No “No Platform”

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

I lodged my complaint straight after the incident occurred.   

 Would it be a complaint against this? 

ALB wrote:

That "No Platform" is not the way to deal with people with obnoxious views such as Marine Le Pen. Rather than try to physically stop them from speaking, put them up on a platform and refute their views forcefully point by point. Trust people to be able to see through them. Censoring what you don't want people to hear is a patronising and elitist attitude towards people as if they are incapable of making up their own minds up or might be corrupted by what they hear (while you're not). And when “no platform” becomes the norm who's going to be next?

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

I lodged my complaint straight after the incident occurred.   

 Would it be a complaint against this? 

ALB wrote:

That "No Platform" is not the way to deal with people with obnoxious views such as Marine Le Pen. Rather than try to physically stop them from speaking, put them up on a platform and refute their views forcefully point by point. Trust people to be able to see through them. Censoring what you don't want people to hear is a patronising and elitist attitude towards people as if they are incapable of making up their own minds up or might be corrupted by what they hear (while you're not). And when “no platform” becomes the norm who's going to be next?

Of course not.  The incident with your posting of the 'Open letter to Russell Brand'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Vin wrote:

Forum discussions do not resemble  public/party meetings.  A moderator is not a chairperson. He/she is appointed annually..You can't move a motion  'That the chairperson be removed' for example, as you can with branch meetings. Nor could the mover of such a motion be warned for being drunk, abusive or disruptive as is the case with forums and moderators. The comparison in nonsensical to say the least.

You couldn't move such a motion at a public meeting, the chair person being appointed by the branch at a previous business meeting; howeverm, as it stands, a branch could send a motion to the EC, or, in extremis, a complaint to the moderator's own branch.  The IC can remove moderators.  There is accountability.That online fora are different to face to face meetings is obvious.  That doesn't make the necessary moderation any less democratic.

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

online fora

Is that a misprint for "flora". In this case it ought to be.

[SocialistPunk]

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

 Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

Hi Mod1,Not really sure what is meant by your post. Are you in favour of the use of censorship for use on SPGB communication sites such as this forum? Or do you view it's use as a moderation tool as likely to cause more problems than it solves?The sentence of mine you quote is a reference to the moderation approach being used here now, with censorship not being needed. It was tried briefly on this forum and only succeeded in further complicating the issue of moderation for the SPGB, as it added the issue of whether censorship is appropriate for a political party that is opposed to it's use for a number of reasons.Back on topic.There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly. It is patronising and elitist to assume a role of deciding what people can or can't think and/or decide for themselves on various issues. It is often used to airbrush history, thus altering events and restricting the ability to examine and learn from past events.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Back on topic.There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly. It is patronising and elitist to assume a role of deciding what people can or can't think and/or decide for themselves on various issues. It is often used to airbrush history, thus altering events and restricting the ability to examine and learn from past events.

This is the key to understanding science, as we now know it to be, since Einstein.One's framework/ideology/perspective/metaphysics/paradigm/research programme censors as much as it reveals, in the three ways you list, SP:It 'hides problematic areas from view';It 'decides what people can or can't think for themselves';It 'airbrushes history, and restricts our abilities to learn'.Hence, the necessity to expose one's own 'censorship program', to try to illuminate it for oneself as much as for others.Whilst we pretend to stick with 19th century science (objective and material), we pretend not to censor. The 'Truth' is alleged to be final, eternal, and beyond criticism. But we now know that 'truth' is a social and historical product. The production of 'truth' requires censorship.To think is to censor. The lesson of the 20th century philosophy of science.And it's now the 21st century, comrades…

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

 Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

Hi Mod1,Not really sure what is meant by your post. Are you in favour of the use of censorship for use on SPGB communication sites such as this forum? Or do you view it's use as a moderation tool as likely to cause more problems than it solves?The sentence of mine you quote is a reference to the moderation approach being used here now, with censorship not being needed. It was tried briefly on this forum and only succeeded in further complicating the issue of moderation for the SPGB, as it added the issue of whether censorship is appropriate for a political party that is opposed to it's use for a number of reasons.Back on topic.There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly. It is patronising and elitist to assume a role of deciding what people can or can't think and/or decide for themselves on various issues. It is often used to airbrush history, thus altering events and restricting the ability to examine and learn from past events.

