Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society?
- This topic has 116 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I shall take it as read that you mean me in your 2 JC. Evidence for placing me in this way? None. None at all, it does'nt exist, it is a non-existent parrot. Steve.
By the way Admin, "end of story" capitalised, is a "shouted" phrase. It is intimidatory and threatening in this context, doubly so when used by a moderator. Thats my last word on the subject. If the obvious truth cannot be seen and admitted to, then what is the point?Steve.
steve colborn wrote:By the way Admin, "end of story" capitalised, is a "shouted" phrase. It is intimidatory and threatening in this context, doubly so when used by a moderator. Thats my last word on the subject. If the obvious truth cannot be seen and admitted to, then what is the point?Steve.Well you obviously know my thoughts and intentions when I'm typing better than I do, so who am I to argue with that?I've already apologised if anyone took offense, but I'll do it again..
Ok, thats put to bed for me. Sorry for harping on about. By the way, a good socialist new year to you and all socialists. Steve.
SocialistPunk wrote:I will say it again for the benefit of those who seem to deliberately ignore my words. Moderating socialist forums can be done without the use of methods of censoring genuine members. Warnings and suspensions are fine.I believe I have answered your question. I believe deleting pointless posts, disruptive posts and abusive posts to be fine (in fact, in the case of the latter it is in the general interest of both the abused and the abuser). Post deletion can prevent the contagion from spreading, as later comers may respond and re-open old wounds. Now, if the technology supported it, I'd be happy with individual posts being moved to a deletion forum, so regular users can see them go down the tube. Second best would be to edit the post to leave a place marker saying that the moderator has removed the content (as happens on comment is free), but deleting posts is fine, and is no more censorship than interrupting a disruptive member in full flow at a physical meeting. Posts are not being pre-vetted for content, nor are they edited/moderated for content, but for behaviour that disrupts the debate. As recent events have shown, we need such interventions.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Posts are not being pre=vetted for content, nor are they editted/moderated for content,Nor are they edited for spelling either.
ALB wrote:Nor are they edited for spelling either.Occasionally they are…
If posts are being pre-vetted, pre-moderated or editted for content, then all who believe in free-speech and democracy should be very worried. This is nothing more than censorship of the worst kind. There are no hard and fast guidelines for moderators, so each moderator is free to "make it up" as they go along. This only leads to claims of bias, one rule for some one for another. Is it not about time "rules" of moderation were introduced? So just as there is a code for members of the forum to follow, there is the same for moderators!If the above, ie pre-vetting etc is going on, what criteria is being used?Steve.
Posts are not being pre-vetted on this forum, in fact it's not technically possible the way the software is currently set up.Comments are immediately visible to the public.What Moderator 1's post above is referring to is correction of spelling.
admin wrote:What Moderator 1's post above is referring to is correction of spelling.I've clarified that now, Admin.Apologies for any confusion.
Hi YMSI take it you think that the censoring of posts is absolutely necessary to manage the forum?That the use of warnings and suspensions is not sufficient?Because at present on this forum, both are being used and are failing to control the situation effectively. So what next? Increase the level of censorship?That is exactly what happens with the use of censorship, if the little fails the intensity is increased.And as for the nonsense that deleting and disallowing posts is not censorship but the same as chairing a meeting etc. I have already shown that the deletion, disallowance etc can not be rescinded if proved incorrect, leaving the censored persons words point of view etc lost forever. At a meeting you can still speak your mind after the event if people are willing to listen. Also I believe if a chairperson is seen to be causing problems then the people present can over rule and remove them from that role, there and then.Instead of censoring, why not get to grips with the problem? I can see it and I know others can see it. The lack of consistent moderation. We need a guide or code of conduct for moderators.Surely it is better to deal with a problem, find out what is causing it and sort it out? Instead you and others advocate covering it up, in the hope it will go away. But it wont, it never does!The following words I find quite disturbing.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Post deletion can prevent the contagion from spreading, as later comers may respond and re-open old wounds.If others wish to do so and insist on causing trouble then they can expect warnings.I don't know about you, but I would like to be able to read what others have to say. I would like to be allowed to make my own mind up, and if I feel it warranted, add to the discussion. It is the essence of free speech and democracy.
