Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society?

[SocialistPunk]

Hi YMS

Young Master Smeet wrote:

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).

I refer to your words above. I have never advocated non removal of spam or obviously legally problematic posts. The original point in highlighting censorship was the removal of relevant or off topic posts. If off topic posts were removed many a thread would be a lot barer. As for your scenario of deleting abusive posts, I see recent abusive posts still on this thread and I am aware of links to them being used on another party site, to draw attention to them. I would be interested in your response as I am sure others would.So your so called beneficial use of censorship is not really being used with any consistency. That is part of the problem with the use of censorship methods. Who decides? Perhaps if we had a machine that could consistently decide what is problematic and censor only posts that are  a real problem we may not have an issue, but we don't. Instead people censor other people and we have to rely on their judgment that is very often flawed.I am not a party member and I expect there are a number of non party forum members. If I or any of the others were to have a post deleted then we could not take our voice to another platform.  You say a chairperson can not be overturned by non members, I assume you mean non party members? It sounds like a little dig at my suggesting there is a problem that needs fixing.As for the scenario you put across of a big argument taking place with people reacting to others posts. If a person breaks the forum rules then they can expect warnings and if they persist then a suspension may be necessary. Where is the problem with that? Instead you seem to think the inconsistent approach  in place now is the best approach, highly selective censoring of posts combined with warnings and suspensions.I did not set this thread up to have a go at the party. But to highlight problems of moderation, namely censorship and inconsistency, that seem to be inflaming the problem further. I was under the impression the best way to resolve an issue like this is to discuss it openly and seek to find a democratic solution.I am of the impression some party members think this is harmful to the party. I think they are wrong. Look at the interest this discussion is generating. It is an example of a democratic party, openly engaging in discussion of a problem. Other parties attempt to hide their problems from public scrutiny and look like the corrupt power ridden organisations they are. The SPGB instead advocate open democratic debate and participation. This can only be good for the party, so long as the problem is recognised and dealt with openly and effectively. This is what we are doing now is it not?

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I refer to your words above. I have never advocated non removal of spam or obviously legally problematic posts. The original point in highlighting censorship was the removal of relevant or off topic posts. If off topic posts were removed many a thread would be a lot barer. As for your scenario of deleting abusive posts, I see recent abusive posts still on this thread and I am aware of links to them being used on another party site, to draw attention to them. I would be interested in your response as I am sure others would.

I'm reminded of a story attributed, as most are, to Bernard Shaw.  Woman: Would you pay £1,000 to sleep with me? Shaw: No, but I would pay 1p. Woman: What do you think I am? Shaw: I thought we'd already established that, now we're just haggling.  You've no problem with deleting posts, neither have I, we're just discussing where the line is.  Of course, there is no line, it's always a matter of negotiation, but if, like Wikipedia, we Assume Good Faith on the part of the moderators, it can be quickly resolved.AFAICS most posts are on topic (or within legitimate slippage of topic: for instance, a thread about soccer can lead to rugby relatively easily, but it would be disruptive to talk about rugby in a thread about cake baking, and such a post could be legitimately nuked from a great height, IMNSHO). 

SocialistPunk wrote:

I am not a party member and I expect there are a number of non party forum members. If I or any of the others were to have a post deleted then we could not take our voice to another platform.  You say a chairperson can not be overturned by non members, I assume you mean non party members? It sounds like a little dig at my suggesting there is a problem that needs fixing.

Well, this kind of proves my point, we don't know on the forum who are or are not party members, so moderation needs to be accountable to the party democratic mechanisms, not the forum members.  No dig intended, I had no idea you weren't a party member.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As for the scenario you put across of a big argument taking place with people reacting to others posts. If a person breaks the forum rules then they can expect warnings and if they persist then a suspension may be necessary. Where is the problem with that? Instead you seem to think the inconsistent approach  in place now is the best approach, highly selective censoring of posts combined with warnings and suspensions.

Well, in the minimum it means a lot of work for moderators, and additional unhappiness all round, as the old wounds get re-opened again.

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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?

In reference to "doing something about it":  In my opinion this particular thread has just about run its course in regards to highlighting the problems and issues of moderation on this forum, what's required now is for a thread on the Website/Technical page to kickstart a discussion on what form of rules of conduct is applicable to this type of medium.For those of you who are interested please find me there.

