i wish this could be a simple issue of free speech good, censorship bad. i do see the point, however.

i'm a big believer in (and earnestly try to be a practitioner of) civility, but i believe that civility should come from within, both, to be hokey, inside one's heart and by the example set by others. i believe in self-policing. you should put your best self forward, and if you act up then others within the community should clearly convey that is not ok. it shouldn't come from a robot.

every community is different. as you know, there are places online where trolling and what we would both probably qualify as hate speech and hateful rhetoric are allowed to run wild. i think part of being a mature adult is knowing not to put up with nonsense. if it's entirely within an online realm and is clearly acceptable to the community, it makes more sense to part ways than expect change. i've spent a lot of time online from BBSs, AOL, and IRC to forums, comment sections, and social media and have the hard earned wisdom to show for it. i know my tolerance level and when something is a lost cause. i like to think i've also learned how better to treat people in my online communications based on a lot of trial and error. it's too easy to let a script decide that. that said, the internet is not the U.S. free speech is what we have, or strive for, here. it's not a right online. communication is a privilege. there are many instances where there are minors involved and where the so-called real world and online intersect, and there should be safeguards to prevent bullying and harassment. i can see the utility of this tool for that. i just think blocking and ignoring abusive users is a more mature way for adults dealing with the problem than resorting to censorship. censorship is still better than banning as the first and only recourse, as often happens. i also suspect those intent on being abusive will just find ways around the script.

relying on google to set the tone of discussion all over the web strikes me as similar to americans wanting every foreign land to have the comforts of home for them (mcdonald's, hard rock cafe, etc.). God forbid you put forth the effort to immerse yourself in someone else's (online sub)culture and not expect everyone else to cater to your personal sensibilities. the homogenization of the internet is almost as troublesome to me as the idea of censorship. censorship should be a last recourse, not a first line of defense, but ultimately up to the standards set by the particular community and the goals of each owner and operator. there's room for everyone and everything. we aren't owed a place to remain undisturbed at every table. if there are communities where such a script is a helpful nudge toward someone capable of expressing his or her ideas more civilly, great, but ideally that should have been learned by example. a world and an internet where AI restricts what we say and how we say it is a lot less rich and interesting to me and should be a red flag to any firm believer in open dialog and an open internet. the lover of language in me dies a little with the forceful restriction of how we can communicate with each other. individuality needs to be embraced now maybe more than ever.

i really do sympathize with those who want their communities to be more civil and think this is the solution, i just wish it didn't come to this. i guess that speaks to the state of humanity.