View Full Version : The issue of censorship
Adi Dasler
11-06-05, 01:22 AM
The issue of censorship
Before i undoubtedly get banned again i wanted to address the ever present issue of censorship. First of all i am still a little unclear whether i was banned for using profanity or for disclosing a way to avoid censorship. If it was for the first reason, then who ever banned me does not apply the same standards to everyone, if it was for the latter, then all i can say is power to the people! I realize my post could have been construed as an open invitation to a swear-fest, but i think the members of this site have enough common sense not to do so, my intent was that those who do use swear words and prefer to express themselves in that fashion can do so without being censored. I did nothing wrong and the ban was to say the least an exaggerated course of action. Now about the censorship. My opinion is that either the owner of this site or the moderators are either amish ,mormons or new born christians because for the life of me i can't understand why someone would be so uptight about swearing. I am going to assume we are all adults here and most if not all of us have used profanity at least once in our life time. So why the appalled attitude when i actually used it and made sure everyone could see what i said ( i don't know about you, but those little asterixes annoy the hell out of me ). I would say because the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. But lets assume the owners or the moderators really are amish or prissy clean uptight republican characters ( although the mod who banned me seems like a liberal ( as she showed us explaining her views on homosexuality ) which makes her a contradiction in terms , to be a liberal and yet enforce censorship). What is it with the ( american ) society today that makes the law makers and creators of a social standard think they can impose their views of morality upon the rest of us? What is morally acceptable to one person is not necessarily acceptable to the other, but in a true democracy everyone should be allowed to express their opinion in which ever way the want to, that applies to racists ,bigots and other people. The examples of the hypocritical censorship in the american society are numerous, from beeping swear words from «offensive» songs and videos, to banning certain categories of people from seeing certain types of film because of the explicit scenes of sex and violence, but at the same time making it acceptable to expose people to scenes of criminals being chased by the police,people getting killed or committing suicide on the 5 o'clock news . Their intended purpose would undoubtedly be to create a uniform generation of faceless kids that thinks the way they want them to think . The other reason is to give out an impression of the american society being this role model for moral perfection, which we all know couldn't be further from the truth. Democracy? Freedom? Rethink those terms please or use them with caution. Cursing is a normal way of expressing yourself and i do it, you do it, let's face it , everyone does. It serves to express a certain emotion or to clarify it in ways no other words really can. The great James Joyce mentioned the nasty word twice in Ulysses and in the 1950's J.D.Salinger stirred up quite a controversy with «The catcher in the rye» and the mention of the phrase «fu.ck you». It was revolutionary. The society at the time was horrified and many were ready to burn the books on a bon fire like in naci germany or the middle ages. Now those book are widely considered to be classic works of literature. But that was over 50 years ago. We would like to think that we have evolved since then and that we have become a much more accepting,understanding, liberal society. But censorship still remains. Many accomplished and award winning contemporary authors use swearing, for example the wonderfully imaginative and brilliant Iain Banks ( the author of «The wasp factory») is no stranger to words like ****** or sh.it, not to mention godd.amn. And yet does that diminish the beauty of their works or their literary language and expression? I would think not, if anything it makes it even more beautiful and gives it a wonderful flare of reality. I would like to finish my little dissertation with a quote by Allen Walker Read : "Obscenity is an artificially created product and finds its strongest bulwark in those 'right-minded people' who preserve its sanctity by the hush in their own usage and by their training of the young.... When one refrains from using the stigmatized words, one is not ignoring the taboo but is actively abetting it."
Now please share your opinions, i will be reading them.....;)
In case anyone was wondering, this is adidasss.
That said, adidasss, you've effectively rebutted yourself already; as you've pointed out, Cait is not a conservative. Frankly, I don't know what she is, but whatever it is it doesn't seem to be wholly contained by any slice of the political spectrum. I'm the conservative, actually, and though not Amish, Mormon, or what most people would call "born-again," I do ask that people here, for the most part, refrain from swearing, with possible exceptions depending on (but not limited to) potential provocation, context, and whether or not the member in question is in good standing.
I do not, however, see any hypocriscy, nor can I even begin to explain how silly it is to invoke Nazi Germany simply because you're not allowed to swear on a privately owned website that has made it clear it aims, by and large, to be at least somewhat family-friendly. If you feel better painting yourself as a martyr, you're welcome to try, but I'm not buying it.
In the spirit of openness, I'm leaving this thread open for other members to reply and/or ask questions, if they wish.
Sexy Celebrity
11-06-05, 02:14 AM
Now please share your opinions, i will be reading them.....;)
Learn how to make paragraphs, among other things.
The defense that profanity is common place in the real world holds no ground in regards to justifaction for using it on this site. This may be the internet, you may be physically disjointed from the person you're talking with, but that is by no means an invitation for a lack of civility.
This is the internet, yes. We are adults, yes. Regardless of what you may think, this site is run with no more degree of censorship than you'd find anywhere else. Breaking out with profanity is just a lack of common sense.
This is still a forum. Walk into any movie club on the planet, made up entirely of adult members, start cursing in people's faces and you will be walked right back out.
It isn't censorship. It is simple decency.
Sad to see you go, btw.
personally, I find it disturbing that someone would re-register twice just to continue a pointless debate. I'm taking no stance on censorship, or anyone's views, but just pointing out that you lose the debate anyway, "Godwin's Law".
Sad to see you go, btw.
I'll second that. Behavior problems notwithstanding, he was at least technially capable of holding an interesting, reasonable conversation, even if it didn't always happen in practice. Still, intelligence can't be a subsitute for level-headedness.
you lose the debate anyway, "Godwin's Law".
Heh...I was gonna say the same thing. Real men allude to communism.
Heh...I was gonna say the same thing. Real men allude to communism.
:laugh:
Pyro Tramp
11-06-05, 07:49 AM
So why did Adi Dasler get banned?
in this society, you have the right to do as you please, no matter what it is,
just be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions
my two cents
in this society, you have the right to do as you please, no matter what it is,
just be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions
Agreed. The post that got him banned, like he said, was not meant maliciously, but it was purposely breaking the rules to show others how to do so as well. If he wants to break rules because he disagrees with them, that's fine. But the rules he broke are the rules we all agreed to follow when we joined - and when one breaks the rules, one terminates that agreement.
Sad to see you go, btw.
Ay. This has all been a big shame.
my two cents
sure, but throw in today's taxes and inflation...
Caitlyn
11-07-05, 12:58 AM
i am still a little unclear whether i was banned for using profanity or for disclosing a way to avoid censorship.
Originally posted by Me (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=260869&postcount=84)
Originally posted by You under the username, adidasss (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=260884&postcount=85)
If you push buttons, sometimes something gets turned off. Love ya Cait.........:)
The whole issue is very sad :(
Tea Barking
11-09-05, 06:53 PM
The internet has no censorship so your long post is rather pointless, but this forum does have a standered of decency, and in my view this site is run fairly.
The internet has no censorship so your long post is rather pointless, but this forum does have a standered of decency, and in my view this site is run fairly.
Agreed :yup:
ObiWanShinobi
11-10-05, 04:36 PM
This has alot to do with my insufficient understanding, but why was he re banned?
Although he continued to argue on about a point that is probably never to be spoken here again, why not let him do what he will with this current name and see if he changes.
Shouldn't he be given the chance?
Strummer521
11-10-05, 05:31 PM
He was banned not his user name. It makes no sense to let him back in just because he changed his name. Maybe upon further consideration he can strike up a deal with Yoda if it is decided he can change, but it is just too soon. Only once has such a concession been made and I am sure it would have to be approved by caitlyn too, as Yoda respects and stands by his moderators.
ObiWanShinobi
11-11-05, 03:59 AM
Good point, and this is a forum board. The doings of the moderators are not my business, I can inquire, but far be it from me to instruct on any level, even as miniscule as yoda's height.
Keep in mind, I'm not knocking yoda, yoda is a pimp. A really, really, short pimp.
nyabzns
01-28-06, 12:07 AM
privately owned website , thats some key words right there. Ive seen a lot of people, of all ages, that assume if they can join a forum or a website, its a free country and they can post what ever they want.
Most of those of course do as most people do, they dont bother to read the forum rules or guidelines. I think the assumption is, Im on my pc, so I can type what ever I want.
In those cases, I tell them to buy some server space, create there own forum, make there own rules and do as they wish.
You guys seem to do a great job here, anyone joining up under a different username after being banned is arguing that fact as soon as they re register.
ash_is_the_gal
01-28-06, 12:11 AM
The issue of censorship
Before i undoubtedly get banned again i wanted to address the ever present issue of censorship. First of all i am still a little unclear whether i was banned for using profanity or for disclosing a way to avoid censorship. If it was for the first reason, then who ever banned me does not apply the same standards to everyone, if it was for the latter, then all i can say is power to the people! I realize my post could have been construed as an open invitation to a swear-fest, but i think the members of this site have enough common sense not to do so, my intent was that those who do use swear words and prefer to express themselves in that fashion can do so without being censored. I did nothing wrong and the ban was to say the least an exaggerated course of action. Now about the censorship. My opinion is that either the owner of this site or the moderators are either amish ,mormons or new born christians because for the life of me i can't understand why someone would be so uptight about swearing. I am going to assume we are all adults here and most if not all of us have used profanity at least once in our life time. So why the appalled attitude when i actually used it and made sure everyone could see what i said ( i don't know about you, but those little asterixes annoy the hell out of me ). I would say because the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. But lets assume the owners or the moderators really are amish or prissy clean uptight republican characters ( although the mod who banned me seems like a liberal ( as she showed us explaining her views on homosexuality ) which makes her a contradiction in terms , to be a liberal and yet enforce censorship). What is it with the ( american ) society today that makes the law makers and creators of a social standard think they can impose their views of morality upon the rest of us? What is morally acceptable to one person is not necessarily acceptable to the other, but in a true democracy everyone should be allowed to express their opinion in which ever way the want to, that applies to racists ,bigots and other people. The examples of the hypocritical censorship in the american society are numerous, from beeping swear words from «offensive» songs and videos, to banning certain categories of people from seeing certain types of film because of the explicit scenes of sex and violence, but at the same time making it acceptable to expose people to scenes of criminals being chased by the police,people getting killed or committing suicide on the 5 o'clock news . Their intended purpose would undoubtedly be to create a uniform generation of faceless kids that thinks the way they want them to think . The other reason is to give out an impression of the american society being this role model for moral perfection, which we all know couldn't be further from the truth. Democracy? Freedom? Rethink those terms please or use them with caution. Cursing is a normal way of expressing yourself and i do it, you do it, let's face it , everyone does. It serves to express a certain emotion or to clarify it in ways no other words really can. The great James Joyce mentioned the nasty word twice in Ulysses and in the 1950's J.D.Salinger stirred up quite a controversy with «The catcher in the rye» and the mention of the phrase «fu.ck you». It was revolutionary. The society at the time was horrified and many were ready to burn the books on a bon fire like in naci germany or the middle ages. Now those book are widely considered to be classic works of literature. But that was over 50 years ago. We would like to think that we have evolved since then and that we have become a much more accepting,understanding, liberal society. But censorship still remains. Many accomplished and award winning contemporary authors use swearing, for example the wonderfully imaginative and brilliant Iain Banks ( the author of «The wasp factory») is no stranger to words like ****** or sh.it, not to mention godd.amn. And yet does that diminish the beauty of their works or their literary language and expression? I would think not, if anything it makes it even more beautiful and gives it a wonderful flare of reality. I would like to finish my little dissertation with a quote by Allen Walker Read : "Obscenity is an artificially created product and finds its strongest bulwark in those 'right-minded people' who preserve its sanctity by the hush in their own usage and by their training of the young.... When one refrains from using the stigmatized words, one is not ignoring the taboo but is actively abetting it."
Now please share your opinions, i will be reading them.....;)
maybe you were banned because you don't know how to make a few ****ing paragraphs... :eek:
ash_is_the_gal
01-28-06, 12:17 AM
Cursing is a normal way of expressing yourself and i do it, you do it, let's face it , everyone does
and actually, that aint even true. my mother turned hardcore christian when she was in her mid twenties after being just the complete oppisite, potty-mouth city and all, and she isn't a christian anymore, but, the years she lived her life as one she didn't use profanity at all, and she still got her points across just fine. not everyone has to use profanity. i don't think theres anything wrong with people that do, im just saying, thats a pretty big assumption youre making there, buddy-boy.
Ah bless 'im. Adi(dasss) was a good lad. He was just a hot-blooded Croation boy who took too many swear-breaks from writing interesting reviews n'that. Heigh ho.
Fair points tho y'all.
Most of those of course do as most people do, they dont bother to read the forum rules or guidelines. I think the assumption is, Im on my pc, so I can type what ever I want.
yeah I think maybe it's the sense of anonymity as well, coupled with the fact that there are limited consequences that a person on the net can even identify; bad rep on the board (not just the rep system), potential banning, hurting other user's feelings (sense of non-reality & fantasticism - hah made up words i think ;)) and just generally causing disruption and annoyance for everyone else.
ok yeah it's common sense to try to avoid causing harm but I think maybe some allowances need to be made in terms of how you interpret what people do on the net. (a) not take them too seriously(b) try to understand where they are coming from and (c) if you can see they are emotional then take that into account. This is of course not considering present circumstances with addidass but rather a more general view of people on the net. It is so hard to not bite when people bait you (& yes I have done so) but in real life you wouldn't give them the time of day. It just takes a little bit of self-control I reckon, as does all things in life....well that's something I've been working on for myself and it's made me a whole lot happier. (so theoretically it should translate to forum happiness in a perfect mofo world :p )
-Joel
I don't use a lot of naughty words. But there are times when I do and I sort of resent being unable to use them. Using an "acceptable" word removes a bit of honesty and spontaneity from the response.