[SocialistPunk]

I have heard a few people, surprisingly SPGB party members, on this forum recently suggesting that censorship will probably be needed in a global socialist society.I find this idea quite odd. Most censorship today takes place in countries with limited political and personal freedom. Even censorship of films and music in this country is greatly reduced, with many banned films of yesteryear being released over the past years. Often such material is considered tame compared to contemporary material. It shows that what some at one time find offensive, so often changes over time.As for material of a dodgy sexual nature, that stuff is abuse and criminal behaviour, so does not apply to freedom of expression.The behaviour of many people in society today is largely (but not exclusively) dictated to them by environmental circumstances. It is accepted by most socialists that the stresses and prejudices that so often accompany living within a dehumanising, profit driven, competitive society will be eradicated once a majority of people understand and work towards achieving a socialist world.In fact only once people are free from the confines of capitalism will humanity be truly free. Free to develop as fully as human potential may allow, mentally, emotionally, physically, technologically, artistically and  perhaps even spiritually. It is my assertion that in such a society human relationships will be of a much better quality on a personal as well as community level. As such we will over time, as new generations are born into such a society, become less abusive and more co-operative. It will not be a utopia by any means but much, much better than what we have at present.So I would like to ask those who seem to think socialism will need censorship a simple question.Why?

[Anonymous]

 A couple of points I want to take issue with there, SP… First of all, I think that there's still a bit of a hangover here from the recent storms over whether or not people should have their postings subjected to scrutiny and whether or not anyone has the right to remove those postings. This is understandable.  Storms might clear the air but they take a while to pass! I don't think that anyone is advocating the kind of censorship that you're talking about here.  For my part I have no interest in legislating for what people are permitted to consume so long as no-one else is harmed in the process.  Furthermore, I resist all attempts to legislate for me on such matters.  No, what we're actually talking about here is more to do with what constitutes acceptable behaviour.  It should be noticed, of course, that no-one who is suggesting that peoples right to say what they please ought to be counterbalanced against peoples right to not be assailed with abuse is calling such a process 'censorship' and that the only people who are suggesting that it is censorship are those who have had postings removed or have allied themselves with those who have.  But if you want to insist on calling the removal of offensive posts 'censorship' then yeah, I'm in favour of that kind of censorship.  People's judgement can be skewed sometimes, you see? And they then need the rest of us to say 'Hang on a moment…' I don't think you've thought this freedom stuff through properly, see? You're asserting that humanity, once liberated from the shackles of capitalism will be 'truly free'. Oh yeah?  So we go from the situation that you describe as people's behaviour being largely conditioned by their environment to a situation where that's no longer the case just by abolishing capitalism? If only it were that simple! No, socialism will cure no-ones anti-social tendencies overnight, and you really can't – after this week's events – argue that the fact of being a socialist is in any way a guarantor of someone being nicer or more moral in their behaviour toward others.  But this, it seems, is precisely what you are arguing.  Not only that, but you go on to claim that most socialists agree with you.  Well, it'd be interesting to see…I, for one, disagree with your assertion.  Fiercely! And let's leave aside – for the moment – the question about whether humans even have free will…You claim that  "It is accepted by most socialists that the stresses and prejudices that so often accompany living within a dehumanising, profit driven, competitive society will be eradicated once a majority of people understand and work towards achieving a socialist world." So the simple process, you are suggesting, of being a socialist is enough to eradicate a lot of bad stuff.  So long as there's a majority of people working to abolish capitalism we'll no longer be subjected to the vagaries of the system? Just not true, is it?  As I've pointed out, being a socialist doesn't make you a nice person, necessarily.  More importantly, we need to realise that learned behaviour takes time to unlearn.  Some people who are a part of the transformation of human society will still be nasty bastards after the revolution. And yeah, we might need to curb their behaviour on occasion.  I have no problem with that.  And if you want to call curbing anti-social behaviour 'censorship' then I have no problem with that, either.

[SocialistPunk]

Jonathan

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

But if you want to insist on calling the removal of offensive posts 'censorship' then yeah, I'm in favour of that kind of censorship.  People's judgement can be skewed sometimes, you see? And they then need the rest of us to say 'Hang on a moment…'

You say that you support the removal of abusive posts. A point YMS made also. I put to YMS that the deletion I am referring to is not abusive posting, merely slightly off topic (but I don't know because I did not see them, censored ya see).If the deletion or as I see it, censoring of posts was to remove offensive material then why are there a number of offensive posts still on this forum? Not just recent stuff either. And why did a party member on another party site post links to some of the offending material, a clear act of inflammation. So much for beneficial censorship?It would seem you and YMS are in favour of highly selective censorship, that does not even do what you claim it is there for. But that is censorship for you. A highly suspect, flawed method of control.I would be grateful if you could answer this valid point, as YMS refused to touch it.I have other points to bring up regarding your post #65, but see if you can answer this simple one first

[Anonymous]

 I think that you're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater there, SP.  I'd be the first to agree that moderating needs to be consistent and that needs at least two things to happen.  Firstly, we need to agree on what's acceptable and what is not, and secondly we need enough well-briefed moderators to enable it to be implemented.

[SocialistPunk]

Nice one Jonathan.I see you are up to your old tricks of not answering questions put to you.

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

But if you want to insist on calling the removal of offensive posts 'censorship' then yeah, I'm in favour of that kind of censorship.

We'll try again shall we, and maybe this time you could try giving me a straight answer instead of a politicians answer.You claim the censorship, as you admit exists, is about removal of offensive posts. So can you please explain to the forum why there are still offensive posts left on this forum? I am sure everyone who is checking this thread out would love to hear you back up your claim with a straight answer.I seem to recall a Paxman reference being used on another thread with regards to pressing someone for an answer. Well, do I have to do a Paxman?I am itching to bring up some points from your previous criticism of mine, so please answer this one so we can get to the next point.

[steve colborn]

Exactly as I suggested on the Forum Moderation thread. Consistency of moderation and moreover, well briefed, trained, moderators. Ideas, poopooed by YMS.A level playing field is all that people posting on the site require! Steve.

[Anonymous]

 In the interests of good relations, SP, I'm going to ignore the personal attacks contained in your last post.  I have answered your question in very simple terms.  All I can do, therefore, is repeat myself.  What I am in favour of is an agreement on what's acceptable and what is not, and the subsequent consistent enforcement of those standards by well-briefed moderators. The problem with having a free-for-all – which is what you seem to be advocating – is that threads inevitably descend into little more than an exchange of insults.  Frankly, that's both boring and counter-productive.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I would be grateful if you could answer this valid point, as YMS refused to touch it.

ISTR that I have addressed it, several times, that disruptive posts (what some people call off-topic) should be removed without mercy, I even gave an example with reference to beginning to discuss rugby on a bakery forum.You yourself accept that spam and abusive posts should be removed, and a disruptive post is just an extension of spam.If the technology on this forum allowed individual posts to be moved, I'd prefer that to deletion, but it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

 Of course, one of the problems with this particular medium is that it is sometimes impossible to grasp people's intentions.  Capital letters might suggest shouting, for example, but a lot depends on context.  Someone might just be trying to be funny when they hurl an accusation, or they might be behaving in a deliberately obnoxious fashion.  It's hard to tell.  It strikes me that there may be a case to be made for moderation taking the form of constructive editing.  Along the lines of 'Hang on, this could be construed as being offensive and obnoxious – why don't you rephrase that?' Time consuming, I know, but given that what appears on these boards is a direct reflection on the movement I think it's worth considering.

[Brian]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

 Of course, one of the problems with this particular medium is that it is sometimes impossible to grasp people's intentions.  Capital letters might suggest shouting, for example, but a lot depends on context.  Someone might just be trying to be funny when they hurl an accusation, or they might be behaving in a deliberately obnoxious fashion.  It's hard to tell.  It strikes me that there may be a case to be made for moderation taking the form of constructive editing.  Along the lines of 'Hang on, this could be construed as being offensive and obnoxious – why don't you rephrase that?' Time consuming, I know, but given that what appears on these boards is a direct reflection on the movement I think it's worth considering.

For example editing would also consist of this: Could you please reframe this post and place it on the thread dealing with Forum Moderation.  Its an excellent point and most certainly worth considering on that particular thread.

[steve colborn]

JC in post 70 you stated,"In the interests of good relations, SP, I'm going to ignore the personal attacks contained in your last post." I have read post 68 from SP that you refer to but, have failed to find the "personal attacks" you refer to!Could you elucidate on this please? Steve.

[Anonymous]

steve colborn wrote:

Could you elucidate on this please?

 Nope.  What's the point? You clearly don't think that comparing someone to a politician is an attack.  So we have nothing to discuss here.

[Author]

Posts