Censorship-- Part 2
My previous article entitled "Censorship-- Should We?" sparked a number of thoughtful posts about how (and indeed whether) our owner/manager group at BTM should censor "offensive" content/posts submitted by members. We appreciate the comments by numerous members on this issue. One commenter suggested a "trash bin" approach to hot button issues where "offensive" threads might survive in a location where they would (presumably) be viewed with disapproval even while they would not be censored and deleted entirely. This idea is worth further thought, and may offer at least a partial solution for postings that members wish to place in a "trash" category, but don't wish to eliminate completely.
On the matter of fundamental standards, however, we saw a thread develop yesterday that was filled with "f" and "s" words from a single poster. This thread persuaded us that we need to define up front whether this site will allow swear words in postings, or will not allow such words. Our conclusion is that we will not allow swear words. Very simply, use of "f" and "s" words (and others of that ilk) cheapens and degrades the quality of the site. The use of swear words in public discourse is not consistent with our mission and purpose, and such words should not be utilized. We can do better than that; and we will.
Finally, we address what might best be described as the "troublemaker" problem-- people who come to the site to fulfill personal agendas or otherwise draw unwarranted attention to themselves through provocative or antagonistic postings. Already we are seeing this behavior from a small (but vocal) number of individuals. These are not "trolls" per se-- rather they are people who claim to be part of the freedom movement, and who perceive that BreakTheMatrix should be open for their "free speech" irrespective of the wishes of others-- specifically the site owners and managers. To these individuals, we simply say they are in the wrong place, and they need to go elsewhere. We will not allow the high quality of our membership group and site discourse to be compromised by a few disgruntled individuals.
- Rick Williams's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1771 reads
In discussion with a friend of mine, he suggested that if the "Trash" area is used, could it be private so as to not be seen by non members or Googled? I haven't got him to join yet, but I'm trying.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
the optimist... who cannot love this guy!?
We know from some of the other internet forums and Blogs, that an excellent website can be reduced to a withering, exchange of visceral comments and stories by a relatively small number of verbose negative people. Doing something to prevent this is essential! But how do you keep it “real” without censorship? This is an incredibly tough question. Here are some possible ideas of how to do this based on my observations of other web sites.
1. Let the people "know"
Make sure to post some minimal awareness information about; internet trolls, agenda hijackers, professional con artists (i.e. "send me money"), etc.
2. Let the people agree to a simple "Code of Ethics" (prior to posting)
This will set the minimum standards by which others can rate each contribution. Keep it very short, simple and basic.
3. Let the people "monitor" and suggest ratings
Things such as up/down flags, ratings or labels for repeat offenders, feedback loops for the authors, suggestions for removal, flags for miscategorized topics, etc.
5. Let the people suggest changes (like you are doing with this thread)
Adapt as necessary, to keep the vision of the BTM site relevant.
These (along with some active management) may be adequate for the near future. It is likely that sincere interest brought most of your initial members to the BTM site and therefore most offenses will be minor (agenda hijacking, verbose issue focus, etc). However, if BTM succeeds in its vision of revealing hidden truths, then it will inevitably be targeted by the hostile people that do not want the facts to be known. Expect professional attacks in the future that will not be easily deterred.
I appreciate the fact that there is open and honest communication with the management of this site. It feels more like a lateral management entity rather than all top down. We have a say in what happens here and we are encouraged to speak up with ideas, comments and votes.
Now that is a great accomplishment!
Wind_Dancer
Houston TX
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." ~~From Revolution, a Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul
These are useful ideas from taktic on the "censorship" issue. I also agree with taktic that the censorship issue is not nearly as difficult today as it will be in the future when our community is 50,000 or 500,000 members strong, rather than the core group we are now. With a few isolated exceptions, early members will not prove to be the "troublemakers" or the people who act with an agenda to damage our mission, and the truly serious challenges involving genuine adversaries to our mission and message are yet to come. But we're anticipating such things as best we can, and I'm highly confident that the strong values and philosophies of the freedom movement will carry BreakTheMatrix through whatever momentary upsets and difficulties we might encounter along the way. Every reason to be optimistic and hopeful. R
but cursing in public does much more than that. It starts fights in bars, and it even gets people killed.
I am very much in favor of engaging the toughest issues in American public life; in fact, it's been a personal mission of mine for years. But as many others have said, cursing indicates limited intellect, or limited character; in any case it indicates the kind of selfishness seen in infants, or the kind of mental vacuity seen in the insane.
The mission of BTM is too important -- and the condition of our Constitutional Republic too imperiled -- to allow one person with emotional problems to drag the effort down in the eyes of those who might have joined us, had we acted like sane adults.