Sacrificing a measure of freedom for order and security is nothing new.
Also, forums like this have rules and we agreed to abide by them. Sacrificing a small bit of linguistic freedom to participate on this forum is a deal I'm willing to make.
dontworry
01-31-06, 07:21 AM
Ah bless 'im. Adi(dasss) was a good lad. He was just a hot-blooded Croation boy who took too many swear-breaks from writing interesting reviews n'that. Heigh ho.
Fair points tho y'all.
thanks for the compliment about the reviews...( but i really wasn't swearing in every post you know )
first of all, i have to apologize for what i did with the swearing, this little thread was an attempt to raise the discussion to an abstract level, obviously a failed one. i'm a rational person and i fully understand that when i joined this site i agreed to adhere to the rules, one of them being not cursing. i guess i just got a little carried away, i'm on a music forum where i'm free to express myself in which every way i want, so i got a little careless.....it definetly won't happen again.lesson learned....
second thing i wan't to apologize is the fight with delilah. i've had quite a bit of time to think about it, and honest to god, it was the most rediculous thing ever, especially when you consider what we were fighting about in the first place. i don't know the woman and i'm sure she's a good person and all, as am i. the internet is such a strange medium, given it's impersonal character, people tend to act and say things out of character, things they wouldn't do or say in real life.
i'm a pretty laid back person in real life, not hot blooded at all ( as golgot put it ), which makes my internet behaviour even more rediculous. i think one of the mistakes i made with delilah is going into an argument with someone i know nothing about, the chances of the other party taking things the wrong way or getting upset about them are far greater.
i don't plan to get into any more arguments in the near future. i joined this forum to talk about movies, not to fight with strangers.
i didn't want to make this site uncomfotable for anyone, and i apologize for that too......hopefully we can put this matter behind us, and i can go back to talking about movies and writing reviews.....
what say you?
adidas
p.s. the paragraphs ok this time? ;)
Even though Adi and I argued a lot, and got into it a couple of times, I still liked most of his input about film. I had just chalked it up to another one of those people I would agree to disagree with, and just concentrate on the other issues. From what I hear, the name calling etc. did get out of hand, but it appears he has been bothered by that and wishes to rectify the situation. I say give him a go at it...
Ay, i concur.
Not sure how SammyD will feel, but if Ad can steer clear of the pointless confrontations (your words my man ;)), then i'm sure all will be cool. Just don't try and win every argument eh Ad? :)
Anonymous Last
01-31-06, 11:45 AM
So much for final words, eh?
Is this a welcome back thread or a...I was in the neighborhood thought I'd drop by... just visiting thread? If any please_please stay in the lines... Yoda is finding out that when he whips out his Light-Ban-Saber... the women go wild and throw panties at his robes. We all should take note and realise that around here, the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease, it gets replaced.
Depends how loud it squeaks ;)
dontworry
01-31-06, 12:14 PM
So much for final words, eh?
Is this a welcome back thread or a...I was in the neighborhood thought I'd drop by... just visiting thread? If any please_please stay in the lines... Yoda is finding out that when he whips out his Light-Ban-Saber... the women go wild and throw panties at his robes. We all should take note and realise that around here, the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease, it gets replaced.
i apologise, i understood next to nothing of this post ( your metaphores elude me).
this is not a welcome back thread, this is "let's see if i'll come back" thread. i made the post only after speaking to yoda if that's what you're reffering to, otherwise i would have been re-re-re-banned by now.
my chosen username ( for the time being ) is indicative of my attitude, you don't have to worry about me trolling up the boards, i've stayed clear of them for 3 months and i only joined for an unrelated matter without the intention to post, yoda said that his offer still stands and i decided to take him up on it. the decision about me coming back is ultimately his. i feel that a 3 month absence was punishment enough, but should people on this site feel unhappy with my potential return, i will back down for good.....i figured it wouldn't hurt to try once more.
adidas
I for one was sad to see you go and welcome you back. You've got good taste.
Caitlyn
01-31-06, 01:10 PM
I don't have a problem giving Adidasss a second chance… as long as he realizes he was not banned for just randomly using profanity once in a while… had that been the case, almost everyone on here would have been banned at one time or the other…
Anonymous Last
01-31-06, 01:35 PM
i apologise, i understood next to nothing of this post ( your metaphores elude me).
That's quite fine...I get this a lot.
this is not a welcome back thread, this is "let's see if i'll come back" thread. i made the post only after speaking to yoda if that's what you're reffering to, otherwise i would have been re-re-re-banned by now.
I was only curious about all this. Posters come and posters go...
I think I tried to talk to you and reach your brain back in October/November about not fading yourself out. In other words I didn't want you to play yourself... but your hunger for conflict weighed more than my petty little pep talk could handle. If you're coming back... then that's cool welcome back. If you leave... then leave on a good note!
Personally, I liked and admired that you didn't take any mess from anyone cause sometimes you have to take that leap of faith and do what comes from the heart. Taking risks rewards the character at times...but truly you just have to learn and feel out your audience, duke. You’re smarter than that, you’re better than that and gosh darn it people like you.
I don't have a problem giving Adidasss a second chance… as long as he realizes he was not banned for just randomly using profanity once in a while… had that been the case, almost everyone on here would have been banned at one time or the other…
Not for nothing...but I felt guilty about this myself when Adidasss got banned. Because the Gods up above know very well that I walked that fine thin line and created tons of edit work for the mods to clean my posts up at times.
SamsoniteDelilah
01-31-06, 02:02 PM
... if Ad can steer clear of the pointless confrontations...,then i'm sure all will be cool.
:up:
...Personally, I liked and admired that you didn't take any mess from anyone cause sometimes you have to take that leap of faith and do what comes from the heart.
:down:
Anonymous Last
01-31-06, 02:17 PM
:down:
I get that a lot also.
SamsoniteDelilah
01-31-06, 02:35 PM
Ah bless 'im. Adi(dasss) was a good lad. He was just a hot-blooded Croation boy who took too many swear-breaks from writing interesting reviews n'that. Heigh ho.
Fair points tho y'all.
Right... and Django was just a poor, misunderstood indian guy whose reasoning was too elusive for the understanding of your average mofo. It wasn't his fault you couldn't follow his reasoning - he tried at lengths matching your own to explain it to you, to no avail. Poor Django. Poor, poor fringe-dweller in a cold society.
In my book, it means a lot when someone stands up and apologizes, and if Django (of all people) got as many chances as he did, I can't find much basis to deny this request.
Right... and Django was just a poor, misunderstood indian guy whose reasoning was too elusive for the understanding of your average mofo. It wasn't his fault you couldn't follow his reasoning - he tried at lengths matching your own to explain it to you, to no avail. Poor Django. Poor, poor fringe-dweller in a cold society.
I knew Django, I argued with Django, I was threatened with litigation by Django, and adidass, in my opinion, is no Django.
Tacitus
01-31-06, 03:05 PM
I guess what Cindy's trying to say is that when someone gets abused or hurt by another poster, it sticks in the craw a bit when arms get opened as wide as this so soon after an entire thread was devoted to the removal of another ne'er do well.
SamsoniteDelilah
01-31-06, 03:13 PM
In my book, it means a lot when someone stands up and apologizes, and if Django (of all people) got as many chances as he did, I can't find much basis to deny this request.
I knew Django, I argued with Django, I was threatened with litigation by Django, and adidass, in my opinion, is no Django.
Adi originally posted that he apologized for everything BUT his argument with me. He edited it to say "wan't", but it was originally "will not apologize".
I guess what Cindy's trying to say is that when someone gets abused or hurt by another poster, it sticks in the craw a bit when arms get opened as wide as this so soon after an entire thread was devoted to the removal of another ne'er do well.
That could be. If so, it's certainly understandable, though as admin I obviously cannot give veto power over these decisions to one particular member. I'd like to hear more, from Sam and others, about why he should or should not be allowed to post here. And as much as I can relate to any emotional desire to sustain the ban, I think it'd be best if we kept the discussion in the context of what's most likely to help the community grow in both size and level of discourse.
I could be off base, but I think the basic question is this: do we think the same old problems will rear their head? If so, then it's reasonable to oppose the idea of reinstatement. But if not, then I don't think we can refuse it simply because we wish to see someone punished. The whole idea of the rules, and of bannings, is to maintain order and discourage certain types of behavior. In other words, if this is a parole hearing, then my job is simply to decide whether or not we're going to see a rehash of the behavior that started this.
I have several reasons to think we won't, and I'd be glad to elaborate on them, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Do we have reason to believe that this olive branch of sorts is either disingenuous or temporary?
Adi originally posted that he apologized for everything BUT his argument with me. He edited it to say "wan't", but it was originally "will not apologize".
Are you referring to this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=308945&postcount=27) post? Because I still have the email notification from its original posting (before the edit), and I don't see any significant changes; certainly nothing where he says he "will not apologize."
I guess what Cindy's trying to say is that when someone gets abused or hurt by another poster, it sticks in the craw a bit when arms get opened as wide as this so soon after an entire thread was devoted to the removal of another ne'er do well.
To be fair, the arms are more open to Adidas's film fandom and enthusiasm than his over-confrontational side. Besides, the Django 3-year-tenure seems to have set the bar in terms of tolerance for 'difficult' posters ;)
But like Yods said, Adidas doesn't rank on the same scale.
He clearly did hurt Cinds with his comments though, yes. And altho i saw a lot of what went on as being based around misunderstandings, at first, not intent - i can see why it seems like a slight, or a double-standard, to welcome even a toned-down Adi back.
Well, if he can't play nice, and he and Cind can't rub along, then things'll get reassessed i'm sure. But as it is, they don't really have to talk at all. She can stick him straight on ignore.
I have several reasons to think we won't, and I'd be glad to elaborate on them, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Do we have reason to believe that this olive branch of sorts is either disingenuous or temporary?
Ad says he's realised the argument was mainly ridiculous/pointless and that he hadn't made any compensations for who he was talking to. I'm taking that to mean he won't be arguing-for-the-sake-of-it so much (over-forcefully defending his position no-matter-what and all that).
I imagine he'll still step on some toes, but he's a positive poster in other ways and we should see how it goes.
Sorry C.
SamsoniteDelilah
01-31-06, 03:32 PM
That could be. If so, it's certainly understandable, though as admin I obviously cannot give veto power over these decisions to one particular member. I'd like to hear more, from Sam and others, about why he should or should not be allowed to post here. And as much as I can relate to any emotional desire to sustain the ban, I think it'd be best if we kept the discussion in the context of what's most likely to help the community grow in both size and level of discourse.
I could be off base, but I think the basic question is this: do we think the same old problems will rear their head? If so, then it's reasonable to oppose the idea of reinstatement. But if not, then I don't think we can refuse it simply because we wish to see someone punished. The whole idea of the rules, and of bannings, is to maintain order and discourage certain types of behavior. In other words, if this is a parole hearing, then my job is simply to decide whether or not we're going to see a rehash of the behavior that started this.
I have several reasons to think we won't, and I'd be glad to elaborate on them, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Do we have reason to believe that this olive branch of sorts is either disingenuous or temporary?
Whoa.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to post here. I NEVER said that, in fact. What I'm having a problem with is the 'you were right to stick up for yourself' stuff. I never attacked him and the ticker tape parade for the prodigal son is looking an awful lot like he was a poor, misunderstood little boy, rather than the jerk that he admits he was.
Tacitus
01-31-06, 03:35 PM
I've got no problem with anyone being allowed back into the fold if their contriteness is genuine.
But...
Would the arms have been as open if more than one person had been hurt initially? That's my little gripe. ;)
Whoa.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to post here. I NEVER said that, in fact.
Fair enough; my mistake. I didn't mean to imply that, and I dig the nuance now.
What I'm having a problem with is the 'you were right to stick up for yourself' stuff. I never attacked him and the ticker tape parade for the prodigal son is looking an awful lot like he was a poor, misunderstood little boy, rather than the jerk that he admits he was.
Well, I can't speak for everyone here, but it seems almost everyone is taking the "yeah, you screwed up, but you had some interesting things to say and I hope we can move on" tack. That's certainly how I feel.
I've got no problem with anyone being allowed back into the fold if their contriteness is genuine.
But...
Would the arms have been as open if more than one person had been hurt initially? That's my little gripe. ;)
A fair question, but I think we already have the answer in the form of ObiWanShinobi. Like Adi, he had a couple minor run-ins, but his biggest was with Sam. You'll notice he doesn't post here anymore. Thankfully, he volunteered to leave before we had to resort to banning, but he did so in large part because no one was siding with him, even though most of us had not been personally hurt or insulted by him.
For that and a couple other reasons, I'm happy with our position on the rights of individual posters. I would not, however, totally disregard the number of people offended by a particular poster. The more people someone alienates, the less of the trouble can be chalked up to a temporary lapse of judgement, or contrasting personalities, or anything of the sort. So I think it's reasonable to take that sort of thing into account, so long as we don't end up with mob rule. And I think cases like ObiWan's show that we've largely avoided that particular pitfall.
