In the end, the fact that people who object to what we do cannot really ever avoid us, or exercise a RightToLeave, means that we have to pay some attention to things we may do which they do not like.
Put the other way we cannot really exercise a RightToLeave and wash our hands of our obligations towards others. Am I my brother's keeper? Perhaps I am whether or not either of us like it? --AndrewCates
You can build a GatedCommunity. The argument that people cannot avoid you is specious. One of the properties of the DigitalNetwork is that you can EnlargeSpace. The counterforce is our PersonalRelationships. We share the same friends. It is incumbent upon all of us to not burden our friends with our personal conflicts, but then by the rope analogy (cf. ConflictResolution), you can only ControlYourself, and at a certain point if someone else keeps creating problems you should cut them loose. Note that one can also DissuadeReputation to avoid creating PersonalRelationships in the first place. We need not be friends with the whole world. -- SunirShah
Specious? I meant it rather wider than just in terms of online communities, but I maintain it both wide and narrow. In wider terms many features of people's belief gets reflected in their behaviour e.g on say pollution etc and I can escape the global warming from their GreenHouseGas?. Also although it is just about possible on the Internet to build a gated community and keep unwanted intruders, and spam, out this also stops me allowing in many things I want to let in. I don't think RightToLeave effectively helps that much to control my environment: it does a bit but partly I have to control my environment by proactive engagement. Only a GodKing can build exactly what they want and attract those they want. For the rest of us we have to accept people have things we like and things we don't like and living with that is part of life. To paraphrase someone (guess who) "If you find the perfect community don't join it you'll spoil it" --AndrewCates
Specious as in having an air of plausibility, but false. My point was that we can become hermits or elites, but I admit neither is particularly pleasant. -- SunirShah
The "right to leave" in the particular case of wikipedia is difficult in cases to exercise because of the incredible presence it has. Because of the content-oriented nature of the site, true "disengagement" would require disengagement from the internet presentation of particular content. I guess what I'm saying here is that involvement in wikipedia stems from a desire to influence/improve/etc. the content of an article on X. Exercising the right to leave wikipedia, however, does not make it possible to leave behind the problems with article X: they will appear on google (often top-ranked) and more and more are entering the news cycle and the culture at large. I guess what I'm saying is that "stop the world I want to get off" is a possible cry for help even when dealing with online communities where switching costs are low but the "switch" is never complete. A far cry from when communities online were smaller and more obscure and the only barrier to R2L was the emotional or occasionally tangible investments you had made. -- Anon.