The digital equivalent of enforcing laws is to send police to the non-digital place where the criminal live and escort them to the police station for questioning. Police work in the digital space is identical to police work in non-digital place. The only exception to this is when the accused live outside the reach of the police, in which case blocking can be the only option available.

Banning people should be used with care. I read the EFF article in that context, and I doubt that they would object if the police went and visited someone accused of making death threats, threats of violence, or harassment. I also expect EFF to be there and watch if a difference in viewpoints would be labeled as either of those.

They give the example of a public library that has a discussion board that they only allow use of for book recommendations. They are allowed to restrict the use of the discussion board to only book recommendations, but they can't restrict it based on whether they agree with the book recommendation or not.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporte...

You must be new here. The logic on HN goes "whatever I want, is good and thinking about wider repercussions is stupid."

The second we get a _new_ President, say, a Democrat black woman, and she gets spammed with non-stop dick pics and lynching pictures, all a sudden everyone in HN is going to be like "omfg, the President should be able to block trolls."

It's basic tribalism. "My team" is the good guys, so whatever they do is good. As opposed to logic, where "things" are good and bad and they make the people good or bad. People here believe "my candidate/group/alliance are good" and if they do something "evil" then [insert mental gymnastics].

We're literally experiencing a secular religion in the 2010's. Which is why everyone gets so emotional and outraged as if you're talking about their religion when you bring up simple politics. And, why they strive so hard to "out" and smash anyone who is a threat to their religion. Secular witchhunts. Exposing the non-believers for virtue points.

And it's not entirely their fault. These religious aspects are human (biological) aspects. Humans are innately spiritual. The real flaw was thinking that simply having "no religion" somehow prevents you from acting out the same vices of the religious, like witchhunts, proving your alliance/purity/etc, and lynchmobs to destroy "invalid" members of the in-group.

Try being a liberal and then (for the sake of example) tell people you converted to conservatism. It'll be like you were a religion and just insulted the honor of everyone in your family, friends, and community. You betrayed "the group." They will not only cut off all communication with you, but attack you. You have "left the faith" and betrayed them. Google what happened to the Feminist (laci green?) who dated a MRA and then said "I'm still a feminist but maybe both sides have fair points, like male suicide rates." She got instant death threats. Letters full of poop. Graffitti on her house.

A bunch of white feminist guys telling a woman to kill herself. How can you call that feminism? Oh yeah, because religion. She threatened the religion by questioning it and dating an outsider so it's now "righteous" to destroy her.

I'm honestly hard pressed to find any difference between the witchhunts of the 90's neo-cons, to the witchhunts of the 2010's progressives. People's lives are being destroyed. Who cares what "cause" the perpetrators have when the real minorities are being crushed under gigantic religious-political movements?

Sources: Ask any evolutionary scientist.

Absolutely not. Blocking someone is the digital equivalent of turning your back to them. They can still interact with you. You're just choosing to not see.

> If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics

This is illegal behaviour. The account should be reported by users, deleted by Twitter, and handed to local authorities for criminal investigation (threats, harassment, etc.)

Maybe in writing, but most police aren't readily going to investigate such things, especially the harassment or threatening. And so long as both parties are of age, is it even illegal to send dick picks?

All that said, I do think having standards of conduct aren't that bad. Blocking, though, keeps them from seeing your stuff. Not so bad if entertainment, but a lot more somber when the person is a politician with power to change lives.