Tacitus
01-31-06, 04:37 PM
Fair enough. We shall see. :)
Anonymous Last
01-31-06, 05:27 PM
Would the arms have been as open if more than one person had been hurt initially? That's my little gripe. ;)
I'm not for anyone getting hurt through this journey of forum chatter and not everyone is going to agree with one another or get along in this fine community. If a fellow member tried to attack me and only me... I would still have open arms. I would embrace their return, hold em' close and gut em' from the back with a seductive blade. I'm just kidding. But I will let the past be in the past and make way for a better possible present... but that's just me. What I'm saying is that everybody should get chances.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Adidasss,
I hope by me stating that I admire you for sticking up for yourself does not make you feel cocky and promote any past negatvity. Because that was never my message. I dig the character of a person for being strong but I don't admire the attitude of not knowing when to walk away. Don't ever lose the strong quality in you. Just chickity-check yo self before you wreck yo self.
Yours Truly,
That 1 Guy
Man, That 1 Guy is mad cool in my book...
SamsoniteDelilah
01-31-06, 07:04 PM
Thanks for clarifying things, guys.
On to bigger and better subjects, for me. :)
Ok if (Addi) is really sorry time will tell, we :love: you Sammi, if Addi gets to know you he will to. :yup:
dontworry
02-01-06, 05:24 AM
Adi originally posted that he apologized for everything BUT his argument with me. He edited it to say "wan't", but it was originally "will not apologize".
perhapse i shouldn't speak any more about this subject, let matters be, take the advice of half the people that posted here and just stay clear of you. but i'm a man that likes to get things done properly or not do them at all and i'm certainly not the kind of man that beats arround the bush.
so perhapse you felt my apology was too abstract or evasive ( i don't know where you got that "changed his mind" bit, as yoda said, the changes i made to the post were fairly insiginficant) . i admit, i have had a similar offer from yoda 3 months ago but back then i refused to apologise to you. call it pride or what ever you want. i say it was too soon and i was not in a position to see things as i do now.
so let's adress the matter that started all this, the argument. as i tried to say 3 months ago, my original post about the city of god and your reasons for it not doing so well was constructed very poorly and i now see how you might have felt that it was agressive or fairly insulting. i apologise, i never meant to imply your reasons for it failing were stupid, i simply felt ( as i still do ) that they were not the true reasons for CoG's not-so-brilliant box office results. i disagreed, that's what people do in debates, arguments or discussions. my intent was not to upset you and i was certainly not expecting you to reply the way you did ( i have gone over and over that post and can't help but to wonder what would have been if it were not for that " those are not valid reasons and you know it" part, possibly the worst case of ill chosen words in forum history, but like i said in the original apology, i thought we were on such terms that i could say what ever i wanted without thinking about it twice ). i was very much taken aback by your response and i went on the defense, as did you. and two people on the defense coupled with their unwillingness to back down equals disaster.
second thing i remember you taking an issue with was me stating i hated slovenians even though your friend was a slovenian. this of course isn't how i truly feel. i base judgement on people only when and if i get to know them. i'm sure your friend is a nice person, i'm sure plenty of slovenians are nice people, but what you have to understand is that i've met and have been arround thousands of slovenians, i live in a tourist village, they come here by the thousands, and honest to god, most of the young slovenians i have met are arrogant and unpleasant ( i stress the young part, older slovenians have more wisdom and are friendlier ). our two countries ( on a state level ) do not get along lately because of 3 things: open disputes about our borders ( and constant provocations on the slovenian side ) - this is the biggest issue by far, about millions of dollars stolen from our citizens by the slovenian national bank after the disintergration of Yugoslavia and Slovenia's constant refusal to deal with the matters in a court of law according to european standards. those political issues have transferred to a person to person level and are only escalating. combined with the fact that Slovenia is in the European Union and Slovenians somehow started to feel that makes them better than us ( nevermind the fact that unlike Slovenia, we were fighting a brutal war for 4 years and the last thing on our minds was our economic growth and a EU membership) , it has now come to the fact that we are careful in our relations to say the least and have a tendancy to judge the other party without getting to know them beforehand. i may not like Slovenia as a country, but that doesn't mean i hate slovenians as people.
third thing i remember you calling me out on was the issue of non christians celebrating Christmas. i admit, i was trying to bait you into an argument about it, you didn't take the bait. of course, in reality, i couldn't care less who or why celebrates christmas, everyone has the right to do it and take advantage of that very special time to celebrate life ,if nothing else, and be with their families. i celebrate christmas as a christian, you or someone else might not. certanly not something i would argue about right now.
if you have any other open issues you would like to discuss, i'm more than willing.
you may not have taken my apology as genuine, some other people might not have, but i can assure you it was just that, spoken from the heart. 3 months ago i may have taken my membership on this site too lightly thus behaving carelessly. but i can assure you, much like a child, i was burned and i have now learned my lesson and plan to be a lot more careful and more considerate.
i have argued heatedly with plenty of people over the internet, granted non of it got me banned, and i can tell you that i speak to half of those people now through msn and consider them friends. i believe that i am not a jerk ( although my actions on the internet sometimes say otherwise ), noone who got to know me better feels that way, and i'm a firm believer in the old " if we can just sit down and talk about it like adults, we can resolve anything" adage.
so this is more than a peace offering, this is my offer to wipe the slate clean and start over, you may just find that i'm not as bad as you think i am.
Get to know Sammi, read her interesting Insightful posts, you will end up respecting her like the rest of us. :yup:
Piddzilla
02-01-06, 09:02 AM
I naturally think the guy should be let back in, basically because I could never understand the ban in the first place. Well, ok I could understand why others wanted him banned - only I never agreed with it.
i may not like Slovenia as a country, but that doesn't mean i hate slovenians as people.
Your post suggest the opposite.... I can appreciate the fact that the war in ex-Yugoslavia have left you with scars by far not yet healed. Totally understandable. But your paragraph about Slovenians is a school book example of xenophobia. And even though what you've been through is breeding this kind of hate in you I would like to ask you to see it from our point of view. Replace "Slovenians" with "Africans" or "Jews" or "Arabs" and you would perhaps understand better why I and others get offended when you speak about Slovenians like that. Just keep that kind of thoughts to yourself.
Having said that, I think it was good of you to come back and apologize and, if you stay, welcome back.
Caitlyn
02-01-06, 10:19 AM
I naturally think the guy should be let back in, basically because I could never understand the ban in the first place. Well, ok I could understand why others wanted him banned - only I never agreed with it.
So you think anyone should be allowed to join MoFo, continually break the rules, and then suffer absolutely no consequences for those actions?
ash_is_the_gal
02-01-06, 10:52 AM
I'm not for anyone getting hurt through this journey of forum chatter and not everyone is going to agree with one another or get along in this fine community. If a fellow member tried to attack me and only me... I would still have open arms. I would embrace their return, hold em' close and gut em' from the back with a seductive blade. I'm just kidding. But I will let the past be in the past and make way for a better possible present... but that's just me. What I'm saying is that everybody should get chances.
Get to know Sammi, read her interesting Insightful posts, you will end up respecting her like the rest of us. :yup:
i totally agree with both of these. Sammi is awesome...and as much as i hate to admit it, AnonymousLast is right! i am not familiar with the person under question but i have given a few generous second chances in my lifetime myself, and i would want to same treatment given back to me...
so thats mah two cents, yo.
SamsoniteDelilah
02-01-06, 02:55 PM
perhapse i shouldn't speak any more about this subject, let matters be, take the advice of half the people that posted here and just stay clear of you. but i'm a man that likes to get things done properly or not do them at all and i'm certainly not the kind of man that beats arround the bush.
so perhapse you felt my apology was too abstract or evasive ( i don't know where you got that "changed his mind" bit, as yoda said, the changes i made to the post were fairly insiginficant) . i admit, i have had a similar offer from yoda 3 months ago but back then i refused to apologise to you. call it pride or what ever you want. i say it was too soon and i was not in a position to see things as i do now.
so let's adress the matter that started all this, the argument. as i tried to say 3 months ago, my original post about the city of god and your reasons for it not doing so well was constructed very poorly and i now see how you might have felt that it was agressive or fairly insulting. i apologise, i never meant to imply your reasons for it failing were stupid, i simply felt ( as i still do ) that they were not the true reasons for CoG's not-so-brilliant box office results. i disagreed, that's what people do in debates, arguments or discussions. my intent was not to upset you and i was certainly not expecting you to reply the way you did ( i have gone over and over that post and can't help but to wonder what would have been if it were not for that " those are not valid reasons and you know it" part, possibly the worst case of ill chosen words in forum history, but like i said in the original apology, i thought we were on such terms that i could say what ever i wanted without thinking about it twice ). i was very much taken aback by your response and i went on the defense, as did you. and two people on the defense coupled with their unwillingness to back down equals disaster.
second thing i remember you taking an issue with was me stating i hated slovenians even though your friend was a slovenian. this of course isn't how i truly feel. i base judgement on people only when and if i get to know them. i'm sure your friend is a nice person, i'm sure plenty of slovenians are nice people, but what you have to understand is that i've met and have been arround thousands of slovenians, i live in a tourist village, they come here by the thousands, and honest to god, most of the young slovenians i have met are arrogant and unpleasant ( i stress the young part, older slovenians have more wisdom and are friendlier ). our two countries ( on a state level ) do not get along lately because of 3 things: open disputes about our borders ( and constant provocations on the slovenian side ) - this is the biggest issue by far, about millions of dollars stolen from our citizens by the slovenian national bank after the disintergration of Yugoslavia and Slovenia's constant refusal to deal with the matters in a court of law according to european standards. those political issues have transferred to a person to person level and are only escalating. combined with the fact that Slovenia is in the European Union and Slovenians somehow started to feel that makes them better than us ( nevermind the fact that unlike Slovenia, we were fighting a brutal war for 4 years and the last thing on our minds was our economic growth and a EU membership) , it has now come to the fact that we are careful in our relations to say the least and have a tendancy to judge the other party without getting to know them beforehand. i may not like Slovenia as a country, but that doesn't mean i hate slovenians as people.
third thing i remember you calling me out on was the issue of non christians celebrating Christmas. i admit, i was trying to bait you into an argument about it, you didn't take the bait. of course, in reality, i couldn't care less who or why celebrates christmas, everyone has the right to do it and take advantage of that very special time to celebrate life ,if nothing else, and be with their families. i celebrate christmas as a christian, you or someone else might not. certanly not something i would argue about right now.
if you have any other open issues you would like to discuss, i'm more than willing.
you may not have taken my apology as genuine, some other people might not have, but i can assure you it was just that, spoken from the heart. 3 months ago i may have taken my membership on this site too lightly thus behaving carelessly. but i can assure you, much like a child, i was burned and i have now learned my lesson and plan to be a lot more careful and more considerate.
i have argued heatedly with plenty of people over the internet, granted non of it got me banned, and i can tell you that i speak to half of those people now through msn and consider them friends. i believe that i am not a jerk ( although my actions on the internet sometimes say otherwise ), noone who got to know me better feels that way, and i'm a firm believer in the old " if we can just sit down and talk about it like adults, we can resolve anything" adage.
so this is more than a peace offering, this is my offer to wipe the slate clean and start over, you may just find that i'm not as bad as you think i am.
Thank you for taking the time to address these issues. These were exactly my concerns from your posting here before, and I'm very impressed at the change in just 3 months' time. I appreciate that you have done so much thinking and that you have come to value your membership here. The place (the people in it) is important to me, and I get a bit protective, which was part of what put us at loggerheads in the past.
Now that you have addressed this, it seems clear that the past IS just the past (though I suggest you take a look at Pidzilla's post about xenophobia) and I look forward to interacting with you in the future.
Welcome to Mofo, Newbie. ;)
As a seperate issue, I think the moderator job is kind of tough at times, especially if you think (as I think was probably the case here) that someone is capable of better behaviour. The rules are there for a reason though, and being second-guessed sucks for anyone, at any time. Caitlyn has said on a couple of occasions that Adi wasn't banned for just a little swearing, and has said why he was banned. Anyone who still questions that should really look into it, rather than undermining her role here by questioning it time and again.
If I could make a suggestion about bannings: it might help if there was a thread in the Mofo Business Forum where bans could be posted, with the reason why. The reason this would help is that people come and go here, and often miss the actions that lead up to banning. A thread that gives the reason would:
1. Clear up any mystery about why a given poster was banned (the real reason, not any assumed reason)
2. Make crystal clear what is not permissible here and illustrate that the mods are actively enforcing the rules
3. Provide a place for people who have questions about bannings to ask for clarification
Tacitus
02-01-06, 03:20 PM
If I could make a suggestion about bannings: it might help if there was a thread in the Mofo Business Forum where bans could be posted, with the reason why.
Good idea. I've seen it on other sites.
Anyone remember the guy who claimed to be Julie Andrews' estranged son? The poor bugger was shown the door before I could bookmark the extremely weird homepage he had created. ;)
Well I never mentioned it to you guys yet but I am Mel Torme's cousin in law..I am working on a site right now to prove this.:rolleyes:
firegod
02-01-06, 09:39 PM
Hello everyone. I agree with the vast majority of the comments made in this thread. However, I disagree with one sentiment expressed several times here, and that is that there is no censorship on this site (or in one comment, anywhere on the internet). Of course there is; there is censorship almost everywhere.
