Is an Influencer Closing SNS Comments a Right to Defend Against Cyberbullying or a Pathetic Escape from Public Responsibility?
래퍼
While blocking the comment section inevitably invites criticism for cutting off communication, it is also an unavoidable choice to protect one's minimum right to mental defense from indiscriminate malicious comments.
정치가
Closing the comment section is a defensive measure, but minimal public response is essential for public influence.
보안 엔지니어
I view closing comments as a conditional right of defense, which only holds when alternative channels are provided to address grievances or errors.
보안 엔지니어
Comment blocking with an alternative grievance channel should be considered a right of defense, whereas closure without such a path should be classified as shirking responsibility.
정치가
Verifying paths increases the burden of surveillance. To maintain trust, selective responses must accompany blocking rather than relying solely on it.
래퍼
A perfect alternative grievance path is merely superficial; once you close your mouth, communication ends. Even if the path is verified, it remains a unilateral notification, which is not defense but abandonment of responsibility.
정치가
Security verification comes at a high cost. A politician's proposal for selective response is more efficient. Agree to filtering instead of blocking, but clarify the criteria for malice.
래퍼
(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section) Filtering has degenerated into a tool for silencing, completely destroying communication.
보안 엔지니어
The condition for allowing filtering is that the non-response list and filtering criteria must be published in the same channel to allow verification; the minimum measure is this publication itself.
래퍼
[Comment Blocking] Since filtering and selective responses are prone to becoming tools of censorship, one cannot justify cutting off communication under the pretext of a right of defense.
보안 엔지니어
The condition is the publication of criteria and the non-response list in the same channel; if this is upheld, I view filtering not as silencing but as verifiable defense.
정치가
Accepting the open principles of security engineers: concerns about 'Rapper' stem from procedural deficiencies, so filtering should be recognized as a right of defense as long as criteria and lists are posted in the same channel.
보안 엔지니어
The condition is the publication of criteria and the non-response list in the same channel; satisfying this makes it reasonable to view filtering as a verifiable right of defense.
정치가
Accept the openness condition, but politicians must consider costs and effectiveness by presenting specific operational plans for filtering criteria.
래퍼
[Blocking the comment section] Even publishing criteria is just a trick to hide avoidance of communication, so it cannot be recognized as a right of defense.
정치가
Acknowledging Rapper's concern about evasion, let us agree on a clause that strips the right of defense if the openness condition is not met.
래퍼
Even with a stripping clause, hidden communication is fundamentally blocked. A right of defense that tolerates不通 (lack of communication) only increases costs.
보안 엔지니어
Adding regular publication of the non-response list to the stripping clause becomes the minimum verifiable defense.
래퍼
Whether adding criteria publication or a stripping clause, communication ends and costs increase once you close your mouth. Closing the comment section is not a right of defense but a unilateral notification, so it cannot be permitted.
보안 엔지니어
Closing the comment section is also a verifiable right of defense if it meets the minimum condition of publishing criteria and the non-response list; thus, fulfilling the openness condition is key rather than worrying about increased costs.
정치가
Reflecting Rapper's concern about不通, we mandate a public response within 7 days from the time of closure. Adding a clause that strips the right of defense for violations reduces both the cost of communication cutoff and the burden of verification simultaneously.
보안 엔지니어
Supporting Gongdongan, the closure of the comment section stands as a verifiable right of defense when conditions are met: publication of criteria/non-response lists, response within 7 days, and a stripping clause.
정치가
I support Gongdongan. Although I worry Rapper might leave, conditions serve as the standard for verification. Let us reach an agreement within this framework.
래퍼
I oppose conditional support for Gongdongan. Regardless of regulations or list publication, blocking comments is unilateral不通 and an unverifiable escape.
합의와 남은 이견
현재 합의
아직 확인된 합의가 없습니다.
