The issue of censorship

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.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

Hey Fire

Who said there was no censorship?







^^^censorship-intimating silence here^^^

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over 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...

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.

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.

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

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.

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.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Well that young man has never been to China

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

That is such a class way of putting it

"Freedom of speech" I agree with "Respecting Differing Opinions" I agree with abusing, insulting people, i do not agree with

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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.

What's this? New rules? Already?

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

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.

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!

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.

Absolutely, and as I said in my first message, I think you do a very good job.

The forums over on Rotten Tomatoes 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.


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.