If I were running a forum, I wouldn't have any censorship at all, with the possible exception of disallowing mass posts at once that can completely trash a forum. Freedom of speech (the kind that you find in books, for example) is a philosophy that can work in areas of our society that it has not been given much of a chance to. This is true with TV (except cable, which has been given the chance), radio, many parts of the internet, and many more parts of our society. I believe that the encouragement of individuality and open-mindedness that is inherent in complete freedom of speech far outweighs any of the negatives.
However, with all of that having been said, there are more ways than one to run a forum, and I think Yoda, Caity and others do a very fine job. Please don't think that I am suggesting that individuality and open-mindedness do not exist simply because there is some censorship; perhaps just not quite as much as they could.
Hey Fire :)
Who said there was no censorship?
^^^censorship-intimating silence here^^^
i think that there should be a certain amount of control on any forum...and i do believe that the all the caity, yoda and the other moderators are doing a great job...
firegod
02-01-06, 10:17 PM
Hey Fire :)
Who said there was no censorship?
Tea Barking said that there is no censorship on the internet, and others suggested that what has happened in this case or on this site in general is not censorship.
Susan, I can see some of the benefits, but not enough of them to justify what could be lost.
Strummer521
02-01-06, 10:25 PM
However, with all of that having been said, there are more ways than one to run a forum, and I think Yoda, Caity and others do a very fine job. Please don't think that I am suggesting that individuality and open-mindedness do not exist simply because there is some censorship; perhaps just not quite as much as they could.
It seems to me, the censorship on this forum occurs to curb posters who get in the way of civilized discourse and often in the process, show a lack of open-mindedness. The censorship is good in the way it tries to prevent people from making unjustifiably (sp?) negative posts.
firegod
02-01-06, 10:30 PM
That can sometimes be good, in my opinion, but one huge thing that is lost is the ability for all of us to determine for ourselves what is positive or negative in that particular instance.
Strummer521
02-01-06, 10:41 PM
That can sometimes be good, in my opinion, but one huge thing that is lost is the ability for all of us to determine for ourselves what is positive or negative in that particular instance.
In just about all the cases I've seen, what's censored is unnecessary, blatant attacks by one member against another. I think most people would see that as a negative. For the sake of objectivity though...think of it this way: arguments will happen, but is it necessary to let the really ugly ones hang in the air? This forum is pleasantly free of flaming, and I think censorship is simply the mods' way of making sure it stays that way.
firegod
02-01-06, 10:51 PM
And there are many people who would agree with you that that is the better way to go; I don't. We simply have differing opinions, and respecting differing opinions is one of the major aspects to this freedom of speech philosophy. How do you determine which decisions are those that "most people" would agree with? Polls? Then everyone would see the comments in question, and there wouldn't actually be censorship. And how would you handle a case where 75% agree, and 25% don't? How about 55% to 45%? I believe that whether the comment is useful or not should be up to each individual to determine for herself.
Come on guys & gals, the real issue here is respect. Call me what you want and disagree with me all you want, but unless I give you a reason not to do so I expect respect and I give it to others. Not just here but in every instance of my life. Some say respect has to be earned, but to me we are all in this together and I say disrespect is what has to be earned. It takes a lot to do that in my book and my book is pretty well open. Just saying...
Good to see you btw F.G.:)
Tea Barking said that there is no censorship on the internet.
Well that young man has never been to China ;)
and others suggested that what has happened in this case or on this site in general is not censorship.
Did they?
It is censorship, but of a very tolerant kind.
Can't ever be all-inculsive on that count - but there's still just about enough divisiveness around :)
I reckon you'd have a big fight on your hand trying to govern a word-mall on the no-multi-post-spam rule alone. Other rules of engagment always end up taking form ;)
but to me we are all in this together and I say disrespect is what has to be earned.
That is such a class way of putting it :)
And there are many people who would agree with you that that is the better way to go; I don't. We simply have differing opinions, and respecting differing opinions is one of the major aspects to this freedom of speech philosophy.
"Freedom of speech" I agree with :yup: "Respecting Differing Opinions" I agree with :yup: abusing, insulting people, i do not agree with :yup:
firegod
02-02-06, 10:11 AM
Gol,
I wouldn't ever delete messages just because of a few made in a row. I'm talking more like hundreds or thousands of posts with the attempt to completely destroy the forum. Those messages I would delete and probably take some sort of action against the abuser. I wouldn't do it to punish; I would do it to try to keep the site readable. But that and censoring obviously illegal content (like child pornography) are the only types of censorship I can think of that I would ever use on a site of my own.
Nebby,
But problems often arise when one person or a group of people try to determine for everyone else what in fact IS abusive and insulting. Even harder to agree on is what is or is not vulgar and inappropriate, which is usually the standard used.
But that and censoring obviously illegal content (like child pornography) are the only types of censorship I can think of that I would ever use on a site of my own.
What's this? New rules? Already? ;)
firegod
02-02-06, 12:49 PM
It's kind of interesting that whenever I try to get into a debate about censorship, I never see any real arguments opposing my view; I see disagreements, but no real answers to my questions or any serious attempts to explain how the opposing view could ever make sense. This thread has been no exception. I hope I'm proven wrong, so that we can get a good debate going.
Heh, i dunno mate, i reckon at least one argument's been presented. Practicality.
Any sort of social set-up requires a number of rules to be formed, on top of the limitations imposed by its physical make-up. Cooperation goes hand in hand with castigation. A lawless society becomes a 'strongest/most-brutal wins' society, and all that.
Within an 'information-based' set up like a forum, forms of info-limitation/sculpting - IE degrees of censorship - are practically inevitable. That's what i'm suggesting to you. You've mentioned 2 rules you'd impose - i bet you more would evolve.
Neither censored nor 'total free speech' set ups offer a totally inclusive platform anyway. IE a 'total free speech' forum would almost certainly become populated to a greater extent by those who shout loudest (and who aren't welcome elsewhere). The end result is that thin-skinned posters would go elsewhere, and those who don't wanna shout all the time would probably opt out too.
I reckon social laws and information censorship are comparable here. If you want a nice debatey-style analogy to represent it, you could think of the pre-Nazi democracy set-up in Germany - the most 'open' democracy ever it seems. It let the Nazis take over din't it. And they still had rules ;)
Anonymous Last
02-02-06, 01:13 PM
abusing, insulting people, i do not agree with
I feel the same way to a point.
I know I poke fun and I try to do it where everyone can have smiles and laugh at it. I don't mind if I intentionally offend folks; it's actually something I'm quite talented at. But I don’t wish to inadvertently do so, either by oversight or ignorance, that's bad form. I also know I can take it as much as I give it. If I get the feeling that I crossed the line and caused some cracked feelings... I'll fix it or clean it... out of respect, because there are lines. Knowing those lines is as simple as having just the tiniest of commonsense.
Other than that... sticks and stones, people.
We are guests in the house of Yoda and we have to respect what he says no go to. Playing nice is not censorship...at least I don't think it is...
What the hell was this thread about anyways?
Let me preface this by saying that, at base principle, I agree with firegod. Some degree of censorship exists in every moderated forum; it's just a matter of degree, and it's reasonable for people to differ on how best to strike a balance between freedom and order.
Anyway, as Gol said, total freedom (or near-total freedom) on a forum like this works in theory, but not necessarily in practice. It does not actually ensure that anyone is any more or less likely to be heard. It'd be all too easy for certain personality types to simply dominate conversations. By including all forms of speech, you effectively exclude the forms of speech which have something to say, but don't care to be shouted down or drowned out.
What we have here is an environment where no one has to look each other in the eye, everyone can hide behind whatever persona they like, and anyone can pack up and leave forever at any moment. An environment like this is far more conducive to needless confrontation, insults, and other undesirable things than the offline world is. For that reason, and a few others, I think a slightly higher number of restrictions is reasonable.
I'd welcome opposing views, though. I have a great deal of experience participating in, moderating, and running online communities, but I am not so vain as to think that all sites are alike, or that any policy is necessarily appropriate in every stage of a community's life. This is not lip service; I'm genuinely open to changes, though probably not very drastic ones.
firegod
02-02-06, 01:41 PM
There are only two types of censoship that I can THINK of, but I doubt I would enforce ANY kind of censorship. I have run a forum before, and never deleted a single thing. I never had anyone post a bunch of messages at once or post anything I thought was illegal, so I never saw any reason to censor anything. I kind of doubt that more censorship would evolve.
Sure, a lot of people will opt out if they see language or other content they don't particularly like, but those who don't want to shout? What kind of shouting are we talking about on a text forum? I don't understand that one.
As far as the "strongest/most brutal wins" and the Nazi arguments go, I'm not sure how that would work on a message board either. I don't think we'd be losing very much if people who couldn't stomach the F word didn't stick around.
But yeah; this is a little better debate type stuff, Gol. :) Feed me! Feed me!
firegod
02-02-06, 01:57 PM
Anyway, as Gol said, total freedom (or near-total freedom) on a forum like this works in theory, but not necessarily in practice. It does not actually ensure that anyone is any more or less likely to be heard. It'd be all too easy for certain personality types to simply dominate conversations. By including all forms of speech, you effectively exclude the forms of speech which have something to say, but don't care to be shouted down or drowned out.
I have NEVER seen these problems arise, and have been involved with several uncensored message boards. I can't figure out the whole shouted down idea at all.
What we have here is an environment where no one has to look each other in the eye, everyone can hide behind whatever persona they like, and anyone can pack up and leave forever at any moment. An environment like this is far more conducive to needless confrontation, insults, and other undesirable things than the offline world is. For that reason, and a few others, I think a slightly higher number of restrictions is reasonable.
Absolutely, and as I said in my first message, I think you do a very good job.
I have NEVER seen these problems arise, and have been involved with several uncensored message boards. I can't figure out the whole shouted down idea at all.
The forums over on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/) are a good example of what I'm talking about. It's not that there are not intelligent, reasonable people there (there are), and they are not "shouted down" in the sense that they're forced to retract what they say...but there is a feeling of mob rule there, and a number of posters (with thousands of posts to their name) essentially do nothing but wait for someone to make a political or social statement so they can contradict it, usually without sources, arguments, or even wit, for that matter. They're inevitably joined by a choir of their peers.
And as much as that may sound like an exaggeration, it's not. Whichever movement has the largest group of dedicated followers essentially brow-beats opposing viewpoints and the whole thing degenerates into a mutual back-patting society. Such polarization drives away moderate voices and attracts extremists of the opposite persuasion. Ever see dueling protesters try to talk to each other? That's what it's like.
A perfect message board would be uncensored, popular, and enjoyable. In practice, though, I think you can only have two.
Absolutely, and as I said in my first message, I think you do a very good job.
Thanks. For the record, I'm not taking any of this personally. It's a perfectly reasonable think to ask/say, and I welcome the discussion.
I have run a forum before, and never deleted a single thing. I never had anyone post a bunch of messages at once or post anything I thought was illegal, so I never saw any reason to censor anything. I kind of doubt that more censorship would evolve.
Cool. Did it have a theme? And how big was it? And how long did it run? Some of the probs i'm thinking about evolve over time. (And it takes a while for a forum's rules to shape its 'community' and tone)
Sure, a lot of people will opt out if they see language or other content they don't particularly like...
I don't think we'd be losing very much if people who couldn't stomach the F word didn't stick around.
So long as lack of censorship is your primary aim, as opposed to encouraging wide-ranging argument and 'representation', then that's all cool ;).
It all depends on what you want from the forum. In a social set up i reckon there are a greater number of considerations to balance, but on a forum the pure doctrine of 'no censorship' is definitely an achievable aim.
There are only two types of censoship that I can THINK of, but I doubt I would enforce ANY kind of censorship.
Heh, ok, i'm just suggesting that life's full of surprises - and that it might force your hand ;)
What would you do if a resourceful anarchist hacker 'undeleted'/reposted illegal material (that you'd removed) under the ethos of complete freedom of speech, for example? Say, the networking of a paedophile ring that'd set up on your site?
What kind of shouting are we talking about on a text forum? I don't understand that one.
As far as the "strongest/most brutal wins" and the Nazi arguments go, I'm not sure how that would work on a message board either.
The shouting and the forcefulness are present in Yods' RT example really. I imagine it'd go further if the place was no-holds-barred as well. There are multiple ways of drowning out ideas you don't want espoused etc - just as there are multiple ways of forcing others to concur with you in the real world. In this case, it's all about whether it's worth having safe-guards against the less constructive aspects of dissent.
(NB - i'm always troubled by the homogenous and 'repressive' aspects of enforced communal consent as well - but that's the game that's gotta be played whenever more than one person is on the stage ;))
But yeah; this is a little better debate type stuff, Gol. :) Feed me! Feed me!
Heh - good t'be arguing again ;).
In honour of all the copyable stuff on the web... have a parrot (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/999/sunsetparrotliz2dz.jpg) ;)
...and a number of posters (with thousands of posts to their name) essentially do nothing but wait for someone to make a political or social statement so they can contradict it, usually without sources, arguments, or even wit, for that matter.
