Talk:A Rape in Cyberspace

message: I've heard from fairly reputable sources (but only in person) that large parts of Dibbell's story were, while not outright lies, not precisely what happened either. Specifically, he talks about how exu claims to have been in tears during the event. I've heard this wasn't true, and was emblematic of Dibbell's general over-dramatizing of the events. Does anyone have any sources to back that up? I haven't seen anything on the net, and was hoping to find some of that here, but didn't.
----  As someone who has experienced actual sexual assault And rape, I am absolutely gobsmacked there is no rebuttal section in this page pointing out what happened is NOT RAPE, to compare someone taking control of others programs online to RAPE is abhorant, unacceptable, and a complete and utter insult to those that have experienced actual rape, and it is beyond offensive and a slap in the face to every survivor out there, to compare program stealing with ACTUAL REAL SEXUAL ASSAULT!!!  Could someone PLEASE write a rebuttal section - if, as people insist in this talk page, this is such a 'important' case, there are surely students, professors, researchers out there that have pointed out the obvious - this was in NO WAY a rape, to conflate the two is to minimize and negate what REAL survivors
of REAL RAPE go through, and they and their research can be quoted. I am so disgusted that this is sitting on wiki for everyone to read, with no rebuttal. 
 2001:569:BDE6:1100:5C70:EF:CE1E:1232 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This seems like a really strange thing to devote an entire article to. The last section is definitely not NPOV, and was pretty clearly written by a member of that community.
:Unlikely. This 'case' is very important in Virtual World studies. ~~Nicholas A. Chambers 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  uh 

message: As there seems to be some debate (vis above) about the relevance of this article, it should be noted that it's regularly cited 15 years after the original publication, and used as course material in current university sociology courses.  The cited Lessig influence alone is evidence of relevance.  This is my clearly POV opinion, but I felt like weighing in.  If there's any serious debate about relevance or a desire to remove the article entirely, I'd be happy to track down current sources to cite in defense of its retention. James A. Stewart (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: Why at the time this was approached under a social context instead of treating the ability to impersonate another user without authorization as a technical issue? If this sort of functionality was desirable, why not implement a permission authorization/revoking system, so users remained in control? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it's just an overblown drama about an early chat room learning to implement a kick feature. At the time, the people involved approached it as a lesson in the boundaries between tehcnical and social, perhaps for their own sake (not like RPers to be drama queens, eh?), but in hindsight it is ultimately a now-familiar technical issue. The article sort of predates that distinction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2396:1B00:64A8:823F:9B0B:9C02 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why social instead of technical?