I should be apologising for not clarifying my “stay mum” remark. Whenever a dispute such as this one breaks out it has been custom and tradition for the general membership to hold their horses on coming to any conclusion on what is the solution until they have all the information in front of them. In effect we stay mum and don’t take sides until both parties have had their say and we have ownership of the facts at Conference or ADM. Then the evidence is challenged and commented on and hopefully resulting in a possible solution. Unfortunately in this case a lack of response from the general membership can be perceived as endorsing a form of censorship. I can assure you this is not the case. However, I’m well aware that behind this present furore is the sensitive issue of what type of code of conduct is suitable and enforceable for socialist discourse on the internet? Do we use the present set up used in general by the internet community, which we find wanting? Or do we adopt the standing orders for Branches, Conference and ADM where even the chair (the moderator) can be ruled out of order by the meeting (forum)? [Also contained within the standing orders there are strict guidelines on questioning the socialist credentials of a member.] Or do we adopt a bit of both? Also there is of course the question of training moderators for such tasks. Time and time again I’ve seen (here and elsewhere) moderators lose their cool simply because of the lack appropriate guidelines and training. So there is also the question of who will moderate the moderators? And how do we ensure that any rules of governance provide the means for this to occur? And should any ruling on moderation include non-party members? If so what mechanism needs to be installed so that a poll can take place? The party is notorious for deliberating – for a long period of time – over a matter which is obviously going to impact on our decision making process and policy for the freedom of expression – especially where individuals and minorities are concerned or involved. Presently, the general membership have yet to come to terms that this particular medium for expression demands a form of goverance which would by implication involve non-party members in deciding who holds the chair. Clearly, in such a dysfunctional environment the moderators are only partially to blame when the party is failing to clear up its act by determining what particular internet etiquette is applicable and suitable for this form of medium and also party policy on freedom of expression. And we also have to remember that in this respect the EC role is limited to being a conduit for expressing concerns over aberrant behaviour by offering reminders on rules of conduct. So its pointless in appealing to the EC to intervene when its up to the party membership to confront the issues involved. Obviously I’m not in favour of laying down a strict party line on the issue of “censorship” but society being society there will be some form of censorship applicable to an accepted code of conduct and the application of general rules and norms (and this will apply even in a socialist society) but each case has to be judged on its merits or dismerits. So any party strictures would be self defeating, and besides it could imply we are in into drawing up a blueprint on the decision making process of a socialist society. Which would simply mean that we are in fact paying lip service to our understanding of democracy by projecting dogma to a future situation! No thanks. Whereas the reality is that the form of decision making, goverance, rules and norms and the code of conduct in a socialist society will differ globally. So when applying “censorship” or making a judgement the community will take into account the particular circumstances, conditions and culture appertaining to that specific community. Finally, in my opinion the subject of this thread is on the wrong page and the whole discussion needs to shifted to its appropriate location under the Moderation Comments. Hope this helps in moving the direction of this thread onto a more balanced discussion on the question of rules of conduct.
For some reason I'm unable to break up my previous post into paragraphs.NOTE ADDED BY ADMIN: I've done it for you.
At last! A party member who raises some good points regarding this issue. Good to see some party members can see there are problems with moderation on the forums.Thank you Brian.Like I said previously, it is early days for the party regarding this form of interactive communication and teething problems are bound to arise.Nothing wrong in admitting it and doing something about it, now is there?
SocialistPunk wrote:I take it you think that the censoring of posts is absolutely necessary to manage the forum?I think that the capacity to delete and remove posts is essential, for legal and practical reasons: cf. libel & spambots. I have no problem with pointless, disruptive or purely abusive posts being removed. Even Wikipedia does this (and deletes them from the history log too).
SocialistPunk wrote:That the use of warnings and suspensions is not sufficient?If someone gets suspended for disruption, I'd rather the disruption did not live on after them. Likewise I think most members, especially abused ones, would not want the abuse to hang around for all time.
SocialistPunk wrote:And as for the nonsense that deleting and disallowing posts is not censorship but the same as chairing a meeting etc. I have already shown that the deletion, disallowance etc can not be rescinded if proved incorrect, leaving the censored persons words point of view etc lost forever. At a meeting you can still speak your mind after the event if people are willing to listen. Also I believe if a chairperson is seen to be causing problems then the people present can over rule and remove them from that role, there and then.And words when said are lost forever, into the ether. Here, as we've seen, members can take their dispute to other fora, or can find other ways to get their point across. I'm afraid you have not established a quantitative difference between chairing a physical meeting and an electronic one. Also, at public meetings, the appointed chair cannot be overturned by the non-members.
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Post deletion can prevent the contagion from spreading, as later comers may respond and re-open old wounds.If others wish to do so and insist on causing trouble then they can expect warnings.I don't know about you, but I would like to be able to read what others have to say. I would like to be allowed to make my own mind up, and if I feel it warranted, add to the discussion. It is the essence of free speech and democracy.
A insults B. Moderator warns/bans A. A week later, C comes online, and sees the offending post, and responds (before scrolling down), resulting in a warning/ban for C. B defends C, gets a warning/ban. A week later, D comes on, sees the offending post, and leaps to B's defence, earning a warning/ban.Posts that don't add substantively to the discussion, that are purely disruptive or abusive deserve to be zapped, rather than preserved in aspic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.