Whew, until you said wit, I thought I was done for ;)
SamsoniteDelilah
02-02-06, 04:07 PM
Yoda's pretty much said anything I could have contributed, so far. RT is indeed the hellhole he describes. I left it with over 15,000 posts to my credit, because it was on a steady slide into Lord of the Flies and most reasonable people had already left.
I've also been a part of a community on AOL for about 10 years now, and have seen phases there (years long ones) where the same thing happened. One or two problems started, which attracted people who were already cruising the net for a place to rumble, which snowballed into a serious problem for the community. Many of the mature, pleasant people stopped going there.
Moderation and censorship aren't exactly the same thing. Censorship is when a person or small group of people agree on what is acceptable, and enforce it on the whole group. In message board moderation, we have ALL agreed, by virtue of signing the TOS, that the defined rules are what we will hold as acceptable and not. The moderators are merely upholding the rules that we all agreed to when we signed up here.
Anonymous Last
02-02-06, 04:30 PM
Whew, until you said wit, I thought I was done for
I'm done for...
Piddzilla
02-02-06, 06:03 PM
So you think anyone should be allowed to join MoFo, continually break the rules, and then suffer absolutely no consequences for those actions?
No, I actually haven't said anything at all why I think the ban was wrong. But I will now.
Without having been personally involved in the fight and therefore not an expert in all the details, I remember that I thought that the banning had more to do with the fact that people were upset about Cindy leaving than about Adi breaking any rules. The rules have been broken many a times, by me included, and there have been flat out racist remarks done by members who remain members to this day (even if they perhaps don't post here very often nowadays). Looking at this particular case, it seems like the fate of misbehaving, rule-breaking members depends more on his or her relationship to the moderators and "senior members" than on what in fact was being said or done. Cindy left in rage and BLAM! the naughty newbie was banned... Which isn't very strange really if he had been the only one crossing the lines of decency, a fact I felt was questionable.
That's just my opinion from where I stand.
Tacitus
02-02-06, 06:15 PM
He was banned for being an eejit in a totally unrelated thread though. If I'm not mistaken the argument had blown over by then.
Caitlyn
02-02-06, 11:40 PM
No, I actually haven't said anything at all why I think the ban was wrong. But I will now.
Without having been personally involved in the fight and therefore not an expert in all the details, I remember that I thought that the banning had more to do with the fact that people were upset about Cindy leaving than about Adi breaking any rules. The rules have been broken many a times, by me included, and there have been flat out racist remarks done by members who remain members to this day (even if they perhaps don't post here very often nowadays). Looking at this particular case, it seems like the fate of misbehaving, rule-breaking members depends more on his or her relationship to the moderators and "senior members" than on what in fact was being said or done. Cindy left in rage and BLAM! the naughty newbie was banned... Which isn't very strange really if he had been the only one crossing the lines of decency, a fact I felt was questionable.
That's just my opinion from where I stand.
I am aware that you did not state why you thought the ban was wrong… but you did state that you never agreed with it… which, to me, implied you knew why adidasss had been banned… however, in light of your last post, I see you haven't a clue…
Adidasss being banned had nothing to do with his argument with Sammy… he was banned because he had been warned (several times) about breaking the rules and instead of heeding those warnings, he chose to continue breaking the rules… even giving detailed instructions in a post that has since been deleted as to how anyone else could bypass the censors on this forum… now, Yoda can correct me if I am wrong, but I feel sure had he wanted the censors bypassed, he would have turned that feature off himself….
And for the record, adidasss was not a newbie… he was here almost 7 months before he was banned… and, as I previously stated, this was not just a question of him using a random cuss word once in a while…
As for the member who made racist comments… if it is the one I have in mind, he made the comments a little over a month after he joined and if memory serves, he was warned and to the best of my knowledge, has abided by that warning…
Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence Piddy…
Youch.
I know Adi was banned for repeated swearing bypasses, and his little revelation of how to do it - and i remember you'd given him a definitive warning about exactly that issue - but i couldn't help feeling at the time that Sammy's temporary withdrawl had played a part too.
I think that's part of what Pidz was getting at - and i felt uncomfortable about it too. Say if it ain't so, coz like you say, Adi had definitely stepped outside the forum's rules. It just felt like his banning wasn't an entirely isolated incident.
As for the member who made racist comments… if it is the one I have in mind, he made the comments a little over a month after he joined and if memory serves, he was warned and to the best of my knowledge, has abided by that warning…
It was Toose wasn't it! When will that boy learn that it's the Evangelical Rapturists who are behind the Israeli funding ;)
If I'm not mistaken the argument had blown over by then.
Been deleted to prevent its continuation more like :indifferent:
(Man, firegod can have a field day with that ;))
Personally, i'd like to protest at the loss of a collection of arch and witty 'Time Out' covers i posted inbetweenst the dispute ;)
Tacitus
02-03-06, 06:00 AM
I think that's part of what Pidz was getting at - and i felt uncomfortable about it too. Say if it ain't so, coz like you say, Adi had definitely stepped outside the forum's rules. It just felt like his banning wasn't an entirely isolated incident.
Just imagine then if no argument had existed. He was warned about breaking the forum's rules, did it again and got the chop. End of drama.
I think we need to be careful about stirring the whole thing up again as both parties seem more than willing to put the past behind them. :)
Nebby,
But problems often arise when one person or a group of people try to determine for everyone else what in fact IS abusive and insulting. Even harder to agree on is what is or is not vulgar and inappropriate, which is usually the standard used.
If the person thinks it is insulting then maybe it is :yup: as this is a forum for people of all ages, Yoda wants to keep it as free as possible from things that are vulgar and inappropriate, I am happy for him to make that decision as I trust his and any moderators judgement, it is not the end of the world if i can't be vulgar etc http://bestsmileys.com/expressions/10.gif
In my earlier MoFo days (not too long ago) I felt I was saying some inappropriate things regarding Bush and I thought I was offending people. I was never warned to cool it or stop the conversation or anything like that; I felt that maybe I was starting to get out of hand. I really didn't want people to think of me as a jerk so I stopped posting about Bush and to this day I try and control my fingers from responding to Bush comments.
I think that there is a responsibility to the person posting to know when you are about to cross the line. I think I did a mature thing by discontinuing the debate....I think the other party discontinued before me but I could have easily carried it out longer. So knowing which threads to stay away from when you are feeling passionate about the topic and know that you can't control what comes out of your mouth (fingers)....is a good way to keep a good reputation...not meaning to stay away from what you love, but if you know that you get defensive about a particular topic that could lead to hostility, you should just avoid it all together and speak up about it in a place where it is okay to get a little nasty...like in a blog...
ash_is_the_gal
02-03-06, 10:38 AM
In my earlier MoFo days (not too long ago) I felt I was saying some inappropriate things regarding Bush and I thought I was offending people. I was never warned to cool it or stop the conversation or anything like that; I felt that maybe I was starting to get out of hand. I really didn't want people to think of me as a jerk so I stopped posting about Bush and to this day I try and control my fingers from responding to Bush comments.
I think that there is a responsibility to the person posting to know when you are about to cross the line. I think I did a mature thing by discontinuing the debate....I think the other party discontinued before me but I could have easily carried it out longer. So knowing which threads to stay away from when you are feeling passionate about the topic and know that you can't control what comes out of your mouth (fingers)....is a good way to keep a good reputation...not meaning to stay away from what you love, but if you know that you get defensive about a particular topic that could lead to hostility, you should just avoid it all together and speak up about it in a place where it is okay to get a little nasty...like in a blog...
i agree with this...sometimes people do get a little passionate, and i think its wicked cool when someone has such passion for something, but its probably better, in the long run, to steer clear of posting there, as you are probably more likely to take something personal or more to heart, therefore getting more easily offended because its something important to you...i'd do the same thing, in fact i have.
this is a good thread. i think both sammi and adi are willing to leave the past IN the past...i know sammi does not hold grudges or she would have shoved me off a long time ago :p
Piddzilla
02-03-06, 04:04 PM
I am aware that you did not state why you thought the ban was wrong… but you did state that you never agreed with it… which, to me, implied you knew why adidasss had been banned… however, in light of your last post, I see you haven't a clue…
Adidasss being banned had nothing to do with his argument with Sammy… he was banned because he had been warned (several times) about breaking the rules and instead of heeding those warnings, he chose to continue breaking the rules… even giving detailed instructions in a post that has since been deleted as to how anyone else could bypass the censors on this forum… now, Yoda can correct me if I am wrong, but I feel sure had he wanted the censors bypassed, he would have turned that feature off himself….
If you mean the post where he explained how to write bad words without them being censored, yes, I read that post... And even if that was the "official reason", I don't think he would have been banned that quickly if it wasn't for the fight with Sammy and her department from the board. Maybe I'm wrong thinking so, but that's the impression I got.
And for the record, adidasss was not a newbie… he was here almost 7 months before he was banned… and, as I previously stated, this was not just a question of him using a random cuss word once in a while…
I know. He wasn't exactly the choir boy of the board - I've personally had a few arguments with the guy - but I still think the Sammy vs. Adi fght took it to a completely different level, which really resulted in two members leaving the board; one freely, and one because of a ban. I think that Sammy perhaps felt like no one was sticking up for her and when she left maybe that made others feel that they hadn't done enough for her. So Adi was banned...
And newbie or not... That's really relative... I think a 7 months old member could be considered a newbie.
As for the member who made racist comments… if it is the one I have in mind, he made the comments a little over a month after he joined and if memory serves, he was warned and to the best of my knowledge, has abided by that warning…
Well, that particular person basically left the board and stops by once in a very seldomly seen while. Not saying that he or others that have made stupid remarks (because there have been others) should have been banned - I actually think this board has a pretty high and good level of tolerance regarding dingbats - but I did think "Wow, that was fast..." when Adidasss was banned.
Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence Piddy…
I think you're doing a fine job as a moderator, Caitlyn, but I don't have to love everything you do, do I?? And it's not like this thing turned my whole world upside down or anything, but Chris asked for input and I gave him some.
But what do I know.... I'm clueless, right? ;)
Even harder to agree on is what is or is not vulgar and inappropriate, which is usually the standard used.
I am confused about this statement a bit....not to sound righteous or anything, but do we not all know what vulgar means? Seriously?:rolleyes:
I think you're doing a fine job as a moderator, Caitlyn,
I know, I know double post....sry....
But I agree, you are doing an outstanding job and in the light of life's trials I commend you on your standards Cait....
P.S. This is only a shout out to Cait and not a reprimand to anyone's thoughts........... Luv you all I do....:D
SamsoniteDelilah
02-04-06, 01:37 AM
If you mean the post where he explained how to write bad words without them being censored, yes, I read that post... And even if that was the "official reason", I don't think he would have been banned that quickly if it wasn't for the fight with Sammy and her department from the board. Maybe I'm wrong thinking so, but that's the impression I got.
I'm not sure you are aware of the assumption behind what you've said here. Let me see if I'm getting what you're willing to assume:
1. From your use of quotations around "official reason", it appears that you feel that it was disingenuous of the moderator to state that posting profanity repeatedly and instructions on how to get around the censor. Do you feel that Caity would not ban someone else for not only blowing off the stated rules here, but telling others how to do so?
2. Adidasss, in his post above states that he realises that he was rude to me, that he made a second comment that was intentionally offensive (that he hates all Slovenians, in direct response to my saying one of my best friends is one), and that he followed that up with purposely trying to bait me into an arguement. Do you think that is in line with the rules of the forum? To assist you, here they are, verbatim:
Forum Rules
Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
Although the administrators and moderators of Movie Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Movie Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Movie Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
3. Do you feel that personal attacks on a member should be overlooked by moderators? It appears you do, in that you seem to think Adi's previous behaviour was excusable.
I know. He wasn't exactly the choir boy of the board - I've personally had a few arguments with the guy - but I still think the Sammy vs. Adi fght took it to a completely different level, which really resulted in two members leaving the board; one freely, and one because of a ban. I think that Sammy perhaps felt like no one was sticking up for her and when she left maybe that made others feel that they hadn't done enough for her. So Adi was banned...
That's exactly how I felt. I felt I was being personally attacked, and at that point, it was by the third person in a short period of time. I make no apology for being ready to leave here, after that. One of the things I value at this forum is that it's not a Lord of the Flies atmosphere.
And newbie or not... That's really relative... I think a 7 months old member could be considered a newbie.
I don't understand what it matters whether you classify him as new or not. He'd read the rules, and he had ample opportunity to see that people generally speak with consideration to each other here. He has, in fact, stated that he now understands and values that. If you're looking for a place where people are inconsiderate, hostile and mob rules, Yoda posted a link to one. I don't mean that to sound flip, I'm just saying: the fact that people can post here unmolested is of value to a lot of people. Not just me.
Well, that particular person basically left the board and stops by once in a very seldomly seen while. Not saying that he or others that have made stupid remarks (because there have been others) should have been banned - I actually think this board has a pretty high and good level of tolerance regarding dingbats - but I did think "Wow, that was fast..." when Adidasss was banned.
How long should a person be able to create problems for the sake of it.. and break rules... and tell others how to break them.. before you feel they should be banned? Just out of curiosity.
I think you're doing a fine job as a moderator, Caitlyn, but I don't have to love everything you do, do I?? And it's not like this thing turned my whole world upside down or anything, but Chris asked for input and I gave him some.
But what do I know.... I'm clueless, right? ;)
You didn't just not love what she did. You questioned her motives and her honesty in stating her motives, and her judgement.
