ive wanted to try an open source “service” where, instead of posting to facebook, boingboing, whatever directly, you post via the service and it reposts. ( possibly as a browser plugin to make that as transparent as possible. )
each person runs their own service, maybe using shared or cloud services, so each person is hosting their own personal data silo.
tie in something to follow interesting people, and you begin to break away people from facebook.
everyone controls their own source data, and businesses are then competing to display people’s aggregate feeds in interesting ways.
Maybe the larger issue is that we don’t treat people over the internet as we would treat those in the same room.
If we were all in the same room, and I pointed out that you were humiliating a person with a disability, would you silence me before I finished speaking? Would you disagree with me using the language of your last post, or maybe be a bit friendlier? If I told you I have a background in psychology would you go on about how useless that is and continue to humiliate a man you know nothing about? He did turn out to have a disability, based on (your words) “fairly convincing” evidence… now it’s “largely specious”. Sorry I called a “sub thread” a “thread”, I’m a bit new.
There’s people on the other end of your computer screen, and many of them are well intentioned. Cutting off a conversation because you think everyone’s points have been made is extreme censorship. Humiliating someone infront of millions is unspeakably cruel, often makes people suicidal. It ruins lives Rob, and it’s punishment usually far beyond whatever crime has been committed.
Removing that kind of post respects the harm principal of free speech, which I’ve mentioned a few times in this thread, and is a widely accepted limitation.
This is about principal, not being moderated: I’ve been moderated before and not cared, but you are an advocate of free speech. If David Suzuki littered on my lawn I’d care very little about my lawn, but it would really bother me that that someone I admire for environmentalist values would litter. You can act as a proponent for free speech, and you can end conversation on your blog when you think it should end… but you can’t have both and not admit the irony.
Do you think it’s a low quality post because I maintained that point?
If you focus on a few words I used for context, and ignore the rest which I backed up with a wikipedia article, news stories and a scientific journal, then sure, it’s a copy and paste job.
If I remember correctly, you said you knew someone who knew the man in question. Or maybe it was one more degree away. In any case, you have never actually proven that your claim is accurate. Meanwhile, there are enough posters on this forum who are quite vocal about equal rights for those with mental health issues that you can’t prove your claim that we don’t respect those rights, either.
What difference does it make? In the end, your original claim that the man was mentally ill appears to be largely correct: the Canadian McDonald’s MRA rant video was pulled both from BB and “We Hunted The Mammoth” too, the original source.
And there is ample evidence in that topic of same: you won, and in the best way possible – by being right to assume compassion for others, even in bad circumstances.
So why the angst in this mostly unrelated topic? You can put this one squarely in the W column.
It’s not sour grapes on an individual moderation decision. We were talking about censorship on the blog, Rob gave a list of reasons he thought valid for shutting a thread down, and I showed him that as an example where it seemed like a bad time to shut down a conversation. Then he responded, saying I was rightfully ridiculed, entitled, and censorious. I tried to illustrate why I think both free speech and the harm principal are important, in response. It’s important to discuss those things.
You were not “silenced” by anyone. This is so bizarre, this mental process. “You, a private corporation, are not only obligated to publish me, but your failure to do so silences me.”
I’ve been moderated before and not cared, but you are an advocate of free speech.
Gamergate!
As you can’t imagine speaking but through others’ voices, I suppose you are doomed to “silence.”
It ruins lives Rob, and it’s punishment usually far beyond whatever crime has been committed.
I used an example that hit too close to home, and I’m sorry if it got off topic. You can continue with the angry mob/meme-troll comments if it comes up again, but for now, why don’t we put this behind us and talk about the post?
Rob mentioned a state run version of the social network at the end of the post, and part of me thinks that’s a good idea, no matter how unlikely. The problems with that are, can we trust governments with that power, and can we convince social networks to help convert users to a new system?
In Canada, most of our telephone infrastructure was built by Bell Telephone with help from our tax dollars, and can be used by other companies for similar purposes. Bell has made a lot of money from it, and continue to have advantages over competitors because of it. If somehow social networks could became like that infrastructure, but with ads and services provided NGOs/corporations, problems like this would at least be less concentrated, and we’d have a choice of switching for moral reasons without the disadvantages of disconnecting from the reigning social network.
In a way, it might be better to start with a non profit organization to get the ball rolling on something like this, even just to avoid the problems in this story. There would be no shareholders to answer to, and explain why immense resources are being spent on something that generates not much in returns, but protects our freedom of expression.
BB has just a few rules to help the posting community. No one is censoring you or the topics you wish to create. However, there are a few rules/guidelines that we all agree to when we sign up. One is: Stay On Topic.
One of the others includes being “cool” and to not call people names. I kind of take offense to your use of:
I don’t appreciate being referred as part of a mob, but I will not flag you. I had been reading a very interesting discussion about the use of an historical photo and the issues surrounding a behemoth social media site when you decided to derail the discussion in order to win a battle that was waged in an earlier thread. Also, I never used a meme, although there is nothing wrong with the use of a visual to get a point across. I simply asked you to either give up the off-topic discussion or to start a new thread.
Just because we are asking you to follow the BBS guidelines doesn’t make us a mob. But thank you for giving all of us permission to get back on topic.
I completely, inarguably made the point that Facebook is NOT obligated to publish anything, and that its refusal to do so silences no-one. I think Facebook’s policies are slippery and bad, but it is what it is. Others here may “disagree”–but they never explain how they will coerce Facebook into to changing its ways. (I suggested nationalization as a state-run utility, mostly as an example of what it would take)
