|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: March 01, 2003 Reader Comments...
It's your site, John. You never make any claim to provide an open forum or platform for expression. If you find something offensive, absolutely, delete it and all the angels of the firmament shall stand by you. Posted by: Adam on March 1, 2003 11:56 PM
I haven't censored it since I like having an extremly open discussion forum. I'm more curious about how WebWord readers feel about censorship on WebWord in general, as a policy. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on March 2, 2003 12:01 AM
Eh. Posting whatever you want in a comment section on a site is hardly an inalieable right, so I'd say, do whatever you want. The cool thing about teh web is that anyone can write anything they want want whenever they want, just not wherever they want. With that said, I don't know why Adam's comments sparked this train of thought for you. The others in that thread were definitely overreacting. Posted by: anode on March 2, 2003 01:37 AM
Don't censor comments if they are relevent to your original posting. You set up a website that allows people to comment. Therefore, you should accept the responsibility to allow all voices to be heard, no matter that they sound different than everyone else. Posted by: TB Sheets on March 2, 2003 02:22 AM
Perhaps postings could be 'faciliated' as per "verbal" discussions in a faciliated workshop? If its put out there, the faciliator (John) can comment around this - positive or negative, just as other webworders can. Posted by: Daniel Szuc on March 2, 2003 05:22 AM
I'm not sure but that failure to censor some posts may expose you to legal actions. I think Vincent Flanders contemplated taking down his bulletin board at one point for just that reason. (You might ask him...) In addition to the legal issues, you probably have some idea of what you want this web site to be. If it strays from your vision, you should rein it in. Or, in which rein you should it (to get that preposition away from the end). Posted by: Frank on March 2, 2003 10:22 AM
Somewhere I read "censorship is the act of hiding the truth" - and therefore I am against censorship. Posted by: Gerald on March 2, 2003 02:39 PM
I too am against censorship. I think we should be able to say whatever the mother-fucking-cock-poking-ass-sucking-shit-eating-crap we want to say. Yay freedom! Posted by: Flag Waving Yipee! on March 2, 2003 02:44 PM
Yes, please do not hide the truth from us John. We want to know more about the mother fuckers, cock pokers, ass suckers, and shit eating crappers. It's our God Given Right to such information. If you begin censoring information we might have to, ummm, start visiting porn sites instead. Censorship NO! Porn YES! Posted by: Inspector Gadget on March 2, 2003 02:50 PM
Censor anything you like, John. After all, you are the person the legal attack dogs will go after if they see anything "defamatory" on your site -- not the poster. I've had "cease and desist" missives from lawyers in the past, and I've largely found it easier to comply that go through the hassle (and cost) of defending myself. This site is not the New York Times. It is not an essential vehicle for "the public's right to know". It is a site about... whatever John wants it to be about. John understands that his decisions (to censor or not, what postings to make, how to direct discussion) will mould his audience. If he censors, some people might leave in a huff. But it's his party... Posted by: Che Tamahori on March 2, 2003 03:28 PM
Unless there's an incredibly overt act, I doubt anyone would sick lawyers on John (or anyone) because, regardless of the outcome, they'd walk away dirty. For example, Jakob is popular today because many web folk looked up to him. Editorial criticism aside, throwing his lawyer on someone would effectively ruin his reputation. Individuals can't use corporate tactics so easily. Posted by: Wapner on March 2, 2003 05:09 PM
"Anyone" wouldn't use corporate tactics like that -- but corporates do! I once had a "Cease and Desist" from Readers Digest, merely for having a page on my personal site that had a title _similar_ to "It pays to enrich your wordpower"(TM). In another case, I flamed a consultant's business practice on my website in a manner that they considered defamatory. They lawyered up. I took it down. Maybe I'm a wimp, but I've got better things to do that worry about that stuff. I suspect the problem is due to non-IT corporates, who see anything on a webpage as a generic form of public broadcasting, and hit the site owner with a CaD without thinking twice.