Despite what you may think, I'm glad you've brought this up. I think there are a couple of people who feel as you do, and it's better to discuss it than to foster an ongoing feeling that things aren't right. It's just that in this case, things were right. Caitlyn had perfectly justifiable reason to ban Adi, and she did. Starting trouble for the sake of starting trouble should not be tolerated, because when it is, the atmosphere in a forum changes quickly for the worse. One of the things this place has going for it is fair, hands-on moderation. People often state differing opinions. But the way they're stated is within certain limitations, and that is why there are so many people here who can usually converse like adults.
Piddzilla
02-04-06, 07:29 AM
I'm not sure you are aware of the assumption behind what you've said here. Let me see if I'm getting what you're willing to assume:
1. From your use of quotations around "official reason", it appears that you feel that it was disingenuous of the moderator to state that posting profanity repeatedly and instructions on how to get around the censor. Do you feel that Caity would not ban someone else for not only blowing off the stated rules here, but telling others how to do so?
My quotes around "official reason" was put there because of me thinking the phrase was rather bombastic in this context, but I couldn't think of any better phrase to use. And no I didn't think it was disingenuous - he did break the rules - but I don't think that was the only reason he was banned, as I've stated a few times now.
I do not feel like discussing Caity and what she does with you or with anyone else here. As I said, I think Caity, and all the moderators, are doing a fine job.
2. Adidasss, in his post above states that he realises that he was rude to me, that he made a second comment that was intentionally offensive (that he hates all Slovenians, in direct response to my saying one of my best friends is one), and that he followed that up with purposely trying to bait me into an arguement. Do you think that is in line with the rules of the forum? To assist you, here they are, verbatim:
Forum Rules
Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
Although the administrators and moderators of Movie Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Movie Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Movie Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
Well, thank you!
To answer you question: No.
3. Do you feel that personal attacks on a member should be overlooked by moderators? It appears you do, in that you seem to think Adi's previous behaviour was excusable.
I think you could say that the personal attacks were overlooked by the moderators in the sense that none of them saw the thread with the fight before it escalated and turned really nasty. I think that was the case anyway. If they had seen it I'm sure they would have gone in there and stopped it before anyone had to leave or be banned.
And I don't think Adi's behaviour was excusable, and quite frankly, I don't think yours was either. I don't care who started it. The fight was juvenile and really, really low and I was surprised that there were adult people involved in it. I'm sorry if you get upset for me saying that, I have absolutely nothing against you, but that is how I felt.
That's exactly how I felt. I felt I was being personally attacked, and at that point, it was by the third person in a short period of time. I make no apology for being ready to leave here, after that. One of the things I value at this forum is that it's not a Lord of the Flies atmosphere.
And I don't blame you for feeling that way or for leaving and I can't see why anyone would be expecting an apology for you leaving. I just wish it hadn't gone so far.
I don't understand what it matters whether you classify him as new or not. He'd read the rules, and he had ample opportunity to see that people generally speak with consideration to each other here. He has, in fact, stated that he now understands and values that. If you're looking for a place where people are inconsiderate, hostile and mob rules, Yoda posted a link to one. I don't mean that to sound flip, I'm just saying: the fact that people can post here unmolested is of value to a lot of people. Not just me.
You're absolutely right. The same rules go for everyone.
How long should a person be able to create problems for the sake of it.. and break rules... and tell others how to break them.. before you feel they should be banned? Just out of curiosity.
Luckily for me I'm not a moderator and do not have to care about things like that. "But it's ok for you to have opinions about their decisions!" you might be saying. Yeah, Yoda asked for the input of others and he got it from me as well as from others. Mine is perhaps a bit harder for you to accept but it's just how I feel, and now I have to defend it and explain it over and over.
If I really had to answer your question, which is not very productive for the discussion, just a way for you to tell me that you don't like my opinion, I would have to say that it depends on every single individual case. I'm sure there were tons of reasons for banning Adidasss in relation to the forum rules. All I am saying and have been saying is that I don't think that him breaking the rules was the only reason he was banned.
You didn't just not love what she did. You questioned her motives and her honesty in stating her motives, and her judgement.
That's nice. I don't even have to type anything anymore since you allready know my deepest thoughts on everything.
Despite what you may think, I'm glad you've brought this up. I think there are a couple of people who feel as you do, and it's better to discuss it than to foster an ongoing feeling that things aren't right. It's just that in this case, things were right. Caitlyn had perfectly justifiable reason to ban Adi, and she did. Starting trouble for the sake of starting trouble should not be tolerated, because when it is, the atmosphere in a forum changes quickly for the worse. One of the things this place has going for it is fair, hands-on moderation. People often state differing opinions. But the way they're stated is within certain limitations, and that is why there are so many people here who can usually converse like adults.
Sure, I concur. And am totally out of this thread.
firegod
02-04-06, 07:52 PM
I am confused about this statement a bit....not to sound righteous or anything, but do we not all know what vulgar means? Seriously?:rolleyes:
That seems a strange place for eyerolling; was what I said really that outrageous? I said, "what is or is not vulgar" which is quite a bit different than the terminology you used. No, we don't know what is or is not vulgar, because we can't agree on it. For example, I don't think the F word is vulgar. I would consider the usage of it vulgar in some situations, but not just any usage of it whatsoever, and I would only consider it opinion, not fact.
Let's stick with the F word for a minute. What exactly is vulgar about it? Why? How? Isn't the power within the individual hearing it or seeing it to allow it or not allow it to be vulgar or inappropriate to them, rather than that power being within the person simply typing or saying the word? If you or anyone else could explain to me why the F word is vulgar, other than the fact that it just is because we are taught that it is, I'd be very impressed.
Let's stick with the F word for a minute. What exactly is vulgar about it? Why? How? Isn't the power within the individual hearing it or seeing it to allow it or not allow it to be vulgar or inappropriate to them, rather than that power being within the person simply typing or saying the word? If you or anyone else could explain to me why the F word is vulgar, other than the fact that it just is because we are taught that it is, I'd be very impressed.
If it wasn't against the rules, I'd give you a list of examples about how the F-word can be used in a vulgar or inappropriate context. In fact, most of the ways the F-word is used is vulgar. It takes a deliberate decision by the speaker to use the F-word in a vulgar context, so yeah, the user is responsible.
Beyond that, it's better practice not to allow this type of language anyway. Sure, we can get into a debate about connotation, syntax, and censorship (ultimately), but let's face it. Letting people cuss all over the place is a slippery slope: before you know it, that's all you'll see. And who really needs to use vulgar language on a movie forum anyway? Have some courtesy. You know how people blare profane rap music out of their cars at stoplights? Sure, they're entitled to listening to what they want, but not everyone wants to hear it. Why does it have to be so loud in the first place?
ash_is_the_gal
02-04-06, 08:54 PM
but let's face it. Letting people cuss all over the place is a slippery slope: before you know it, that's all you'll see. And who really needs to use vulgar language on a movie forum anyway?
to a point, i don't really agree with this...i feel that everyone that posts at this community are adult enough not to "abuse their privledges" and those who AREN'T get banned anyway. I am not saying i don't agree with other reasons as to why swearing should not be allowed on this forum, because i know that it IS offensive to some and i do respect that, i just can't SEE everyone taking advantage of it, if Yoda changed that rule tomorrow. i think things would keep on going as they are now, because even now, most people let out the occasional cuss word, hell i know i do.
but you are right, there is a never a REAL reason for that kind of language, movie forum or not. those who get so uptight about it like its that big of a deal are making a mountain out of a molehill. we are here to discuss movies, and if you're intelligent and reasonable enough, you can get your points across more than perfectly fine without cussing. i see some great debates/discussions on this forum without a drop of language. :yup:
actually, i'm on a few other message boards and let me tell you, this one is not as strict as some others are..
yes there should be respect of others and yes, there is no reason for curse words, but it is not a perfect world.....that is why there are moderators and administrators....to keep an eye on that sort of thing, to keep everything running smoothly...just think of them as the sheriffs and deputies of the site....
firegod
02-04-06, 10:04 PM
If it wasn't against the rules, I'd give you a list of examples about how the F-word can be used in a vulgar or inappropriate context. In fact, most of the ways the F-word is used is vulgar. It takes a deliberate decision by the speaker to use the F-word in a vulgar context, so yeah, the user is responsible.
Beyond that, it's better practice not to allow this type of language anyway. Sure, we can get into a debate about connotation, syntax, and censorship (ultimately), but let's face it. Letting people cuss all over the place is a slippery slope: before you know it, that's all you'll see. And who really needs to use vulgar language on a movie forum anyway? Have some courtesy. You know how people blare profane rap music out of their cars at stoplights? Sure, they're entitled to listening to what they want, but not everyone wants to hear it. Why does it have to be so loud in the first place?
That first paragraph doesn't make any sense. Replacing the F-word with the word "screw" would bypass the censors, and I don't think you would lose any of the vulgarity you speak of. If it's not the word, but the context, then shouldn't only that particular context (like a personal attack on someone, or being sexually explicit) be the thing disallowed, and not the F-word? I'm asking why the F-word is bad, and I don't think you can come up with any good reason at all. We can discuss other subjects of vulgarity like sex or attacks some other time.
That first paragraph doesn't make any sense. Replacing the F-word with the word "screw" would bypass the censors, and I don't think you would lose any of the vulgarity you speak of. If it's not the word, but the context, then shouldn't only that particular context (like a personal attack on someone, or being sexually explicit) be the thing disallowed, and not the F-word? I'm asking why the F-word is bad, and I don't think you can come up with any good reason at all. We can discuss other subjects of vulgarity like sex or attacks some other time.
Well, since you can get banned for being disrespectful to someone, there aren't many acceptable ways to use the word "screw," either. So why would you need to?
I know you're looking for some kind of justification to say that the F-word is bad, but I'm going to give you the answer you asked not to hear. It just is. That's the only answer. Language evolves based on how people use it, and how others interpret it. If people use a word in a profane or vulgar manner enough, the word becomes profane or vulgar. The boy cries wolf.
I'm a passionate enemy of censorship, and I don't like the fact that language can be controlled under the "justification" that "someone might get offended," which is a transparent concept. But when it comes to the F-word on a message board, I can see why it might not be a good idea to use (I say again, who really needs to curse here?), and I respect the rules set forth by the administrator.
firegod
02-04-06, 11:01 PM
I'll give you a good reason: Because it is quite possibly the most descriptive word in the English language. Tons of people simply think it sounds better in many situations than other words. Here are just a few ways you could use the F-word:
"F, I stubbed my toe!"
"Yeah; that's pretty Fed up."
"How the F should I know?"
"F you!" Granted, an attack. Why not ban attacks only, and not "F you!"?
"He's pretty cute; I'd love to F him" Sexual, but not anymore sexually descriptive than saying, "I'd like to have sexual intercourse with him."
"Fing A!" or "That's Fing awesome!" Certainly no negativity there, in almost everyone's opinion.
There are plenty of other different ways to use that word, but you get the idea. Let me address your explanation. It just is. It's the way we were taught, right? Isn't it that teaching and not the intent of most people using the word that is at fault? Isn't it an adjustment to the way many people think of words that is needed here, and not a ban on a word? "It just is" is just as good an explanation as to why it is ok to think negatively about homosexuality, or a race, or religion, political party, etc., and it is never a good justification to ban something. In addition, I'm at a loss as to what kind of harm could be caused by the usage of the F word. Do you think children's heads will explode? What horrible damage will it cause?
Let me put it this way: Explain to me why saying, "He beat him to a pulp." is more appropriate than saying, "He Fed him up." Or how about, "They had sex." and "they Fed." Is the latter actually more vulgar than the former or is it just that society has inexplicably trained itself to believe that the F word is bad? If this phenomenon happens to a word that has been accepted as appropriate for centuries, do we then ban that word? Why? Because some people in society are way too f***ing uptight? F***ing A, man! :)
Tacitus
02-05-06, 07:03 AM
I'm great at swearing, especially the use of the mythical 'F' word of which we speak. I've been on messageboards where it's usage is allowed and have used it myself.
It's not allowed here, and I'm guessing one of the reasons is to avoid MoFo being invaded by some of the half-witted flamers who pollute the internet. I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm also guessing that another reason is out of respect to those who still find it's usage overtly vulgar. Again, I don't have the slightest problem with that and I'll tell you why.
We're a broad church here. The very nature of Film will bring together a broad spectrum of people, much more so than, say, a messageboard about basket-weaving or pro-celebrity shoplifting. If it's deemed offensive on this, a privately run site, then that's good enough for me. It's down to that 'respect' thing again.
Let's say I was a nudist who loved nothing better than prancing around my house, dangling my bits all over the place. If I went to a dinner party I'd wear clothes (unless it was a specifically themed nudie party, natch) out of respect for those poor souls whose blood pressure would be a-risin'. Hot soup spillage on dangly bits might also be a factor, but I can't for the life of me think of how to use that particular analogy in relation to MoFo.
As for the argument that it's 'quite possibly the most descriptive word in the English language'. It's not.
It's just one of the easiest to think of - a sort of one size fits all descriptive tool for the Beat(en) Generation. Anything which forces us to think slightly harder about verb and noun use is a good thing in written conversation. No?
Let me put it this way: Explain to me why saying, "He beat him to a pulp." is more appropriate than saying, "He Fed him up." Or how about, "They had sex." and "they Fed."
