Yes, we all know it hardly existed before hand. If you really cared about such, you'd have better luck invetisgating the athletics department. If you questioned the actual rapists and actual people promoting and normalizing rape if they post online, if they learned to rape people online, the answer would most likely be no. You also give no real evidence to support your claim. Rape culture is propigated by people who are very much not anonymous, not online, but simply above the rules. People who are too big to jail, popular and "member of the community", which we are unwilling to prosecute. These are the people who commit most of the actual rapes. Example is Bill Cosby, most of the same "leftist" hollywood types where quick to question the accusations against Mr Cosby, and many people quick to dismiss them because he played the loving Mr Huxable on TV 20 years ago. People like him commit most of the rapes. The biggest reason why we can't deal with rape culture is because some of its biggest supporters are women calling themselves feminists.

Speaking of online anonyimitty, I am logged in and you are not. The irony is both hillarious and glaring.

the problem is most of society deals with this every day. those with money, status, and power are systematicly allowed to abuse those without, to their face, with no consequnces.

The only thing here is we are aghast that people without power, money, or status are now taking the same liberties.

Perhaps we need more "Golden Rule" unviersalism in our ethos and this probably would not happen, as most people learn by example.

Of course not. All I am asking as you do not throw "due proccess" out the window because you are threatened this time. Due proccess exists for a reason. The reason is that not everyone accused is guilty.

There is no such thing as "true socialism" because its litterally dozens of entirely unrelated ideas who only share their disgust for capitalism, and desire for a worker run society without bosses.

Some of these societies are filled with justice, some are simply oppressive states, sans the usual motives of profit, heridtary, and race.

Here is the harsh reality:

Yik Yak has already agreed to co-operate with court orders, and this title is the same alarmist sensationalist fear-monger garbage which gets us involved with things like "The War on Drugs", and "The War on Terror", except changing the threat to a cause we readily identify behind.

This is pure hype designed to make us scared into giving away our freedoms, a re-branding of the police state to sell it to people with leftist sympathies, nothing more. They are banking the on fact people will have an emotional response rather than think through the consequnces of having an ever-watching police state.

How many rapes or other violent attacks will this really stop? Then think about how many attacks by the police, and how many people will be ostracized or harrased by the police or university for drugs, political beliefs, or simply being wierd. The real kicker is do you really trust the police to act without court orders?

I think a good start is getting the university to start getting court orders for rape and other threats and lets make all the complaints public so we can debate this publicly. Perhaps we can get a discussion going at the root of why people feel the need to make these threats, and perhaps ways to express themselves more constructively, without threatening other people.

The alternative is simply letting the police drag the same terror state into college campuses that is already present in the rest of society. We are told our neighbors or our enemy, and we simply run to the police forking over all rights in the proccess everytime we feel threatened. Every time we feel threatened is everytime the news media decides we need less rights and decides to threaten us.

Its almost as if we should be discussing the larger problems in society that lead people to rape eachother rather than trying to lock down speech.

Lets face it, rape is endemic on campuses, and endemic among athletes and all the people are are told are good upstanding people in society, so we don't do anything about it. Do you want to really prevent rapes? Lets hold a conversation about rape and other forms of violence, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug with censorship. Lets discuss openly the problems.

Yik-Yak's policy is to comply with legally binding orders to fork over data, which is fair. I see no reason that the school should not have to get warrants and court orders if people believe there is a legitimate threat. Going to the police can get those orders. I am not comfortable with a system that monitors people without court orders, and court orders that are not based on reasonible suspicion. This is a huge problem right now, and pretending mass survailence will stop rape is a big misnomer.

What this typical for mainstream news article is being hysterical about is demanding we fork over freedoms

If people have to be kept in check top down from authority figures to prevent them from raping and murdering people, its a sign society has some pretty deep seeded problems.

The only thing yik-yak is doing is bringing deep seeded social problems to light.

Think about it, before hand, the type of people who posted this stuff would be raping and hurting people anyway, which can be attested by the amount of rapes and assaults that happen on college campuses to start with. The obscene behavior by college kids predates these anonymous threats.

But, in typical American fashion, you'd rather not deal with the underlying problem.

you mean regimes unfriendly to the US

you mean overthrow of regimes unfriendly to US foreign intrests, and nothing else. Why don't you just come out and say "TOR was designed by US intellegence for the sake of helping spies communicate, the the grand goal of trying to overthrow unfriendly governments".

The US track record on this shows that populist intrest is rarely a motive behind involvement or regime change. Generaly either self-intrest, or intrest of corporate patrons.

At the same token its a Free Software/Open Source project, so the code is in anyones hands. Saying something is strictly bad, or cannot be adopted for other means simply because the it was made with bad intentions.

You want "anti-trolling legislation", this is what you will get.

The only diffrence between this and the Curt Shilling article is how some dumbfuck english major wrote them.

I think more importantly, when people are on the way up, we make the inverse "winner edit", to try and justify why some people have status, and privledge the rest of us do not to try and justify status and position. Admitting someone who is "winning" didn't really deserve it or got luck puts our own social status at risk. People with power and influence to use that power and influence to weed out any threats. Critics are threats.

Only when they fall from grace, we have no inhabitions of saying we have really felt the entire time.

There are no "looser edits", just repealing of "winner edits".

Truth is, none of us in our heart of hearts really like status, class, or privledge. We all know its entirely bullshit. Only some of us have the audacity to risk being put on a watch list. Its why, when we have the power of anonyimitty feel more free to critique these structures of power and class. Its why we obssess over privacy, and saftey, and strong crypto, and fear the NSA.

really?

I'd like to tell you me with a straight face there are bigger and more dangerous sociopaths on the internet than in congress, heading large corporations, in the press, and in the police force.

They offer a perfect playground for sociopaths and misanthropes.

As for Shilling, I'd hardly call a bunch of jocks posting on social networks how much they want to bang his "hot daughter" trolls, or even mildly shocking. The article is also very misleading, and shilling is most likely lying when he said he never heard that kind of sex talk about young women in locker rooms. He simply looked up personal information of people who posted real pictures of themselves and real names, using their public social media accounts.

He's also playing with fire, lest the real trolls(i.e. chanistan, formerly "Anonymous") find this as a "challenge accepted", and he is totally fucked.

subsides would actually help bring the technology mainstream because it will encourage adoption which will make it cheaper in volume of scale. It will also incentivise development which will refine the technology to make it cheaper, more reliable, and more effecient.

this gets modded +5 insightful?, what the fuck are you even talking about. You know absolutely nothing about either running a country successfully or fighting a war. 1. ISIS has close to zero approval rating in the middle east. Most of their recruits are westerners.
2. ISIS has more to do with Al-Maliki's general incompetence, and utter hatred of sunnism that left many sunnis feeling disenfranchized, the complex situation western europe has with the Islamic faith and its adherent residents, and the power vacuum left not by Saddam, but by Assad, propelled by the western backed war against him. With this, the total incompetence, and lack of cohesion in the Iraqi army, which let ISIS capture US made weapons, and steal a fuckton of gold from Iraq. 99.5% of Sunni muslims might not like ISIS, but they feared Al-Maliki to the point where putting together a national army in Iraq to defend against them became an impossible task.
3. Western funding of daesh and daesh-like groups in libya, syria, etc.. durring the "Arab Spring" to overthrow regimes. ISIS fighters had US Support all the way up until ISIS crossed the border into Iraq, and wiped out the Iraqi army.

This is absolutely nothing like the French-US involvement in Viet-Nam. Not only do you have not the slightest clue on how to fight a war, I bet you can't expand on your idea more than general angry rhetoric, or even back it up with historical examples. You also know nothing about the war in viet-nam or how we "lost" it.

terms are pretty fair actually.