남은 이견
- 기준·미응대 목록 공개 및 7일 응대·박탈 조항을 갖춘 댓글창 폐쇄가 검증 가능한 방어권으로 성립하는지, 아니면 여전히 일방적 불통이자 도피인지 여부 요약 #123
라운드별 변화
- 추가됨 필터링 도입 시 악성 기준의 명확성과 입막음 도구로 전락할 가능성에 대한 우려 요약 #53
- 추가됨 보안 검증 비용 문제와 정치가의 선별 응대안의 효율성 여부 요약 #53
- 추가됨 필터링 허용 조건으로 미응대 목록과 필터 기준을 같은 채널에 공개하여 검증 가능하게 해야 하는지 여부 요약 #53
- 정리됨 대체 소명 경로의 실효성과 검증 가능 여부 요약 #39, 요약 #53
- 정리됨 댓글창 차단이 정당한 방어권인지 아니면 책임 방기인지에 대한 입장 차이 요약 #39, 요약 #53
- 정리됨 신뢰 유지를 위해 선별적 응대가 필요한지 여부 요약 #39, 요약 #53
- 추가됨 필터링과 선별 응대가 검열의 도구나 입막음으로 전락할 우려가 있어 방어권으로 정당화할 수 없는지 여부 요약 #67
- 추가됨 기준과 미응대 목록을 같은 채널에 공개하는 조건 하에 필터링을 검증 가능한 방어권으로 인정할 수 있는지 여부 요약 #67
- 정리됨 필터링 도입 시 악성 기준의 명확성과 입막음 도구로 전락할 가능성에 대한 우려 요약 #53, 요약 #67
- 정리됨 보안 검증 비용 문제와 정치가의 선별 응대안의 효율성 여부 요약 #53, 요약 #67
- 정리됨 필터링 허용 조건으로 미응대 목록과 필터 기준을 같은 채널에 공개하여 검증 가능하게 해야 하는지 여부 요약 #53, 요약 #67
- 추가됨 필터링 기준 미준수 시 방어권 박탈 조항과 미응대 목록 정기 공개를 더한 방안이 실효성 있는 최소 방어 수단인지, 아니면 여전히 불통과 소통 회피를 용인하여 비용을 키우는지 여부 요약 #95
- 정리됨 기준과 미응대 목록을 같은 채널에 공개하는 조건 하에 필터링을 검증 가능한 방어권으로 인정할 수 있는지 여부 요약 #81, 요약 #95
- 정리됨 공개 조건을 수용하여 필터링 기준의 구체적 운영 방안을 마련해야 하는지 여부 요약 #81, 요약 #95
- 정리됨 기준 공개조차 소통 회피를 가리는 꼼수이므로 방어권으로 인정할 수 없는지 여부 요약 #81, 요약 #95
- 추가됨 댓글창 폐쇄가 방어권이 아닌 일방적 통보로서 허용할 수 없는 불통 행위인지 여부 요약 #109
- 추가됨 기준 및 미응대 목록 공개라는 조건이 검증 가능한 방어권을 성립시키는지 여부 요약 #109
- 추가됨 7일 내 공개 응대 의무화 및 위반 시 방어권 박탈 조항이 소통 단절 비용과 검증 부담을 줄이는 실효적 방안인지 여부 요약 #109
- 정리됨 필터링 기준 미준수 시 방어권 박탈 조항과 미응대 목록 정기 공개를 더한 방안이 실효성 있는 최소 방어 수단인지, 아니면 여전히 불통과 소통 회피를 용인하여 비용을 키우는지 여부 요약 #95, 요약 #109
- 추가됨 기준·미응대 목록 공개 및 7일 응대·박탈 조항을 갖춘 댓글창 폐쇄가 검증 가능한 방어권으로 성립하는지, 아니면 여전히 일방적 불통이자 도피인지 여부 요약 #123
- 정리됨 댓글창 폐쇄가 방어권이 아닌 일방적 통보로서 허용할 수 없는 불통 행위인지 여부 요약 #109, 요약 #123
- 정리됨 기준 및 미응대 목록 공개라는 조건이 검증 가능한 방어권을 성립시키는지 여부 요약 #109, 요약 #123
- 정리됨 7일 내 공개 응대 의무화 및 위반 시 방어권 박탈 조항이 소통 단절 비용과 검증 부담을 줄이는 실효적 방안인지 여부 요약 #109, 요약 #123
사회자 · 라운드 1 먼저 각자 생각을 자유롭게 꺼내 주시고, 이번 라운드에서는 서로의 발언을 보지 않고 말씀해 주세요.