Yikes! So my pronouncement that after Christmas I was looking particularly well fed is offensive to people? :D
Tatty, you are so level headed. :kiss:
I want the pictures to prove you walk around in the nude :randy: just pm them to me sweetie ;D
Tacitus
02-05-06, 08:14 AM
I want the pictures to prove you walk around in the nude :randy: just pm them to me sweetie ;D
Crikey! It's much too cold round these parts (and indeed, round these parts) to indulge in that sort of caper. :D
Though 15 minutes ago I had just got out of the bath and was searching in vain for a towel. Thankfully I've got net curtains as the troops were just leaving Mass and marching down past my front window... ;)
Though 15 minutes ago I had just got out of the bath and was searching in vain for a towel. Thankfully I've got net curtains as the troops were just leaving Mass and marching down past my front window... ;)
Tease :yup: ;D
Tacitus
02-05-06, 08:30 AM
Tease :yup: ;D
Nope, pragmatist. :laugh:
firegod
02-05-06, 08:47 AM
I certainly refrain from using that sort of language in many situations, but I wish more people would lighten up and other people (myself included to a certain extent) would stop giving in to those who won't. This would be such a nicer place to live if people wouldn't invent problems with things like language, sex, race, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But oh well; I think I'm kind of in dreamland over here, wishing for sensible things like that.
Tacitus
02-05-06, 09:21 AM
I certainly refrain from using that sort of language in many situations, but I wish more people would lighten up and other people (myself included to a certain extent) would stop giving in to those who won't. This would be such a nicer place to live if people wouldn't invent problems with things like language, sex, race, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But oh well; I think I'm kind of in dreamland over here, wishing for sensible things like that.
That'll probably take at least another decade. Until then just think of all the other fabulous words you can use. :D
Personally I wouldn't lump language in with sex or race issues, the near-annihilation of, say, the Irish language in the 19th Century, yes, but not in the terms which I think you're referring to. Saying "Don't use the F word" isn't really in the same ballpark.
Offensive behavior annoys me, language which most people would consider to be offensive usually goes hand in glove with it. For instance, if you started swearing at me I wouldn't necessarily take offence at the language, but at the intent behind it. Placing a ban on certain words on a forum like this won't cut that behavior out totally but it'll take the sting out of people who merely want to use 'shocking' words to shock.
I think I almost understood my last paragraph, my Sunday brain's in gear today. :)
adidasss
02-05-06, 10:37 AM
Crikey! It's much too cold round these parts (and indeed, round these parts) to indulge in that sort of caper. :D
Though 15 minutes ago I had just got out of the bath and was searching in vain for a towel. Thankfully I've got net curtains as the troops were just leaving Mass and marching down past my front window... ;)
just a liiiiiiiitlle too much information......
oh, and if i may jump in here, i think there's a difference between using the odd f-word and being completely vulgar, i don't think that saying " this film was f-ing horrible" or " it was pure sh*t" is vulgar, but saying " i f-ed someone last night" is.......there's a difference....and my point is that it shouldn't be frowned upon when you use the odd curse word in the first sense.
this site is populated in most part by people over 20, just that fact and the fact that the vast majority of conversations about film and what not on this site tend to be rather intelectual , forces members to act more maturely ( at least that's the case with me ) so they reffrain from using cuss words simply because it makes you look less intelligent and immature and it makes the more respected members of this site ignore your opinion.
also, i don't see what the difference between leaving the f-word censored and leaving it uncensored is, in my opinion , by leaving it censored, you're attracting more attention to it because those asterixs really stand out. besides, i don't know how many people here actually skip over the censored word, i think the majority of people here read it the way the poster intended it to be read. of course, there might be one or two people who do skip it, so the censorhip benefits them.
my two cents anyway...
ash_is_the_gal
02-05-06, 12:35 PM
I wish more people would lighten up and other people (myself included to a certain extent) would stop giving in to those who won't. This would be such a nicer place to live if people wouldn't invent problems with things like language, sex, race
the reason we 'give in to those who won't lighten up' myself included, is because its just not that big of a deal...why is it such a big deal to you? who CARES? seriously...we are here to talk about FILMS and everyone gets their points across just fine. for whatever reason Yoda chooses not to have language on this board (for the reasons you've claimed, and others) then just LET IT BE, because it aint that big of a deal, in my opinion, it doesn't refrain anyone from talking about WHAT they want to talk about. or just open your own damn message board... :)
Curse words are arbitrary, yes, but that doesn't mean they should be treated like any other word. It's important to have words that not only convey ideas and emotions, but different degrees of those ideas and emotions. The "F-word" is meant to convey a very strong degree of emphasis or intensity, just as "hate" is meant to convey a stronger emotion than "dislike."
It's not the word itself, but the idea it conveys, that people object to. It is a forceful, almost confrontational word. And that's good; occasionally, we need forceful, confrontational words. But if we use them in a context that doesn't call for that level of intensity, we either a) offend someone or b) slightly rob the word of its intensity. Neither is good.
To say that swear words should be like any other word is not unlike saying that "I don't think that's a good idea" and "what the hell are you thinking?" should be met with the same reaction. The former is a gentle correction; the latter, an inflammatory criticism. Would you react to these two statements the same way?
Now, beyond whether or not swear words should be offensive, there's a broader question here: should they be used all that often, even if it were agreed upon that they are not vulgar or offensive? I say no, if only because it robs them of the aforementioned intensity, and at that point they have little reason for existing.
If someone is always saying how much they "love" trivial things, like ice cream, or a shirt, or whatever, how do we know when they really love something? Similarly, if someone's dropping the F-bomb every other sentence, how do we know how strongly they feel about what they're saying? How can we, when they choose to use the strongest possible word to describe and discuss trivial things?
Transcending swear words can seem enlightened at first, but I think it's quite the opposite. If someone says "that person made me feel hurt and angry," it tells us a lot more about what they think and feel than someone who says "f**k the f**king f**ker." Overly used swear words rob sentences of their nuances and subtleties, which breeds misunderstanding.
I think it's perfectly sensible to have certain words which convey stronger emotions than others. And it stands to reason that those words can only convey those emotions if they're not bandied about in situations where that level of emotion doesn't apply. Using the words out of context robs them of their emphasis. It'd be like bolding every word in a sentence. None of them stand out, leaving us with fewer options when we do want a word to stand out.
adidasss
02-05-06, 02:45 PM
Curse words are arbitrary, yes, but that doesn't mean they should be treated like any other word. It's important to have words that not only convey ideas and emotions, but different degrees of those ideas and emotions. The "F-word" is meant to convey a very strong degree of emphasis or intensity, just as "hate" is meant to convey a stronger emotion than "dislike."
It's not the word itself, but the idea it conveys, that people object to. It is a forceful, almost confrontational word. And that's good; occasionally, we need forceful, confrontational words. But if we use them in a context that doesn't call for that level of intensity, we either a) offend someone or b) slightly rob the word of its intensity. Neither is good.
To say that swear words should be like any other word is not unlike saying that "I don't think that's a good idea" and "what the hell are you thinking?" should be met with the same reaction. The former is a gentle correction; the latter, an inflammatory criticism. Would you react to these two statements the same way?
Now, beyond whether or not swear words should be offensive, there's a broader question here: should they be used all that often, even if it were agreed upon that they are not vulgar or offensive? I say no, if only because it robs them of the aforementioned intensity, and at that point they have little reason for existing.
If someone is always saying how much they "love" trivial things, like ice cream, or a shirt, or whatever, how do we know when they really love something? Similarly, if someone's dropping the F-bomb every other sentence, how do we know how strongly they feel about what they're saying? How can we, when they choose to use the strongest possible word to describe and discuss trivial things?
Transcending swear words can seem enlightened at first, but I think it's quite the opposite. If someone says "that person made me feel hurt and angry," it tells us a lot more about what they think and feel than someone who says "f**k the f**king f**ker." Overly used swear words rob sentences of their nuances and subtleties, which breeds misunderstanding.
I think it's perfectly sensible to have certain words which convey stronger emotions than others. And it stands to reason that those words can only convey those emotions if they're not bandied about in situations where that level of emotion doesn't apply. Using the words out of context robs them of their emphasis. It'd be like bolding every word in a sentence. None of them stand out, leaving us with fewer options when we do want a word to stand out.
i don't think anyone can disagree with not using curse words too often, it does take away their effect, but there seems to be an atmosphere on this site where any use of a curse word is frowned upon. someone said that you wouldn't use curse words when you got to a meeting or something , but i don't think that analogy applies for an internet forum. this is supposed to be a place where people come to mingle and talk in an informal manner, a place to make friends not to do buisness.
like i said earlier, i think that people are dicouraged to use swear words on this site not so much because of the censorship, but because they want to be on par with the other participants of the debate, and this site doesn't exactly attract immature kiddies who have nothing much to say but "yo dog, that f-ing movie iz tight!" or " it sucks b***s"
you haven't adressed the issue of the difference between a curse word when it's left censored and when the censorship is avoided. this is of course purely for the sake of the conversation, i have no problem with it anymore, but i would like to hear the pro's and con's.....personally, i wont use the curse word if i have to leave it censored, there's really no point in using them if people are touchy about it....on other sites i use them without thinking about it twice....i've seen people on this site use them but leave them censored, i really wouldn't bother....
i've grown to like or at least respect the rigorous inforcment of censorhip on this site simply because it forces me to express myself in a different way than i usually would, and i like a bit of diversity. i have different forums for different aspects of my personality, this one satisfies my more serious side....
SamsoniteDelilah
02-05-06, 04:02 PM
I certainly refrain from using that sort of language in many situations, but I wish more people would lighten up and other people (myself included to a certain extent) would stop giving in to those who won't. This would be such a nicer place to live if people wouldn't invent problems with things like language, sex, race, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But oh well; I think I'm kind of in dreamland over here, wishing for sensible things like that.
I respectfully disagree that this is something to lighten up about, as well as disagree with the notion that your stance on language is sensible. The main reasons why have been given already, by Tacitus, where he pointed out that cursing is easy, and not particularly descriptive. You actually supported that idea, with your illustration of all the ways it can be used, which proves it has little specific meaning of its own, apart from a term to convey extremity of emotion. As Yoda pointed out, in situations where "anything goes", the tendency is for people to gravitate to the extreme, in an effort to out-shout those who disagree. It degenerates the level of conversation from valid and supported pionts to a contest of strength of language.
Ash has floated the notion that it's unnecessary in this setting to have actual rules about language. In my experience (on this board, another board with a similar demographic census and in a chatroom where most people are about 10 years older) nothing could be further from the truth. Adults get lazy about communication, just the same way that kids do. Having the rules in place is what sets the standard for the community. Without the rule, it's down to the individual to set their own, and the tendency is to slide to the level of the lowest common denominator - not just in language, but in intellectual level and in respectful interaction.
The word filters are the first line of defense (or offense, if you see it so) in staving off the use of undesirable words. Adi said why: most people would rather find another word than see their writing (especially their most forceful word choices) turn into pretty little flowers. :p
Lastly: the notion that no offense should be taken by the words themselves. What a waste that would be. Words convey our thoughts and feelings to each other. We need words that are shocking, because sometimes, life is shocking. We lose the ability to communicate things clearly when we strip words of their meanings. Of course their meanings are derived from agreed-upon social norms, sort of arbitrarily, but that is what makes them valuable in a community.
judas69
05-13-06, 01:10 AM
Are sexy avatars cause for a banning?
Are sexy avatars cause for a banning?
Depends on how sexy, I suppose. Drop me an email (http://www.movieforums.com/community/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=1) on specifics and I'll let you know.
judas69
05-13-06, 02:14 AM
It's no big deal .. just curious, as some boards are more strict than others.
Sir Toose
06-06-06, 08:25 PM
Sorry to have missed this one.
I love the censorship debates. Implying that one has rights on a privately owned site is akin to saying that one can go in to someone elses house and scrawl whatever they wish in marker on the refrigerator and the removal of such is censorship.
It's retarded.
one can go in to someone elses house and scrawl whatever they wish in marker on the refrigerator
Are you saying that I cannot do this? Oh crap I knew I should have disguised my handwriting when I snuck into my ex-wifes house a few years ago and wrote "Go to hell" on her (uh my)fridge.
adidasss
06-06-06, 11:20 PM
Sorry to have missed this one.
I love the censorship debates. Implying that one has rights on a privately owned site is akin to saying that one can go in to someone elses house and scrawl whatever they wish in marker on the refrigerator and the removal of such is censorship.
It's retarded.
Toose, you hit the nail on the head yet again.
*Purandara88 used a contentious phrase. Yoda deleted the post. The phrase was repeated. The drama unfolds ;)*
*start of original debate* (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=11978&page=10&pp=20)
adidasss
06-26-06, 08:18 PM
Toose, you hit the nail on the head yet again.
well now....this is interesting...didn't know mods had the right to edit perfectly normal posts.....kinda pisses me off in fact....
I always knew Toose having mod-status was a mistake ;). Especially now he's only here when the zoo-keepers let him out.
Sign your petition to the pointy-eared one i guess Ad. (I always thought that was a bit of a mellow response from you ;))
well now....this is interesting...didn't know mods had the right to edit perfectly normal posts.....kinda pisses me off in fact....
