Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

On free speech in forums

<< < (9/9)

Paul Keith:
It's not just misleading mouser, it's using flawed evidence.

However I do think it's not out of the realm for such an effect to take place.

By now, everyone pretty much knows what softpedia is or what techcrunch is or expects decent software to get 4 stars and would be surprised if something gets 3.

Also most decent Amazon bestsellers can have the polarity that while there are still lots of good reviews, often times having lots of 1 star reviews being near equal enough is what provides the controversy and flames the curiosity on whether I do decide to get the book or not.

In IMDB, I go even one step further. I often jump to two sections. Forums and Hated It sections. Only after all that do I even register the Best section or any higher than 1 star review.

Generally software avoids this issue but when I'm skimming for reviews of any paid product, I tend to always seek a bad review. The reason being that when review numbers stack up: bad reviews that are honest and discuss the pros and cons of a product trumps good reviews that do the same because you expect them to mix their reviews with your unfounded worries, criticisms and questions.

Yes, it might seem strange that I would seek bad if not the lowest rated reviews first but that's where reputation mechanics alleviate the issue.

Amazon for example made me start reading some 3 star reviews when they added a layer of "most helpful favorable review" and "most helpful critical review". The latter especially.

Without that, I would have been back clicking on 1 star reviews of books and reading them.

Also my personal circumstances basically force me to adapt to this. (I don't have thousands of cash to spend on books. 20 US$ is equivalent to 1k or approximately 933.203 Philippines Pesos. If I can't find a torrent for that book and it may fit the paradigm of a book that may help leapfrog my knowledge and give me answers to my dilemmas, I will always encourage myself to filter down books down to it's very criticism until the criticisms are non-factors before I will order something.)

J-Mac:
This thread for some reason keeps bringing the BoingBoing "disemvoweling" method of comment moderation to mind. Though I do enjoy the articles over at BoingBoing I have never taken well to the "disemvoweling".

BTW, in case anyone is not aware of what that is, BoingBoing uses a program to literally remove all the vowels in some posts. This completely ruins things for me because I cannot help but to stare at each disemvoweled post and try to decipher it in my head; they're like cryptograms just begging to be solved! By the time I get through two or three blog posts there an hour has passed me by because of my having to decode the damn vowel-stripped posts!

Sorry for the totally inane post here...

Jim

rsherry:
FREE SPEECH:  I happen to be a Christian.  And being someone who believes in free speech because my belief is such that if I do not like what I hear, see, or read, then I turn it off, move away, or not read it any further.  I would never prevent (provided there were no threats) someone else from disagreeing with me, which some of you will after you read this.  God has given every person FREE WILL.  So, are we bigger than God that we should remove what we have been freely given, from our fellow citizens??? Along with that free will is being responsible and accountable for the choices you make; for the words you use.  If you are going to remove people's comments, then the moderator should post this at the top of the web page for all to see.  That way, I can go to some other FREE venue where I will be heard and not shut down, so to speak.  FREE.  The Internet is the last free place on this earth that anyone and everyone can speak their mind, show whatever they want, be stupid, be ignorant. etc.  Who among you is SO GREAT that you should prevent another person from speaking their mind?  Now, after saying all that, it should be clear at the top of the forum's web page, that if anyone does use profane language and any other nasty words, that they can be banned, but I think the majority of people, especially intelligent people, will try their best to abide by the rules.  This is my first post and free speech is very important to me, especially now that we are seeing so much of free speech being curbed, forbidden, and pounced upon like it is some kind of evil.  With the way our government is going these days, soon, you will not be allowed to disagree with anyone.  IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT? So, be careful about taking away from someone else, if you want to freely speak yourself.  It's a 2-way street. ;)

f0dder:
Banned for being secular or swearing a bit? Screw that :)

For a slight bit of seriousness: "free speech" is relative; there's no such thing as absolute freedom, as every action has consequences. But where is the line to be drawn? I think most people would agree that methods for child molestation isn't something we'd like to see discussed anywhere. But is removing spam posts a bad form of moderation? Is it bad to require people to reveal their affiliations if they're posting about a company or software product?

Paul Keith:
For a slight bit of seriousness: "free speech" is relative; there's no such thing as absolute freedom, as every action has consequences. But where is the line to be drawn? I think most people would agree that methods for child molestation isn't something we'd like to see discussed anywhere. But is removing spam posts a bad form of moderation? Is it bad to require people to reveal their affiliations if they're posting about a company or software product?-f0dder (November 08, 2009, 10:50 AM)
--- End quote ---

I'm no Libertarian fodder but come on, let's not insult the human race or even derail progress like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty#Philosophy

In his book, Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things.
--- End quote ---

Even the discussion of methods of child molestation prevents child molestation because it allows individuals who have these thoughts to bring them out in the open without feeling reprimanded.

It's the stereotypical "Japan's sex games reduces sex crimes" effect.

Consequences are what make absolute freedom shine. Not everyone wants it, true but it doesn't mean it's not possible.

After all that's how nature evolved.

Thus it was possible before the dominant species said it was impossible and softened freedom up to be relative and biased towards their own.

(Hey you wanted a bit of seriousness :p)

Sorry for posting it here: http://rereply.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/re-theres-no-such-thing-as-absolute-freedom-as-every-action-has-consequences-but-where-is-the-line-to-be-drawn/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page