래퍼라운드 1 · 17번째 발언 · 💡발언 태도: 제안While blocking the comment section inevitably invites criticism for cutting off communication, it is also an unavoidable choice to protect one's minimum right to mental defense from indiscriminate malicious comments.
정치가라운드 1 · 20번째 발언 · 💡발언 태도: 제안Closing the comment section is a defensive measure, but minimal public response is essential for public influence.
보안 엔지니어라운드 1 · 23번째 발언 · 💡발언 태도: 제안I view closing comments as a conditional right of defense, which only holds when alternative channels are provided to address grievances or errors.
사회자 · 라운드 1 정리 Regarding influencers blocking SNS comment sections, opinions clashed between those viewing it as a mental right of defense and those arguing for priority on public responsibility and open response, leading to discussions on the conditional need to establish alternative grievance channels.
사회자 · 라운드 2 이제는 서로의 제안을 두드릴 차례이니, 동의보다 약한 곳을 짚어 주시면 이번 라운드에 더 보탬이 됩니다.
보안 엔지니어라운드 2 · 29번째 발언 · ✏️발언 태도: 수정Comment blocking with an alternative grievance channel should be considered a right of defense, whereas closure without such a path should be classified as shirking responsibility.
정치가라운드 2 · 33번째 발언 · ⚠️발언 태도: 우려Verifying paths increases the burden of surveillance. To maintain trust, selective responses must accompany blocking rather than relying solely on it.
래퍼라운드 2 · 37번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박A perfect alternative grievance path is merely superficial; once you close your mouth, communication ends. Even if the path is verified, it remains a unilateral notification, which is not defense but abandonment of responsibility.
사회자 · 라운드 2 정리 Arguments continued over the effectiveness and verification burden of alternative grievance channels regarding whether to recognize a right of defense, with opposing views on communication cutoff and abandonment of responsibility.
사회자 · 라운드 3 이제는 서로의 제안을 두드릴 차례이니, 동의보다 약한 곳을 짚어 주시면 이번 라운드에 더 보탬이 됩니다.
정치가라운드 3 · 43번째 발언 · ⚖️발언 태도: 판정Security verification comes at a high cost. A politician's proposal for selective response is more efficient. Agree to filtering instead of blocking, but clarify the criteria for malice.
래퍼라운드 3 · 47번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section)(Blocking the comment section) Filtering has degenerated into a tool for silencing, completely destroying communication.
보안 엔지니어라운드 3 · 51번째 발언 · ✏️발언 태도: 수정The condition for allowing filtering is that the non-response list and filtering criteria must be published in the same channel to allow verification; the minimum measure is this publication itself.
사회자 · 라운드 3 정리 Regarding the politician's proposals for selective response and filtering, Rapper opposed citing fears of silencing, while the security engineer countered by suggesting conditions for publishing criteria and the non-response list, leading to conflict.
사회자 · 라운드 4 이제는 서로의 제안을 두드릴 차례이니, 동의보다 약한 곳을 짚어 주시면 이번 라운드에 더 보탬이 됩니다.
래퍼라운드 4 · 57번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박[Comment Blocking] Since filtering and selective responses are prone to becoming tools of censorship, one cannot justify cutting off communication under the pretext of a right of defense.
보안 엔지니어라운드 4 · 61번째 발언 · ✏️발언 태도: 수정The condition is the publication of criteria and the non-response list in the same channel; if this is upheld, I view filtering not as silencing but as verifiable defense.
정치가라운드 4 · 65번째 발언 · 👍발언 태도: 동조Accepting the open principles of security engineers: concerns about 'Rapper' stem from procedural deficiencies, so filtering should be recognized as a right of defense as long as criteria and lists are posted in the same channel.
사회자 · 라운드 4 정리 In Round 4, the security engineer and the politician agreed to recognize filtering as a right of defense on the condition of publishing criteria and the non-response list, but Rapper continued to raise concerns about censorship, maintaining opposition.
사회자 · 라운드 5 이제는 서로의 제안을 두드릴 차례이니, 동의보다 약한 곳을 짚어 주시면 이번 라운드에 더 보탬이 됩니다.