A very good decision by management.
that people who swear have a limited vocabulary. This has stuck with me and subsequently caused me to not take people who fill their speech with expletives, seriously. Truth doesn't need expletives. Excellent decision Rick!
You don't take people seriously just because they cuss? Really?
Well, that's a shame because I'm sure there are people who might use a cuss word every now and again that you may have something to learn from.
Maybe you should get to know the person first before not even taking them seriously?
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
There are seven words you should never say - thirteen, if you are a sailor.
I'm kinda sorry I missed out on the big censorship debate yesterday - couldn't even find it in Google cache.
Usually I only swear at things and talk to people - with the occasional exception. Or when driving.
I wonder if we can say "frak" - from Battlestar Galactica
or "frill" - from Farscape?
I think the Tyranny of the group vs. the individual is well documented.
It only takes two factors. These are:
1. A group
B. An individual
Establishing some sort of community group to decide what content is acceptable or not is an idea that I'm not in favor of, because I think it will lead to group thinking and this will threaten the individual.
However, IMHO NLAA BSTIAFF ISA, I wouldn't object to a code of conduct being posted on the home page. Something like,
-No cussing or cursing
-No spitting
- No Fisticuffs
And then perhaps a list of penalties, fines and imprisonment
For example:
First offense for cursing -- lose posting and commenting priveleges for a day
all the way down to... ninth offense -- public flogging,
and so on and so forth
q.e.d.
Your humor is appreciated here. I also must agree with your statement about group think. I posted this wonderful article about The Wisdom of the Crowd to help people see that we are all a minority opinion here, I hope we don't treat each other the way we are treated by the majority out there. I shall defend my fellow BTM minority even if it makes me unpopular and even if I do not agree as long as they are sincere in their beliefs and opinions no matter how wrong I think they are.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
in the minority
by the way someone told me that P's and Q's stand for Pints and Quarts and come from old English pubs
and yes as you said the expression basically means, mind your manners and behave
In a bar that makes sense... don't spill your pints and quarts. Somehow I don't think that was what my mother meant when she used it on us. Lol, you are likely right though and my mom just adapted it to suit her.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
I don't know what the results from last nights tirade came out to, but its obviously spilled out over into here. Here is as critical analysis that I can come up with.
The First Amendment (U.S. Bill of Rights):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Censorship (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law):
Function: noun
: the institution, system, or practice of censoring —compare FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT
Freedom of Speech (Dictionary.com v1.1):
the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.
The Bill of Rights sole purpose was to protect the federal government from growing so large as to take over the rights that it preserved. It does not state that media, a business or individual people can't censor someone. The government is set-up to be there for the people by the people, it has no right to censor its constituents. Realize there is a difference. I personally don't want to hear the f word a million times in a row. If someone does that I politely ask them to stop saying it so loudly. In all honesty, it retracts from my own pursuit to happiness, and others. Thats another one of those inalienable rights we have besides life and liberty. Instead of saying f...f...f... you can say something more reasonable, that has the SAME exact meaning.
Quoting steelel11: "... If someone does that I politely ask them to stop saying it so loudly. In all honesty, it retracts from my own pursuit to happiness, and others. Thats another one of those inalienable rights we have besides life and liberty. Instead of saying f...f...f... you can say something more reasonable, that has the SAME exact meaning."
I really don't think you want to go there.
and here is the result of last night's tirade http://www.breakthematrix.com/node/8441
Hope you leave a comment, whether positive or negative about the post.
Boris in Miami
I think I agree with you
every once in a while I throw you a crumb of confusion that you may snack on it and not go hungry
my child
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Commie
Unless I'm the chairman of the board
any idea what communism is?
do you make any sense ever?
Do you ever have anything to say that has to do with the subject at hand?
Or are you just here to critique us as individuals?
How about your ability to answer a question without asking another question? Is that possible for you?
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Reading these censorship posts from members it strikes me that a possible tool to address the difficult "inflammatory posting" issues is to have a member/community Board to help define and decide these issues as we move down the road toward a much larger community. Probably premature at this point, but something to think about. R
THATS A GREAT IDEA RICK. PLEASE KNOW I WOULD LOVE TO VOLUNTEER
form of community control?
Yes but it is anonymous. Having to post names/IDs and reason for down vote would help prevent just voting someone down because you don’t like them or their idea regardless of how well the idea is presented.
Our time is NOW.
I just made a point that if some one wants to rate my comment negatively they should at least give a reason.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
what if they keep giving you the following reason: asdfasdfasfdasfdasfdasdfasdfasdfasdf
If that's the reason, hopefully management wouldn't delete the comment.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
Yeah, if that's the best they can do you definitly want that recorded.