Is it hypocritical for free speech advocates to moderate comments on their own site?

64

It depends?

Is the intent of the moderation to shut down the free exchange of ideas, or to promote the free exchange of ideas by keeping the conversation moving?

3 Likes
65

Well, I’ve tried to post my opinions on Umm.net without success. More censorship!

2 Likes
66

Nope.

And even if it is hypocritical, so f’n what. Like, you gotta be some sort of perfect Platonic form of an ideal if you want to lobby for it? That’s bullshit. It’s like if you think free information and disclosure is a good idea, what, you gotta give out your bank passwords and PINs to anyone that asks?

19 Likes
67

12 Likes
68

Exactly. As always, moderation, in all of the various meanings of the word, is the key. Taking just about anything to extremes–including extreme free speech–is unhealthy.

10 Likes
69

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

Nobody has a problem with what you say to your hearts content at your own blog, or once or twice here as a guest, which we all are here.

10 Likes
70

and implying that you deserve better or more, do you see that?

I’m much more frustrated with @beschizza for the 6 month long safe saga than how he conducts his business, as I have my own to mind.

16 Likes
71

Right? Open the safe Rob!! Tell us whats inside!!

17 Likes
72

thats what new threads are for, so we’re not derailing original threads with our cries of censorship and inconsistency

8 Likes
73

It’s not hypocritical at all.

Pro free-speech means you are against the government dictating what can be said and not said. Doesn’t mean you want it on/in your own network/magazine/website.

9 Likes
74

The way I understand it, you offer a service that’s free to members, as long as they agree to abide by a set of standards that you set.

That’s what the TERMS OF SERVICE or TERMS AND CONDITIONS generally entail, and anyone who doesn’t agree always has the option to go to other websites… or to start their own, and then run it exactly how they see fit.

Also, this is totally obligatory:

msorjfl.jpg652×750 73.6 KB

18 Likes
75

I’m not implying that I deserve better or more, you’re inferring that. I’m talking about the larger issue that it’s not convenient for anyone to try their best at having open speech.

Neither Facebook, nor BoingBoing are obligated to provide any more than they do right now. The difference is, Facebook is not commenting on BoingBoings policy. If they did, I’d point out the irony there as well.

76

If you were using a strawman to harange other people about manners, as you are here, I suspect that everyone filing out of that room wouldn’t even silence you!

11 Likes
77

Well between you and me one of us is coming across like they deserve better, and it’s not convincing.

5 Likes
78

In general, censorship is a problem, and I think hate speech aside, the less restrictions we have on communication the better. That doesn’t mean I’m entitled to say whatever I want on BoingBoing. Ad hominem attacks claiming I feel “entitled” are meaningless, since many people who aren’t me feel the same way, including Cory and Rob who’ve published commentary on FB’s policy regarding this issue.

Although corporations don’t need to provide free speech they are very much involved in censorship, that is not limited to governmental organizations. Virtually all of our non face to face communication is sent through a corporate entity at some point and many of them could prevent you from communicating or censor your message. That’s why this is important.

2 Likes
79

So your seat on the editorial board here was confirmed?

Alternately they’re a friendly reminder that you’re being entertained at the discretion of your hosts. Why would they stop someone so entertaining? Do go on about how we do things here, what motivates our hosts, and how the handicapped feel about it. Do. Go on.

7 Likes
80

We agree on that, there is no obligation for corporations to “publish” anyone’s message, Facebook or BoingBoing.

Even being advocates of free speech, you’re not obligated to do so. In fact, I think it’s convenient, and for most practical purposes necessary, to moderate comments and images on both websites.

But if you’re going to prevent free expression on your website, is it ironic for you to point out that Facebook does the same thing? Yes it is.

81

“We” as in everyone everywhere, not people on a certain website.

82

“We” as in everyone everywhere, not people on a certain website.

That’s your opinion, man. Unless your seat on everyones editorial board was confirmed?

You’re not entitled to speak other peoples opinion. That’s the entitlement being spoken of. It’s amusing though.

8 Likes
83

Yes, it’s my opinion. Generally speaking, do you think people want more restrictions on their communications?