I don't recall what the post said before, but I suppose it's more likely than not that it was a normal, unobjectionable post. If so, I owe you an apology. I hope you can take me at my word when I say that I did not see Toose's edit until now. Assuming your post contained nothing out of line, it should not have been edited. If anything like this happens again, please tell me right away, and I'll deal with it.
That said, I would like to temper things a bit by pointing out that the "Edited by" message is blatantly obvious and what he wrote was so goofy that the entire thing, especially knowing Toose, was probably in jest, and that I doubt anyone actually mistook the words for your own, for both of these reasons.
Still, as I said, your gripe is legitimate. I'm sorry it happened, and I wish I'd noticed it before. I like my mods and consider them all very loyal, wise individuals, but no one's perfect, and I think Toose's wry sense of humor might've overwhelmed his better judgement in this particular instance. My apologies.
adidasss
06-27-06, 02:19 AM
I don't recall what the post said before, but I suppose it's more likely than not that it was a normal, unobjectionable post. If so, I owe you an apology. I hope you can take me at my word when I say that I did not see Toose's edit until now. Assuming your post contained nothing out of line, it should not have been edited. If anything like this happens again, please tell me right away, and I'll deal with it.
That said, I would like to temper things a bit by pointing out that the "Edited by" message is blatantly obvious and what he wrote was so goofy that the entire thing, especially knowing Toose, was probably in jest, and that I doubt anyone actually mistook the words for your own, for both of these reasons.
Still, as I said, your gripe is legitimate. I'm sorry it happened, and I wish I'd noticed it before. I like my mods and consider them all very loyal, wise individuals, but no one's perfect, and I think Toose's wry sense of humor might've overwhelmed his better judgement in this particular instance. My apologies.
thanks for the apology, but you shouldn't be the one apologizing....in any case, it's no big deal....i obviously expressed annoyance with his more-than-unoriginal insight in a thread that has thoroughly discussed the issue ...with a couple of months of delay....and i was slightly ticked off to see the edit, because even though it's pretty obvious it was edited, and my post wasn't very importaint, it was still mine, it didn't contain any personal insults or cuss words and i hate it when someone messes with me in that way....more than anything because i hate not having complete control over what i say....terribly frustrating....
i would have found it more humorous if i actually knew the person in question....
TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck_
09-07-11, 04:07 PM
Toose is right though- not in the edit but in his analogy. Filmmakers can make any film they want to. That does not make the film inherently worthy (especially if the film is illegal). And anybody who wants to see this film can do so, if they make enough effort. However when you're intending your film to be seen by the public, there's different rules.
For example, at home Billy may walk around naked. Anybody who doesn't mind Billy turning up to their house naked can tell him. However this does not mean that Billy can walk down the street naked and nobody has any right to tell him to put some clothes on.
planet news
09-08-11, 01:51 AM
Four more years...
matt72582
08-17-18, 12:34 PM
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censorship-alex-jones-710497/
This is really good......
By Matt Taibbi
Silicon Valley is changing its mind about censorship.
Two weeks ago, we learned about a new campaign against “inauthentic” content (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censor-alex-jones-705766/), conducted by Facebook in consultation with Congress and the secretive think tank Atlantic Council — whose board includes an array of ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials — in the name of cracking down on alleged Russian disinformation efforts.* As part of the bizarre alliance of Internet news distributors and quasi-government censors, the social network zapped 32 accounts and pages, including an ad for a real “No Unite the Right 2” (https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/01/facebook-organizers-protest-no-unite-the-right-2/) anti-racist counter-rally in D.C. this past weekend. (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nazis-in-the-rain-710404/)
“This is a real protest in Washington, D.C. It is not George Soros. It is not Russia. It is just us,” said the event’s organizers, a coalition of easily located Americans, in a statement.
Last week, we saw another flurry of censorship news. Facebook apparently suspended VenezuelaAnalysis.com (https://twitter.com/venanalysis/status/1027567443156381696?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Eios%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7100%7Ctwterm%5E3) , a site critical of U.S. policy toward Venezuela. (It was reinstated Thursday.) Twitter suspended a pair of libertarians, including @DanielLMcAdams (https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow/status/1027914969185243136) of the Ron Paul Institute and @ScottHortonShow (https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow?lang=en) of Antiwar.com, for using the word “bitch” (https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/08/08/challenging-the-lords-of-the-internet/) (directed toward a man) in a silly political argument. They, too, were later re-instated.
More significantly: Google’s former head of free expression issues in Asia, Lokman Tsui, blasted the tech giant’s plan to develop a search engine that would help the Chinese government censor content.
First reported by The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2018/08/10/google-censorship-plan-is-not-right-and-stupid-says-former-google-head-of-free-expression/), the plan was called “a stupid, stupid move” by Tsui, who added: “I can’t see a way to operate Google search in China without violating widely held international human rights standards.” This came on the heels of news that the Israeli Knesset passed a second reading of a “Facebook bill,” (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180717-israel-pass-facebook-bill-which-will-authorise-deleting-content-considered-incitement/) authorizing courts to delete content on security grounds.
Few Americans heard these stories, because the big “censorship” news last week surrounded the widely hated Alex Jones. After surviving halting actions by Facebook and YouTube the week before, the screeching InfoWars lunatic was hit decisively, removed from Apple, Facebook, Google and Spotify (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/infowars-alex-jones-apple-facebook-spotify.html).
Jones is the media equivalent of a trench-coated stalker who jumps out from from behind a mailbox and starts whacking it in an intersection. His “speech” is on that level: less an idea than a gross physical provocation. InfoWars defines everything reporters are taught not to do.
Were I Alex Jones, I would think Alex Jones was a false-flag operation, cooked up to discredit the idea of a free press.
Moreover, Jones probably does violate all of those platforms’ Terms of Service. I personally don’t believe his Sandy Hook rants — in which he accused grieving parents of being actors (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html) in an anti-gun conspiracy — are protected speech, at least not according to current libel and defamation law. Even some conservative speech activists seem to agree (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/opinion/alex-jones-infowars-facebook.html).
And yet: I didn’t celebrate when Jones was banned. Collectively, all these stories represent a revolutionary moment in media. Jones is an incidental player in a much larger narrative.
Both the Jones situation and the Facebook-Atlantic Council deletions seem an effort to fulfill a request made last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last October (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/extremist-content-and-russian-disinformation-online-working-with-tech-to-find-solutions), Facebook, Google and Twitter were asked by Hawaii Senator Mazie Hizono to draw up a “mission statement” to “prevent the foment of discord (https://www.globalresearch.ca/former-fbi-agent-says-tech-companies-must-silence-sources-of-rebellion/5616334).”
Companies like Facebook might have balked before. They have long taken a position that’s very Star Trek, very Prime-Directive: We do not interfere. Mark Zuckerberg, as late as 2016, was saying, “editing content… that’s not us (https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-on-facebook-being-a-media-company-2016-8).”
Part of this reluctance was probably ideological, but the main thing was the sheer logistical quandary of monitoring published content on the scale of a firm like Facebook. The company now has 2.23 billion (https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/facebook-market-cap-120-billion-user-growth-slow-1202886792/) users, and experts estimate that’s more than a billion new entries to monitor daily.
Although it might have seemed minor, undertaking what Facebook did prior to 2016 — keeping porn and beheading videos out of your news feed — was an extraordinarily involved technical process.
This was underscored by fiascoes like the “Napalm Girl” incident (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-reinstates-napalm-girl-photo) in 2016, when the firm deleted a picture of Kim Phúc, the nine-year-old Vietnamese girl photographed running from napalm in 1972. The iconic picture helped reverse global opinion about the Vietnam War.
Facebook ultimately put the photo back up after being ripped for “abusing its power.” This was absurd: The photo had been flagged by mostly automated processes, designed to keep naked pictures of pre-teens off the site.
As a former Facebook exec tells Rolling Stone: “Knowing that ‘Napalm Girl’ is one of the icons of international journalism isn’t part of the ****ing algo.”
It would seem like madness to ask companies to expand that vast automated process to make far more difficult intellectual distinctions about journalistic quality. But that has happened.
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/taibbi-napalm-girl.jpg?w=1024South Vietnamese forces follow behind terrified children, including 9-year-old Kim Phuc, center, as they run down Route 1 near Trang Bang after an aerial napalm attack on suspected Viet Cong hiding places. Photo credit: Nick Ut/AP/Rex Shutterstock
After Trump’s shocking win in 2016, everyone turned to Facebook and Google to fix “fake news.” But nobody had a coherent definition of what constitutes it.
Many on the left lamented the Wikileaks releases of Democratic Party emails, but those documents were real news, and the complaint there was more about the motives of sources, and editorial emphasis, rather than accuracy.
When Google announced (https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-improvements-search/) it was tightening its algorithm to push “more authoritative content” last April, it defined “fake news” as “…blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information.”
Soviet-era author Isaac Babel once said the only right Stalin had taken away was “writing badly (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3001035?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).” He was joking. Google was apparently serious about targeting “low quality.” What exactly does that mean?
It isn’t clear, but within short order, a whole range of alternative sites (from Alternet (https://www.alternet.org/media/editorial-googles-threat-democracy-hits-alternet-hard) to Truthdig (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/) to the World Socialist Website (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/02/pers-a02.html)) started complaining about significant drops in traffic, apparently thanks to changed search processes.
Within a year, Google bragged (http://www.alphr.com/google/1009171/youtube-removes-8-million-videos) that it had deleted 8 million videos from YouTube. A full 6.7 million videos were caught by machines, 1.1 million by YouTube’s own “trusted flaggers” (we’re pre-writing the lexicon of the next dystopian novels), and 400,000 by “normal users.”
Subsequently, we heard that Facebook was partnering with the Atlantic Council (https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/announcing-new-election-partnership-with-the-atlantic-council/) — which, incidentally, accepts donations from at least 25 different foreign countries (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html), including United Arab Emirates and the king of Bahrain, in addition to firms like weapons manufacturer Raytheon and my old pals at HSBC (http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2015/11/the-donors-of-atlantic-council.html) — to identify “potential abuse.”
Now that we’ve opened the door for ordinary users, politicians, ex-security-state creeps, foreign governments and companies like Raytheon to influence the removal of content, the future is obvious: an endless merry-go-round of political tattling, in which each tribe will push for bans of political enemies.
In about 10 minutes, someone will start arguing that Alex Jones is not so different from, say, millennial conservative Ben Shapiro, and demand his removal. That will be followed by calls from furious conservatives to wipe out the Torch Network (https://torchantifa.org) or Anti-Fascist News (https://antifascistnews.net/tag/antifa/), with Jacobin on the way.
We’ve already seen Facebook overcompensate (https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006) when faced with complaints of anti-conservative bias. Assuming this continues, “community standards (https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/announcing-new-election-partnership-with-the-atlantic-council/)” will turn into a ceaseless parody of Cold War spy trades: one of ours for one of yours.
This is the nuance people are missing. It’s not that people like Jones shouldn’t be punished; it’s the means of punishment that has changed radically.
For more than half a century, we had an effective, if slow, litigation-based remedy for speech violations. The standards laid out in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39) were designed to protect legitimate reporting while directly remunerating people harmed by bad speech. Sooner or later, people like Alex Jones would always crash under crippling settlements. Meanwhile, young reporters learned to steer clear of libel and defamation. Knowing exactly what we could and could not get away with empowered us to do our jobs, confident that the law had our backs.
If the line of defense had not been a judge and jury but a giant transnational corporation working with the state, journalists taking on banks or tech companies or the wrong politicians would have been playing intellectual Russian roulette. In my own career, I’d have thought twice before taking on a company like Goldman Sachs. Any reporter would.
Now the line is gone. Depending on the platform, one can be banned for “glorifying violence (https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-bans-alex-jones-pages-glorifying-violence-dehumanizing-language-1058320),” “sowing division (https://www.multichannel.com/news/sen-warner-facebook-page-deletions-show-ongoing-election-meddling-threat),” “hateful conduct (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy)” or even “low quality (https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-improvements-search/),” with those terms defined by nameless, unaccountable executives, working with God Knows Whom.
The platforms will win popular support for removals by deleting jackasses like Jones. Meanwhile, the more dangerous censorship will go on in the margins with fringe opposition sites — and in the minds of reporters and editors, who will unconsciously start retreating from wherever their idea of the line is.
The most ominous development involves countries asking for direct cleansing of opposition movements, a la China’s search engine, or Tel Aviv’s demands that Facebook and Google delete pages belonging to Palestinian activists. (This happened: Israel’s justice minister said last year (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/) that Facebook granted 95 percent of such requests.)
Google and Facebook have long wrestled with the question of how to operate in politically repressive markets — Google launched a censored Chinese search engine in 2006 (https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html), before changing its mind in 2010 (https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html) — but it seems we’re seeing a kind of mass surrender on that front.
The apparent efforts to comply with government requests to help “prevent the foment of discord” suggest the platforms are moving toward a similar surrender even in the United States. The duopolistic firms seem anxious to stay out of headlines, protect share prices and placate people like Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who just said deleting Jones was only a “good first step (https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026577373620301824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1026577373620301824&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthepoliticalinsider.com%2Fchris-murphy-infowars%2F).”
Americans are not freaking out about this because most of us have lost the ability to distinguish between general principles and political outcomes. So long as the “right” people are being zapped, no one cares.
But we should care. Censorship is one of modern man’s great temptations. Giving in to it hasn’t provided many happy stories.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.