Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The case for and against Censorship on the forum

(1/4) > >>

IainB:
I have started this thread in a constructive effort to try and pull together the discussion around aspects of censorship (of the Living Room discussions) covered in these two threads:
1. A change I've seen in the forum
2. Thoughts in remembrance of the 6 million (est.) murdered in the Holocaust

In the first, @wraith808 starts the ball rolling by giving focus with the opening post:
...and not necessarily a good one, in my experience/opinion, is the constant derailing (or dovetailing) on topics, especially in the living room area.  I've found myself doing the same.  It seems that no matter what's posted in the topic, the discussion degenerates into a general discussion of/commenting on anything that comes to mind.  It makes notifications of topics less than useful- I'm interested in the subject, not tangential conversations and posting of links to only peripherally related articles.  It makes this less a place that things can be discussed in a fruitful and rewarding way (IMO) and more of a schizophrenic melange of ideas on some bizarre stream of consciousness.  If some of these discussions took place in real life, I'd either be confused or walk away.  And it seems that more and more people that used to contribute are doing so... I'm not sure if that's the reason, or something else.
Anyone else notice this/have a problem with this?  And if so, is there anything we can do to make this less prevalent?
-wraith808 (March 15, 2012, 10:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
- and this is followed by some quite useful discussion.
 
In the second, aspects of censorship are discussed mixed-in completely off-topic with the original post, risking derailing/hijacking the original topic, but these comments give the idea some focus:
...borderline appropriate for DC...
-mouser (April 19, 2012, 11:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
I would be interested in any non-arbitrary definition you might consider for this.  It could form a basis for "Living-Room" censorship rules, where we could all know where we stand and thus what we need to conform to - i.e., the rules thus set. You would presumably (?) be the decision-taker on this.
-IainB (April 19, 2012, 05:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not censorship per-say, but focus.  If this isn't a place to discuss religion and politics, then that's just not the focus, and calling that censorship is IMO cheapening the effect of the word when used if not an outright misuse of the word.  There's a big difference between having a set of rules so that people that come to the site know what to expect and censoring posts.
-wraith808 (April 19, 2012, 06:27 PM)
--- End quote ---
- and this too is followed by some quite useful discussion.

IainB:
Just to get my ten cent's worth in:
From my comment above - useful if we wanted censorship - let's get some definition:
I would be interested in any non-arbitrary definition you might consider for this.  It could form a basis for "Living-Room" censorship rules, where we could all know where we stand and thus what we need to conform to - i.e., the rules thus set. You would presumably (?) be the decision-taker on this.

--- End quote ---

- and if we didn't want censorship, then I thought these commenting guidelines (following) look like they could be of use and seem to be based on a pretty reasonable laissez-faire philosophy: (They are copied from PJ Media's comments section)
      PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
   1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary
       quote or is relevant to the comment.
   2. Stay on topic.
   3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
   4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
   5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
   
--- End quote ---

IainB:
A suggestion:
How about members only section, so that politics, history, religion threads don't show up in DC public feed?
-mahesh2k (April 19, 2012, 12:01 PM)
--- End quote ---

IainB:
And again: (my emphasis)
This is one of those cases where we might be able to use one more category, Other Discussions etc. There's value in getting this crew's opinions about any topic that isn't pure trolling, because y'all put more work into your posts than almost any other forum I've seen. Given our efforts to discuss the various censorship problems, it WOULD bother me (open mouth, insert foot moment coming up), "Oh, it's fine to refuse all censorship, until it hits YOUR pet topic, THEN it's "not appropriate".
That's precisely the profound fundamental problem with censorship - it starts with the edge cases of "not appropriate" and then according to people's agendas, slowly scope-creeps its way into people getting arrested for tweets.
-TaoPhoenix (April 19, 2012, 12:04 PM)
--- End quote ---

IainB:
This was the idea I had originally meant to insert here:
...I like to view things on an slider scale. Per Renegade, if he thinks he's become too loud on those issues, and wants to slow down a little, then great! Per Wraith Part1, presuming that enough of the social discussions are indeed in Living Room, then someone who just wants to talk about software ... shouldn't be looking at the Living Room. They should ... wait for it ... Focus on the other *twelve* sections! Or, if they *still* want to go to the Living Room but yet not see these hot topics, then there's that subdivision thing, they shouldn't go the Soapbox Nook. "Don't go to the Soapbox Room and then complain that people are talking politics!"

We trust Mouser overall, but that Focus theme is sadly the legendary wedge used by other forces with agendas to begin censorship plans. "Let's keep Focus, let's keep it Family Friendly, let's keep it Pleasant." The best answer in my view is to make the wide-topic area less visible if we like, such as not in the public feed, or even on the "recent posts" down at the bottom, but still freely available.
-TaoPhoenix (April 20, 2012, 02:43 AM)
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page