I was just placing on record that if there is a further occurrence of the Russell Brand open letter incident with Vin's posting (although inappropriate) being moved to the rubbish bin by Admin I'm not in favour of such action, and I was not a party to that action.  It's cenorship full stop and I wont let it rest if there's a reoccurrence – no way.  If Admin had not jumped in and let me handle it appropriately by having a PM discussion with Vin the probability is that he would have been persuaded to apply a bit of self-censorship and approved his posting being moved to the rubbish bin.  The posting itself was not a breach of the rules, however if the I.C. decide to introduce a rule where such incidents are a breach it will mean we are back to square one with problematic postings and would mean me reconsidering my position has the moderator of the forum.  For I will not be party to censorship here or anywhere else.Just like a public meeting every contributor must have the opportunity to withdraw their comments or remarks and admit they are inappropriate for the thread or forum, unless of course they are spam, then they go directly to the rubbish bin.The system of reminders, warnings and suspensions does not cover all incidents but I find its those postings which are outside the rules that we have so much to learn from.  And we are not going to learn about applying the democratic method appropriately if we apply censorship to such postings – are we?

[Young Master Smeet]

A couple of aspects. 

Article four of the European Convention of Human rights wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent Statesfrom requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises

and

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I've bolded a few words, to highlight an important aspect, which is the right to receive information.  This, in part, covers what I mean by maintaining channel clarity.  If someone is shouting at a public meeting, or sending spam to a forum, we have to screen that out.  Now, at, say, Speakers Corner, I just walk away from a platform I don't like, or tune out a speaker, and concentrate on theone I want to hear.  On the internet I might us Google alerts.  Here on the forum, I rely on myself and editors, who might screen some of the noise and let some of it through.I find it had to believe that some individuals here would infring my rights to receive information, rather than allow a moderator to use the moderation facility to check posts from suspect/possibly disruptive sources for useful information, and censor people by silencing them. 

[SocialistPunk]

Well said Mod1. I fully agree, censorship amongst other things removes the ability to learn from mistakes.I had suspected you were not in favour of using censorship as a tool for forum moderation, from the in depth discussions that took place on this forum a couple of years ago.Thanks for clearing this issue up.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

A couple of aspects. 

Article four of the European Convention of Human rights wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent Statesfrom requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises

and

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I've bolded a few words, to highlight an important aspect, which is the right to receive information.  This, in part, covers what I mean by maintaining channel clarity.  If someone is shouting at a public meeting, or sending spam to a forum, we have to screen that out.  Now, at, say, Speakers Corner, I just walk away from a platform I don't like, or tune out a speaker, and concentrate on theone I want to hear.  On the internet I might us Google alerts.  Here on the forum, I rely on myself and editors, who might screen some of the noise and let some of it through.I find it had to believe that some individuals here would infring my rights to receive information, rather than allow a moderator to use the moderation facility to check posts from suspect/possibly disruptive sources for useful information, and censor people by silencing them. 

YMSYou've just stated that you have the ability to screen information. We all do it.You think your right to receive pre-filtered information outways my right to be able to decide for myself what information to filter? Deadlock on that one.I notice though, that you are no longer claiming that pre-moderation and retroactive removal of information is not censorship. It took a while but we finally got there.

[SocialistPunk]

YMSA further point I missed.Removing a disruptive person from a space is not censorship. Unless there is a human right to be deliberately disruptive?

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,my ability to screen information is context dependent.  The channel limitations of an online forum mean it takes considerable time to decide whether to ignore a post, whereas in real life I have sight (and smell, etc.) in order to decide whether I want to listen to a person.  BY coming to this forum, I have made a series of decisions regarding filtering of information, and the content I expect here.I do deny that pre-moderation is censorship, in fact I maintain it is the very opposite, and much better than simply silencing someone.  It *could* be used for censorship, but I have confidence in the robust procedures we have in place to prevent that.Deliberate disruption is a form of censorship, but some people create noise inadvertently, as we have seen, some people just do not know how to behave on online forums, and create a lot of posts about themselves, and we need ways to help them get their ideas across without simply shutting the door on them.Our responses cannot be abstract and 'rule driven' but need to be made on a case by case basis tailored for each individual and their communication and information needs.

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Deliberate disruption is a form of censorship, but some people create noise inadvertently, as we have seen, some people just do not know how to behave on online forums, and create a lot of posts about themselves, and we need ways to help them get their ideas across without simply shutting the door on them.

 can you give a concrete example?   

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well said Mod1. I fully agree, censorship amongst other things removes the ability to learn from mistakes.I had suspected you were not in favour of using censorship as a tool for forum moderation, from the in depth discussions that took place on this forum a couple of years ago.Thanks for clearing this issue up.

I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.  Most of this communication is taken up with the technical aspects of improving this site and introducing new accounts.   The moderation of this site plays little part in the day to day affairs of the committee.  And that is how I would like to keep it so the flow of more important issues and problems is not disrupted by the disruptions on this forum.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly.

And there is the problem. Why dooesn't the IC,Admin and Mod discuss the issues openly, on the forum.  I have seen it on other forums. Transparency. Members will immediatley understand why and how a decision has been made.I can understand how a public meeting can be disrupted by an individual but how does an individual disrupt a forum?  Can the proponents of censorship give me an example?   

[Author]

Posts