No offense Che, but John carries more weight. All he has to do is to link a transcript of the legal documents to his front page and Mr. Legal looks like an ass for years to come. That would do far more damage than some silly message posted by a user that got him in the hissyfit in the first place. Posted by: Trent on March 2, 2003 07:35 PM
Should you censor content? Do you want to? If I posted a message here saying "[xyz] is a wanker and spends his day jerking off", would you take it down? I think the test you need to apply is whether in addition to profanity or defamatory remarks, is the comment adding anything useful? If it's just there to abuse someone else, get rid of it. Why pollute the excellent community at Webword? Proper criticism is fine. In fact, it's welcome. If I say, "John is wrong about this because...", that shouldn't be censored, even if it could potentially make John look like an idiot. Posted by: MadMan on March 2, 2003 11:50 PM
It all comes down to ownership. Who's website is this? Is this John's website or is this our website? If this is John's website, then sure, he can censor anything he wants. It's his site; he decides what's on it. (However, I would strongly suggest moderation far before censorship. If you open up your website to discussion and comments they can't be successfully moderated then you probably shouldn't have open discussion in the first place.) If this is our website, then censor nothing. Posted by: Joshua Kaufman on March 3, 2003 08:57 AM
If this is our website, do what I say. Posted by: Commander Demander on March 3, 2003 09:12 AM
I’m not for censorship on a public forum paid by tax payers and such, but in a private forum I think you have the right to change things. You own the web site, you paid the bills and you, perhaps, want to maintain a site of professionalism without the non-sense criticism that nether promote learning and understanding. Constructive criticism diplomatically will go a long way with your audience than profanity. Posted by: studiodino on March 3, 2003 09:20 AM
Dino, I'm sorry, I don't buy that discourse of tightpantsed "professionalism." I'm unabashedly a Cluetrain baby: this is how we speak in real life, face to face, and I shan't pretend otherwise online to look all clean-shaved and employable. Posted by: Adam on March 3, 2003 09:51 AM
I think studiodino was thinking it would be nice if people treated each other with simple respect, instead of going off half-cocked, choosing to insult and belittle instead of discuss ideas like adults. Posted by: Another Anonymous, and thus Unimportant, Person on March 3, 2003 11:19 AM
By the way, studiodino, I'd love to see your photo developed into a comic strip. Posted by: Another Anonymous, and thus Unimportant, Person on March 3, 2003 11:23 AM
John, I think you should definitely moderate the site and ask people to take flame wars off-line. Part of the reason I come here is to see intelligent, topical discussion about usability issues and the occasional non-usability interest. I don't come to see kids slapping at each other in the sandbox. Obviously, it would be ideal if everyone could treat each other with respect and avoid obviously inappropriate statements that could be misconstrued or would probably piss someone off and start a back-and-forth. The real world, however, is not ideal. As for censorship, I feel it has its place. Think about the type of site you want and act accordingly. Yes, we are all adults, but some of us look at this site during work hours. I will never forget the day I pulled up a discussion thread and saw a picture of a naked man doing something I didn't want my co-workers to see. When my boss - my boss - asked me what I was looking at, I had to explain that this had never happened before, show him the other areas of the site and the links posted, and prove that it was a "legit" thing to be doing during my spare moments at work. That's an extreme example, of course (and, as I recall, it was taken down later and I haven't seen the same sort of thing since). It is really easy for a few people to upset the cart for everyone, though, whether intentionally or not. Some people just like to be s**t stirrers. To put it another way, what if someone started a thread on child porn? You'd take that down as fast as you could press the delete key, right? (I hope?) So, censorship does have its place. So, find the "comfort level" and start there. For example, let's say cursing is okay, but talking about sexual acts isn't. Someone starts talking about how doing one thing is like some obscene sex act (BTW, I had written an example here, but decided to take it out because, well, I don't want to offend!! ha ha). You could decide to leave the comment in, but post something asking people to cease and desist or it will be removed. In your post, you could explain why it is not appropriate to say this. This type of moderating would (a) let everyone know you are aware of it, thereby encouraging a work-friendly atmosphere and (b) hopefully kill any useless back-and-forth and return people to discussing the main topic. Sorry this is so long. Just one more thing! As for censoring an individual person, my personal feeling is that this isn't a good idea unless the person persists in inappropriate behavior after you have pointed out that it shouldn't be done, and it is disrupting the community. While I might not agree with the way some people conduct themselves, it's their reputation one way or the other. As long as they are staying within guidelines, they may be as abrasive or as childish as they want. If, for example, they prefer to lash out when challenged instead of respecting other points of view enough to ask "what do you mean" in a respectful way, so be it. They'll either be ignored or encouraged, and it is up to each individual to decide their response. In closing, I think that you have done a great job of keeping things both casual and work-friendly so far, John. It would be a shame to see the discussions at WebWord get so out of hand that you have to resort to a registration system or start hacking away at postings and banning IP addresses, so I'm all in favor of a little hand-slapping and GIF/JPG censoring from time to time. The nice thing about usability folks is that we are generally a passionate lot, and hopefully we can also remember that respect and good manners is still a worthwhile skill that is worth spreading around. Posted by: Lydia on March 3, 2003 03:48 PM
Oh, I should clarify that the naked man picture referenced above was posted by someone in the comments area to describe what they thought of the current topic, not as one of the main links on the site!! Posted by: Lydia on March 3, 2003 03:53 PM
NO Posted by: on March 3, 2003 04:23 PM
All excellent points, Lydia. My solution? I propose two: - user-empowered moderation or See comments in the other post for more.
Ohh yea...let's start a committee. Hummph - rating posts/posters. Who has the time? Posted by: on March 3, 2003 09:46 PM
No cencorship. Please. Posted by: on March 4, 2003 08:04 AM
However, censorship is fine. Please, save us from the screaming meanies. Posted by: Warm Fuzzy on March 4, 2003 08:49 AM
So John, what's your verdict? Should you censor what people post on WebWord? Posted by: Boogers van Nistelrooy on March 5, 2003 07:12 PM
I'll censor, but only under extreme circumstances. I determine "extreme circumstances" although I might ask WebWord readers for their opinions. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on March 5, 2003 10:06 PM
How about posting some kind of warning on the home page, and then letting users choose an alternative "safe for when the parson is visiting" version of the thread? Users who don't want to be offended would actively choose the sanitized version, and that's a far cry from censorship. Would the extra coding that would require be worth it? Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on March 7, 2003 12:31 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |
