. In addition, trust system settings mean that negative feedback is displayed differently in user profiles - so I wouldn't worry too much about those who would get perma-ban and their feedback would be automatically deleted.

[BITCOIN4X]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean we can threaten anyone. It has been added to the unofficial forum rules that some activities should avoid. This means that aren't included freedom of speech. Freedom doesn't mean we can make trouble for others. These feedbacks are nonsense, though it's not a direct death thread it indicates if he found then he would kill. I am not sure how the forum administration will treat it, but I think this feedback should be removed and disabled leaving feedback for that user. Otherwise, he will continue to abuse the feedback/trust system.

I had thought about that feedback before I support the flag DaveF created for those scammers because I thought he would post the same tag to my profile too. I don't think negative tags from immoral users will damage our reputation here, but it's true I don't feel we deserve that bullshit from him. He was too childish to be an immoral scammers.

It wasn't free speech for him, but he had abused the trust system by sending feedback at will even with death threats. I'm in favor of removing that negative tag on our profile because it's absolutely bullshit.

[NeuroticFish]

It's not the first scammer with "wide" and stupid retaliatory feedback. I have my "painting" too, from g.p. and such.

We know that those don't mean anything, but:
* newbies may not know that and may even get a wrong impression about somebody because of this
* lower ranks may be afraid to post real negative feedback because of this

The problem is, on the other hand, that "not regulated" is crystal clear and if admin starts to add exceptions.. he may be opening Pandora's box.
Still... I think that a rule on removing all the trust feedback a banned user does may make sense. In most cases it won't help, still...

[Bitcoin SV]

I think that these childish accusations without any references from interiawp should be removable by any DT member

Thermos, can you give relevant rights to Loycev?

[qwertyup23]

<snip....>
As for these pointless feedbacks, it would definitely make sense that in the case of a perma-ban member who left them, such feedback would be automatically deleted.

This somehow summarizes on where to draw the line on freedom of speech in the forum.

There is a reason on why theymos made trust feedbacks unregulated. While this may be the case, newbies have the power to somehow abuse it by plaguing and spreading fake negative feedbacks that may relatively affect the reputation of a member. But I think the compromise and to remedy this problem is to delete such negative feedbacks if the member received a perma-ban.

I mean, there is no point of having those feedbacks stay if the forum member has been banned specifically if they violated any of the forum rules.

[onecall123]

This is a serious concern. We are bound by a lot of rules and regulations regarding our physical appearance in the real world. If that person makes any inappropriate statements or his words are abusive, you can easily control him. But what about in the non-physical realm? Especially since we're dealing with a decentralized world and this forum is supposed to maintain the same attitude, we're simply running out a solution. It may be possible to come up with a solution soon. While freedom of speech is important, limiting it is only possible in the real world and not in this decentralized setting.

It's a hassle to deal with, but what if the forum appointing a particular team to perform mainly pointed out those nonsense feedback's? It's the same feedback I got, nonsense only. Having expelled him, his distraction from his initial planning then his act of trigger surely damage your reputation (in our minds)

[_BlackStar]

I mean, there is no point of having those feedbacks stay if the forum member has been banned specifically if they violated any of the forum rules.

But unfortunately interiawp has not been banned so far even though in my opinion he has violated two rules at once. Admin can't ban users just for trying to scam or abusing the trust system, but admin can ban them for breaking the rules ^{[begging or threat to kill].} Those two reasons can get interiawp banned, but till now I haven't seen the admin act.

That feedback can be removed if the admin has banned that user, but in any case admin and moderator can decide whether the user is guilty or not based on their interpretation.

[Synchronice]

freedom of speech is fine, but do we need users like this here?

Freedom of speech like every combination of sentence with freedom is totally misunderstood by some individuals.
As I understood, there is a trust system on this forum where any user, including newbies like me with no story on this forum, can tag anyone. This is the freedom of speech! But it doesn't mean that I can spread my laws on anyone. I have my own laws, you have your own laws but we shouldn't harm each other and we shouldn't abuse our capabilities because of freedom of speech.

The freedom of speech is even limited at some point but it still is what it means.
If I couldn't give trust to someone on this forum and only certain users would be able to send trust, then this wouldn't be a freedom of speech.

My vote for: We shouldn't allow such speech here!
P.S. In the democratic world, there are always majorities and minorities.