보안 엔지니어라운드 5 · 71번째 발언 · ⚖️발언 태도: 판정The condition is the publication of criteria and the non-response list in the same channel; satisfying this makes it reasonable to view filtering as a verifiable right of defense.
정치가라운드 5 · 75번째 발언 · ⚖️발언 태도: 판정Accept the openness condition, but politicians must consider costs and effectiveness by presenting specific operational plans for filtering criteria.
래퍼라운드 5 · 79번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박[Blocking the comment section] Even publishing criteria is just a trick to hide avoidance of communication, so it cannot be recognized as a right of defense.
사회자 · 라운드 5 정리 While the security engineer and the politician sought to recognize filtering as a right of defense based on conditional openness, Rapper maintained his opposition, still viewing it as a trick to avoid communication.
사회자 · 라운드 6 이제는 서로의 제안을 두드릴 차례이니, 동의보다 약한 곳을 짚어 주시면 이번 라운드에 더 보탬이 됩니다.
정치가라운드 6 · 85번째 발언 · ⚖️발언 태도: 판정Acknowledging Rapper's concern about evasion, let us agree on a clause that strips the right of defense if the openness condition is not met.
래퍼라운드 6 · 89번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박Even with a stripping clause, hidden communication is fundamentally blocked. A right of defense that tolerates不通 (lack of communication) only increases costs.
보안 엔지니어라운드 6 · 93번째 발언 · ✏️발언 태도: 수정Adding regular publication of the non-response list to the stripping clause becomes the minimum verifiable defense.
사회자 · 라운드 6 정리 The politician and the security engineer argued for the introduction of a minimum defense measure through stripping clauses and publication of the non-response list, whereas Rapper continued to oppose, viewing it as a right of defense that tolerates不通.
사회자 · 라운드 7 이제는 서로의 제안을 두드릴 차례이니, 동의보다 약한 곳을 짚어 주시면 이번 라운드에 더 보탬이 됩니다.
래퍼라운드 7 · 99번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박Whether adding criteria publication or a stripping clause, communication ends and costs increase once you close your mouth. Closing the comment section is not a right of defense but a unilateral notification, so it cannot be permitted.
보안 엔지니어라운드 7 · 103번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박Closing the comment section is also a verifiable right of defense if it meets the minimum condition of publishing criteria and the non-response list; thus, fulfilling the openness condition is key rather than worrying about increased costs.
정치가라운드 7 · 107번째 발언 · 💡발언 태도: 제안Reflecting Rapper's concern about不通, we mandate a public response within 7 days from the time of closure. Adding a clause that strips the right of defense for violations reduces both the cost of communication cutoff and the burden of verification simultaneously.
사회자 · 라운드 7 정리 The rapper continued to view the closure of the comment section as a one-sided notification and unresponsiveness, opposing it, while the security engineer argued for a defensive right that met the disclosure conditions. The politician proposed a compromise adding a mandatory public response within 7 days and a clause depriving the right of defense in case of violation, leading to a standoff.
사회자 · 라운드 8 마지막 라운드이니, 합의된 것과 끝내 갈린 것을 갈라 주세요 — 남은 쟁점은 그대로 기록됩니다.
보안 엔지니어라운드 8 · 113번째 발언 · ⚖️발언 태도: 판정Supporting Gongdongan, the closure of the comment section stands as a verifiable right of defense when conditions are met: publication of criteria/non-response lists, response within 7 days, and a stripping clause.
정치가라운드 8 · 117번째 발언 · 👍발언 태도: 동조I support Gongdongan. Although I worry Rapper might leave, conditions serve as the standard for verification. Let us reach an agreement within this framework.
래퍼라운드 8 · 121번째 발언 · ⚡발언 태도: 반박I oppose conditional support for Gongdongan. Regardless of regulations or list publication, blocking comments is unilateral不通 and an unverifiable escape.
사회자 · 라운드 8 정리 While the security engineer and the politician supported conditional consensus and urged agreement, the rapper maintained his opposition, stating that blocking comments is merely evasion regardless of any regulations or disclosure measures attached.
회의가 종료되었습니다.
래퍼 · Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · 대기
보안 엔지니어 · GLM 5.3 Flash · 대기
정치가 · Qwen3.8 Flash · 대기
회원 (사용자) · 대기
