Patnet and censorship: Performance Art?
« prev   random   next »

36
18

Patnet and censorship: Performance Art?

By justme following x   2017 Nov 14, 11:22am 7,837 views   236 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


I wonder if @Patrick has just staged a piece of censorship Performance Art by instituting omnipotent censorship, under the guise of "moderation", and crowd-sourced mass-silencing (encouraging the use of the "uncivil" button) on patrick.net. The aforementioned scheme of blog control is so far removed from Patrick's former free-speech self that I am starting to wonder. Perhaps this is just an exercise in showing what happens when you give absolute power over some domain of life to ONE semi-random person, even one that otherwise professes to love liberty and freedom?

It is more than a little ironic (but should not be surprising to any serious student of human nature) that right-wingers appear to be every bit as eager to censor their opponents as they have recently been accusing the left-wingers of being. And by that I mean the last several years of talk about liberals and their desire for "safe spaces" on and off university campuses, calling them "special snowflakes", and so on.

Well, the right-wing has in recent days been out in force on Patnet, trying to enforce a "safe space" , free of "uncivility" and "NSFW" material, and acting like special snowflakes themselves. And boy, are these right-wing special snowflakes melting down Patnet in a volcanic eruption of censorship actions.

The famous 1960s psychological experiment known as the Stanford Prisoner Project comes to mind as an analogy of sorts. That experiment showed what happens when you give authority for random people to control other random people. What soon happened was not pretty. Read up on it if you want.

Finally, I will revisit and highlight a suggestion I have made several times this year:

What I would like to see is to have free speech, and at the same time avoid massive storms of low-quality comments. For a blog, I think that means to make threads and comments a limited commodity for all posters. Specifically, to limit the number of threads that a user can post on any given day to 1 or 2, and to limit how many comments every user can post on every thread to 10, or 10% of the total number of comments on the thread, whichever is larger.

The purpose of moderation should not be to censor certain forms of expression, but rather to make everyone's time (or space) on the proverbial soapbox a valuable commodity. That way, users are more likely to spend their posting currency wisely. Users who wastes their currency by posting low-quality drivel will lose esteem, or at the very least not be able to dominate the discussion based on volume posted only.

Think of it as rules of order, a very lightweight and blog-adapted version of Robert's rules of order. (By the way, a quite well-known now former pat-netter just mentioned Robert's rules just days ago, and is hereby recognized.)

PS: I very well understand the meta-question as to whether the impact of a blog, as measured by commercial value or informative value, or even political/propaganda value(!), is reduced when the number of threads or comments are somewhat limited. I think many people may think so, perhaps even Patrick himself. Personally, I will take quality over quantity any day.

#misc

« First    « Previous     Comments 174 - 213 of 213     Last »

197   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 21, 10:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

justme says
Remember how Elizabeth Warren got censured and censored in the US Senate for speaking the truth about Jeff Sessions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/07/republicans-vote-to-rebuke-elizabeth-warren-for-impugning-sessionss-character/

No free speech even in the US Senate. Not an example to emulate, if you ask me.


She didn't get censored, her lengthy speech got cut shorter. She still can (and does) voice her opinions all over the media and anywhere else, just not in that hearing due to that rule. Probably an old rule that may or may not be necessary, but in that case it was likely useful as all she repeats is "rayscyst!" like a parrot. Not a fan of Sessions, but not a fan of Warren either.
198   anon_13ce6   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 22, 7:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Have the anons been silenced or delayed.
199   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 22, 7:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Anonymous comments now have to be approved by me. Soon a moderator can approve them as well.
200   anon_8f378   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 22, 7:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
She didn't get censored, her lengthy speech got cut shorter.


Not sure what distinction you are trying to make here. She wasn't allowed to speak because the powers that be didn't like what she was going to say--that's pretty much the heart of the free speech issue.


mell says
Probably an old rule that may or may not be necessary, but in that case it was likely useful as all she repeats is "rayscyst!" like a parrot


Ah--so censoring is OK as long as it's speech you don't agree with. Awesome. Just don't ever pretend you are a free speech advocate when a Trump fan gets silenced.
201   justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 22, 8:29am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

mell says
She didn't get censored, her lengthy speech got cut shorter.


I'll nominate this one for the Orwell award in DoubleSpeak. It is a new award I plan to give out at irregular intervals on Patnet.
202   anon_61c8a   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 22, 6:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

None of the remaining members seem to care about net neutrality. Will patrick.net be throttled when the current administration undoes Obama era policy on that, or will it still only be the anon anonymous p.net posts that are throttled?
203   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 22, 7:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Anon comments are still welcome, as long as they are not deliberately insulting other users.
204   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 28, 5:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

@patrick where are the rest of the threads?

At the bottom of page it says 1 of 1
205   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 28, 7:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

errc says
At the bottom of page it says 1 of 1


Dammit, amazing how easy it is to break things, even after simplifying the code quite a lot.

Will fix that.
206   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 28, 7:23am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Patrick says
errc says
At the bottom of page it says 1 of 1


Dammit, amazing how easy it is to break things, even after simplifying the code quite a lot.

Will fix that.


It could be worse. You could appoint a hyper partisan liar as a moderator and chase away people who helped make Patnet great!
207   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 28, 12:41pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

@Patrick i see you reinstated my uncivil button.

I will mark all posts that i deem as uncivil as such.

Do you give the moderators special treatment?
I view people lying on other posters as very uncivil, so i will mark those posts as such.
208   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 28, 12:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I found that I can only retrieve my old comments from one page of 2012. At first I thought: "Who is this ASSHOLE. Then, I realized it was me!"
209   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 28, 9:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

errc says
I view people lying on other posters as very uncivil, so i will mark those posts as such.


Please don't mark anything uncivil just because you don't like it.

It has to be a literal personal attack on another user, on the order of "Listen, asshole..."
210   anon_35697   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 29, 9:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says
errc says
I view people lying on other posters as very uncivil, so i will mark those posts as such.


Please don't mark anything uncivil just because you don't like it.

It has to be a literal personal attack on another user, on the order of "Listen, asshole..."


@patrick so you think it's ok for your moderator to call someone a lair as long as they do it nicely? Also it's ok for your moderator to spin out of thin air something nobody said(a lie)?
211   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 29, 9:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Ideally, we would not be talking about each other and instead talking about real topics. But yes, if you're civil about it, then it's pretty much OK, as long as you're not getting obsessed with another user.

"What you said is just not true." -- fine.

"You dumbfuck liar!" -- not fine.
212   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 29, 9:18am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

@Patrick my bad, i thought you said to keep it civil by talking about the message, rather than being uncivil by attacking and defaming the messenger

As an honest person that has nothing to gain by being less than honest, i find it uncivil for posters/mods to lie on me and falsely accuse me of lying. I can see how dishonest people don’t find lying to be uncivil though
213   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 29, 9:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

How about a "Rin-onian" response like "You DumbF*ck Li*r!"

Patrick says
Ideally, we would not be talking about each other and instead talking about real topics. But yes, if you're civil about it, then it's pretty much OK, as long as you're not getting obsessed with another user.

"What you said is just not true." -- fine.

"You dumbfuck liar!" -- not fine.

« First    « Previous     Comments 174 - 213 of 213     Last »


Comment as anon_b8f3a or log in at top of page: