Comment Moderation and Censorship
October 21, 2004 | 
77 Comments
Summary: A discussion on comment censorship, comment deletion and comment moderation.
Ah comments. How I love, and hate, thee. The choice to allow comments here, and in general be very liberal in doing so, has been at times the best thing about running this site. Unfortunately, just as often it seems it’s been the worst.
They are my primary source of frustration when it comes to running this site. Between the spam, the trolls, the fact that they are the source of invalidation when it comes to standards and a whole bunch of other things, well, let’s just say they can be a pain in the ass.
I’ve often thought about closing them, or going to some sort of moderation system, but in the end I feel they are central to the success of my site. As well, for the most part, the good far out weighs the bad. But there are those times, and this is one of them.
When it gets out of hand…
The other day I decided to do something I’ve never had to do, not in over 1200 posts and 7500 comments. I decided to delete an entire thread from a post. It’s not something I wanted to do, but felt needed to be done for various reasons, which I’ll get to in a moment.
There have been times when I’ve felt it was necessary to delete a comment here or there. In general my rule is that if a comment is offensive, too far off-topic, too self promotional or otherwise detrimental, I’ll delete it. If I’m not sure, I’ll contact the person who made the comment first and give them a chance to defend their comment.
In reality I pretty much reserve the right to delete any comment, but I’m loathe to do so and luckily have not had to do it very often. Well, aside from spam which I’ve got to deal with every damn day, even with Blacklist.
In this particular case, the main reason I deleted the thread was because it was too far off-topic (in my mind) and had degenerated into what basically amounted to a flame war. I didn’t think it was adding anything to the discussion, even though the original sentiments that started the thread (which did not get deleted) were valid. It was a hard choice, but I think the correct one.
I did talk to the people involved, one before and few after the deletion, and they all understood why it was done. However, after the fact I got a few e-mails expressing displeasure and concern that I was practicing unnecessary censorship.
I’m not sure how to feel about that. While there is no doubt that I hold the right to delete any comment I wish, as it states in my comment guidelines, and I feel that in this case the comments were best removed, I didn’t really feel good about having to do that.
So I guess the question, and it’s one I’d love for my readers to help me answer, is this: where is the line drawn? When is it ok to censor, or in my case, delete a comment?
A few things you should know
Before you answer that I want to let you in on a few things. First of all, I’m all for free and open communication, but with almost every post my hope is that the comments add something useful to the post. If I do a post about personas and people start discussing Web standards I’ll jump in and try to get them back on track. This usually works.
(In this particular case, it did not, and I think that was because people felt they were still on topic and I guess at first they were, but it’s a judgment call that I’ve got to make. In the end it’s up to me to decided what’s on- and what’s off-topic. Regardless, I didn’t feel the thread added anything of meaning to the discussion and it was getting worse with every comment. My efforts to cut it off weren’t working well either. Probably due to the nature of the post. It was all very ironic.)
SO, in that way I’m keeping the goals of the future reader in mind. I know I hate to see a post where the comments meander way off the beaten path. I realize that some people enjoy this, but this is not the kind of thing I want to do with Asterisk. Which brings me to my next point.
I don’t usually want to host flamewars here. There are times when I’ll let people go off and say whatever they want, and if so it will usually be asked for in the post. If you notice I generally try and dictate the kind of comments I’d like to see, if any, at the end of the post, as you’ll see in a paragraph or two.
For example, if I’m asking for tips, I’ll say that. If I want to discuss something, I’ll say that. This isn’t done haphazardly. It’s done as an attempt to shape the discussion to follow, mainly for my sanity and the benefit of my readers. In this way I hope to allow for discussion, or comments, with out getting way out of control. For the most part this has worked very well.
Ok, so with that in mind, what do you think?
I’m asking for your opinion on this. You can comment however you like on this one (see, there I go!) but I’d really like to know when you think it’s appropriate, or not, to delete a comment or thread. Do you consider that censorship, and if so is it acceptable, or not? I’d like to know in relation to this site, but if you want to speak in general terms, knock yourself out, just let us know you are doing that.
Also, how do you feel about comment moderation in general? This is something I’m pretty hardline against, but at times have considered it simply because I feel my site can be too much of bear to manage. I don’t plan on going down that road, in fact I’d probably just shut the comments off first, as I know I never bother to comment on moderated systems, but I’m curious to see what y’all think.
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. Jeremy Flint said:
I think your looking at a 50/50 situation. While you do have the right to censor comments made on your site (as stated plainly when posting comments), by doing so some will immediately criticize you and label you as being a dictator of sorts, censoring free speech, yadda yadda yadda.
However, you will also have positive feedback from many of your readers, most of whom are just as offended or taken back by comments as you are, or get just as frustrated when comments go so far off topic that discussion is futile.
Comment moderation will be a load to take on. With as many comments as you get on average, that is a lot of babysitting. Babysitting that you may not have as much time for with your new job.
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:33 AM | #
2. Kyle Fox said:
I’m one of the people responsible for the delete thread and I feel that you were well within your rights (and right mind) to delete it. In hindsight I was probably making matters way worse and would like to apologize to everyone involved.
It definatley wasn’t adding much, if anyting at all to the discussion and topic.
And anyway, it’s your site, do what you want. I don’t think people should hold it against you for deleting things like that. Especially if those of us making the comments were ok with it.
I can see how you might have been worried a future reader would come across that and get a pretty skewed message.
As to moderation, I don’t like it either. I don’t comment on blogs much and I think if I had to register or have my comment approved I’d be much less inclinced to do.
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:43 AM | #
3. ColdForged said:
It’s your site. Removal of content that you feel doesn’t belong on your site for whatever reason is well within your right in my opinion. That’s how I approach my blog, that’s what I expect from other people.
If you were going in and modifying content to completely change meaning (e.g. changing “I think Bush is the only valid candidate” to “I think Kerry is the only valid candidate”), I would say that would be 100% incorrect. But completely deleting entire posts is entirely up to you. People that get upset that you are “censoring” them have every right to express the opinion they were attempting to convey on their own – most likely significantly less well-read and hence less likely to be seen – personal web space if they so desire.
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:44 AM | #
4. Keith said:
Jeremy – Too right. Although I think it’s less like 50/50 and more like 80/20. Most of my feedback in general is very positive.
As to the moderation and baby-sitting. I’ve go no intention to go that way. Like I said, I’d probably just cut comments off. As far as time, I plan to post a lot less unfortunately, at least for awhile. Who knows though, maybe it’ll just help me clarify and condense my writing into smaller chunks. We’ll see.
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:46 AM | #
5. Jacob Kaplan-Moss said:
The thing that’s always amazed me about any online discussion is how quickly the discussion can become uncivil. In Real Lifeâ„¢, we would never dream of saying the things we say online – has Godwin’s law ever been invoked in face-to-face conversations?
The way I see it, our sites are our houses. If someone is in your living room, you expect at least a modicum of civility, and you have the right to show them the door if they break that expectation. Why should our digital houses be any different?
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:55 AM | #
6. John Blaze said:
I see comments on other sites that have nothing to do with the topic. I think of comments as a town meeting, if someone is off-topic you straighten them out or ‘shut them down’. In this case, delete the comment or whole topic. It’s a sad state to have ‘censor’ other people comments, but it takes all types to rule the world.
Like the poster before me; if people hate having their voice silenced, create their own blog.
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:56 AM | #
7. Nathan Logan said:
I agree with Jeremy on this one - there’s a balance there. But he already talked about that issue, so I don’t have to rehash it.
Another perspective is that content is what keeps people coming back to your site. If your content goes to crap, people will stop coming here. IMO, comments are part of that content (albeit very much distinguished from your original content).
That being the case, I see two-fold responsibility.
First, it is up to commenters to follow your very reasonable posting guidelines. This is for the sake of the rest of the users who will be interacting with said topic.
Second, because you care about the quality of the content on your site (and you have a vested interest in users coming back to read it and interact with it), you must hold posters accountable for what they post. I think this includes deleting posts as you see fit. This is, after all, NOT a chat room, NOT instant messenger, NOT e-mail, and not an open forum to discuss whatever happens to be occupying your mind at the time. Comments related to a specific post should be just that, related.
Anyway, keep up the good work. The content here is great and I am glad to see that you struggle over this issue and don’t just lackadaisically flop to one side or the other.
Posted on October 21, 2004 07:57 AM | #
8. Jason TC said:
It is your site do so as you see fit.
IMPO if you use the term “Guidelines” then moderating the comments is a sign of hypocrisy (guidelines == suggested behavior). Moderation equals “Rules” or “Laws” and should stated as such if moderation is your choice. (ie “Rules for posting comments:”)
I also believe that it take two or more to start a flamewar, so if the community encourages the behavior it will happen. If the community is not a fan of trolls then they will be ignored and the troll will leave.
I am a first time commenter and otherwise just lurk, but I will say one of the main reasons I read the site is due to the comments and would find the site not quite as appealing if they go away.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:03 AM | #
9. Lim S M said:
Keith,
Something you could/should have touched on in your entry is the word we all dread: responsibility.
It strikes me as ironic that people are quick to defend themselves with arguements such as “a right to my own opinion” and “freedom of speech” but are unwilling to accept the responsibility that comes part and parcel with these rights. I know that the Guidlines for posting comments are hardly law but it does state, quite clearly, “By commenting on this site, you are accepting responsibility for your words.”
I for one am glad that you are taking action to delete comments that you deem offensive and/or inappropriate. You needn’t feel guilty about having to draw the oft times subjective line between right and wrong; this is your site after all. Someone has to take up the responsibility.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:04 AM | #
10. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Censorship is inhuman and unjust. If you want “pure” conversation, you’d be best served to shut off comments and imagine more pleasant conversation in your head.
Half-limp arguments for moderation and censorship can be made on an individual basis. “It’s my house,” etc. But, “free speech” is not a continuum. Freedom is not a gray area. It is unbridled and limitless except when we impose our restrictions on it, in which case it is no longer freedom but rather our twisted perception of such that fits into whatever hole we need to fill in that moment. For instance, censoring language in music or film: we call it just because it is in the defense of supposedly vulnerable individuals, usually children, but that excuse is just an excuse not to deal with the real issue: the power of language and ideas and how we teach each other to utilize and deal with them.
All of that said, deleting comment spam is not censorship for obvious reasons.
An opinion is an opinion regardless of delivery, and everybody is entitled to one.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:07 AM | #
11. Daryl said:
Regarding censorship, it’s your blog, your rules. Do what you like, and if people whine, screw ‘em. I think it’s great that you’re so tied up in not censoring people, but in the end, this is a personal publication and not an accountable journalistic instrument, and discretion about what’s appropriate is entirely yours. Freedom of speech applies to the commons, really, and not to private enterprises. Nobody has the right to come into your living room and rant at you for an hour on the basis of a claim that to do so constitutes the exercise of free speech. Same with your personal blog.
Regarding spam blocking, have you looked into using captcha? My blog gets paltry traffic, but even I started to get double digit spams per day. When I added captchas, automatic spam at least was stopped dead in its tracks.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:10 AM | #
12. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Actually Daryl,
Anyone has the right to do what you described, just as anyone would have the right to react to such action however they pleased.
It’s the choices you make that are guided by principles such as freedom. Most just give up at a certain crossroads such as, say, their living room, because it’s easy to fall back on the concensus that censorship is okay then.
But it is still censorship, and it is still just another excuse to take the easier road out.
In your proposed situation, consider, oh I dunno… ignoring the person rather than expunging their voice from the chorus. Others may want to hear what they have to say.
Geezus… we’re talking about words here people. Words and ideas, some of the most powerful things in the known universe, but also the most impotent.
It just depends on what you want to interpret.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:27 AM | #
13. Keith said:
Seth – fair enough. But I’m inclined to side more with the “my house, my rules” theory expressed above.
(and please keep in mind, I usually let people say whatever they want here.)
If you were to come into my house as a stranger (and as much as I hate to say it, most of you are strangers to a certain degree) and began to make me (or my friends, or other strangers) uncomfortable with your conversation I’d probably ask you to leave. If that failed, I’d kick your ass out.
This is my house and I do have a few guidelines. I think I’m pretty liberal in my feelings towards comments, but having said that, I’m not sure I want “pure conversation” here all the time. Thing is this blog isn’t exacly what I’d call a free society…
Again, as you imply, that is my call to make. I could cut comments off, but I don’t want to, as well, if people don’t like it, they don’t have to comment and can express their opinion elsewhere.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t plan on making a habit of deleting comments by any means, in fact, I hope to never have something like this happen again. But those guidelines are in place for a reason.
I do agree with you in principle and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:32 AM | #
14. girlwonder said:
I tend to not speak about most things controversial, so the need for me to delete such a thing would be minimal. However, if it were to arise - I think I would just let it play it because people can read and decipher for themselves the situation at hand. You are just a conduit for the discussion, where that discussion goes is up to the commenters.
In the case of self-promotion on the other hand, I think that most times those things are hard to call and I tend to let those go as well.
For me, the bottom line is that they are just words and unless those words are just so far off the mark (i.e. racist) we should all share them.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:36 AM | #
15. Gabriel Mihalache said:
Comments are voluntary additions to the main content by the author. You can decide to accept them or not, based on whatever criteria you like.
Sometimes, I just don’t like the verbiage of a comment: poor grammar, no capitalisation, etc., so I might delete it even though the content would match the topic..
It al depends on what you want your site to contain, really. No appoligies necessary. If people want to make their own remarks in a serious matter, they should trackback or just link back.
Some comments are pagerank whoring mostly, so turnign on MT’s redirect mechanism can detter some people.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:38 AM | #
16. Patricia said:
What strikes me is that some people seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to be uncivil. As Nathan already pointed out, online discussions oftentimes, I’ve found, break down much faster than ‘live’ discussions. I find this puzzling and frustrating. I happen to be of the opinion that anything, if given enough time and thought, can be said in a constructive manner, a manner which doesn’t lead to communication completely shutting down.
As for deleting a thread: As you pointed out, this is the first time you’ve had to do it. That you’ve had more than 7500 comments added to the site and have just now encountered this problem says a lot.
There’s no way you’re going to make every single visitor happy, and people will complain no matter what, sadly. All in all, I wouldn’t stress out over it.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:38 AM | #
17. Keith said:
Seth – you do make a good point about ignoring vs. expunging. I should have ignored or addressed differently and I’ve learned something in all of this. I don’t think this will happen again.
I’m not perfect. I’m just a guy with a blog people, expecting me to be more is, well, a path to disappointment. Maybe I shouldn’t have erased those words and ideas, but I did and I feel it was probably the right thing to do.
It’s an imperfection of the system and media as well. The words and ideas you post here are, to a certain degree, attached to me and my ideas. This makes it a bit different than your water-cooler conversation.
I don’t always know the best way to handle these things, that’s one of the reasons why I asked for your opinion.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:39 AM | #
18. Taco John said:
Your blog is your personal space. You paid for the hosting, you may have paid for the software as well. You put your time and effort into creating a design and content. A blogger should have the right to dicate how his or her blog is used. You should have the right to delete any and all comments. If you have a political blog and want to only allow comments that agree with you, that’s your decision. Obviously, you only care about making the other side mad, or having your blog read by people who agree with you. Does it generate healthy debate? No. Does it have the same level of discussion? Of course not. Is it wrong? Absolutely not.
Free speech is taken to an extreme by people. I deleted a bunch of troll and spam comments by one person, who then sent me an angry e-mail that I had an obligation to allow him to exercise his “free speech rights.” Free speech rights do not include coming into my personal space on the web and making fun of me or advertising online poker. I allow just about any comment on my blog aside from spam and anything that is clearly trolling. I moderate comments with a number of derogatory terms in them, so I can catch trolls, not to keep anyone from having their say. But if I want to one day just drop all the comments, it’s my right. Sometimes people take rights and privilages to the extreme, and a nice lesson in what is acceptable or not is very appropriate.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:41 AM | #
19. Stefan Visser said:
Without reading the comments, I have to say this:
Boo hoo. Big, [expletive] boo hoo.
If people are upset that their precious comment was deleted, they should go and create a livejournal and bitch about it there.
You handle comments with care and with alot of thought. You have clear rules about commenting and this is your site. That’s 3-0.
This site is not some forum and should be regarded as such.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:43 AM | #
20. Dave Child said:
The word “censorship” makes it sound bad, or somehow wrong. While it’s never nice to have to delete comments, nobody has a right to say what they like on your site.
As Daryl said, there is no issue of Freedoms here. If someone really wants to say something about what you have said, they can always create a page on the web themselves. Or write to their government representative.
Personally, I delete comments regularly. 99% of the those I delete are spam. The other 1% are innappropriate, either in language or content. I absolutely refuse to edit comments, and won’t have bad language in my comments, so trash is the only option.
At the end of the day, comment moderation (not the holding of comments for approval but the removal of innappropriate comments) is a necessary evil on any website where the general public is allowed to add their thoughts.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:44 AM | #
21. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Patricia, you said:
You are actually the one confusing the issue on that one. The decision to be the highly subjective “uncivil” is an expression within the greater realm of freedom to be however you like.
Addressing Keith’s point about “my house, my rules”, of course anyone has the right to ask somebody to change their tone or be quiet altogether, etc. And again, the idividual the request is being made of then has the same right to react however they want. Their perceived civility in this regard is no less subjective that the civility of muting them.
But again… our inherent, unbridled freedom of expression that comes with our existence is not something to be taken lightly, nor is it completely developed. It is the latter point that I believe makes the strongest case against censorship.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:48 AM | #
22. Jason Standbeck said:
GREAT TOPIC.
I wanted to add another thought. It’s been mentioned that deletion of comments is like expunging ideas, right? Well, what if he decided to delete the whole blog?
What I’m getting at is that this is Keith’s site and like as not, when you place a comment here, it effectively becomes his to do with as he pleases.
I doubt he realizes this or thinks of it in this way, but there isn’t really another way to look at it. Sure, the words and ideas are yours, but the physical (or data) form is his.
When commenting on a blog, you need to realize that your text can be removed without explanation at any time. Sure, it might not always be right (although I do side with Keith’s decision on this one) but it’s a fact.
If you want to keep your ideas your own, and keep them free, publish them on your own site or in some other way back them up.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:49 AM | #
23. Matt O'Dell said:
I think people who feel that you deleting a thread equals censorship or an attack of freedom of speech are slightly misguided. Your website is a representation of you, and if you feel the need to delete a thread, you completely have that right. If anyone wants a forum to speak their mind, there are more than enough free web hosts out there for them to setup a website on.
Along with that, you, the author and moderator, must be able to accept any sort of response from the public based on your decision to delete the thread. For example, if Walmart feels the need to not sell a CD because of its content, it must accept the consequences of getting flack from the public along with losing possible revenue.
So you completely have the right to do whatever you want with this site, but unfortunately certain people might feel censored. Its part of the responsibilities of administering a public forum.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:51 AM | #
24. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Keith,
I am not meaning to sound too hard on you. The world is still spinning, the sun still rises(or so I’m told, it’s awful dreary here today), etc. I’m just voicing some opinions regarding the topic posed. :)
I must say, though, your comment about your readers’ comments being somehow attached to you is a bit perplexing given this disclaimer found below the textarea I’m typing in right now:
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:52 AM | #
25. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
I don’t mean to go comment-crazy, but…
To the people throwing out pithy “boo hoo”s and other useless, immature commentary: be thankful you have the unbridled right to contribute such nothingness if you so desire.
:)
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:54 AM | #
26. Keith said:
Seth - You say “Their perceived civility in this regard is no less subjective that the civility of muting them.” And I agree, however, tongue firmly in cheek, in my house I decide what’s civil and what’s not civil. There is no subjectiveness here, it is what I say it is.
:0)
But in general you’re very right. Now go talk about it at your site. Just kidding. Thanks for the point of view, it’s an interesting one.
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:55 AM | #
27. Keith said:
Seth – Yeah I realize that might seem at odds with my guidelines, but in reality people who don’t read those, or don’t know how a blog works (I get lots of them) might not understand. That’s all I’m trying to point out.
For example, my grandma might think all of this is my own work…you never know!
Posted on October 21, 2004 08:57 AM | #
28. Kyle Fox said:
Seth, as well be thankful you have the unbridled right to rock the boat! But honestly, I like your thinking, I just feel that on a site like this with so many “strangers” commenting, Keith almost has a responsibility to jump in and moderate every once in awhile. Even if that included deleting comments.
Heaven knows we can’t do it on our own!
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:00 AM | #
29. Ste Grainer said:
I think the censorship issue really depends on the forum … for a deeply personal site, I think the author should be allowed any amount of censorship they so desire. In the case of your site (where your implied or perhaps even stated intention is to create discussion on web design), I think a heavy-handed approach would be deleterious. I’m fairly certain I wasn’t one of the offending commenters (I rarely have time to offer my thoughts lately), but even if I were, I don’t think I’d mind that you deleted something you felt was off-topic and possibly inflammatory. Of course, if I were incensed about it and felt the censorship was wrong, I could always just write a weblog entry on my own site summarizing my censored thoughts and point it at the original entry. :)
Anyway …
What would be interesting to see would be a more advanced comment system for weblogs where users can rate other comments (akin to slashdot’s system) so that off-topic or less useful comments aren’t immediately available but instead hidden on second- and third-tier pages. Giving the original author a +10 (or admin-modifiable) bonus on moderation of comments would also be a nice bonus specifically for weblogs. Hrm, I wonder if there is such a system yet for MovableType and how much it would take to implement one …
(BTW, I just noticed the “Privacy Info” link next to email address … nice touch. :)
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:02 AM | #
30. Keith said:
Ste – I’d love a system like that. That way, if the readers rating was -10 (or troll worthy) I could delete the comment out of hand!
Really, though, that would be very helpful.
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:05 AM | #
31. Dave P said:
My $.02:
There’s a big difference between a “community” site such as metafilter or slashdot and a personal blog, where in fact you have “allowed” folk to present their opinions.
I’m with the “cry me a river” crowd on this one. The only person who is entitled to use this as their personal soapbox is you Keith. All the others are entitled to express their opinion only as much as you consider appropriate. Fair or not. Don’t like it, leave.
As an aside, I’ve disagreed - sometimes quite emphatically - with you and never felt the “fear” of having my comment deleted, because I believe you have “reasonable” standards that you hold yourself to. There are others that are much more authoritarian, (ie: no bad words - ever) but the quality of discussion to be had on a site is reflective to the perceived “reason” that you use. Too high and no one comments, too low and discussion is meaningless. Running a site, you walk a fine line between those two points.
In my opinion you Keith walk that line quite well.
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:07 AM | #
32. Scrivs said:
Only 7500 comments? Man I thought this site was popular? You probably would have a ton more if you didn’t go back into every thread and delete comments you didn’t like!!!!
:-P
I jest…
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:08 AM | #
33. Tom T said:
Normally I do not post lots of comments on a smattering of blogs…but after reading this:
…I’m feeling the need.Keith mentioned it once, and I’ll reiterate it as probably the most powerful argument for deleting and moderating comments: even including the guidelines (which are guidelines, not rules–it’s a “I’m asking nicely” as opposed to “this is the rule of law here”): ultimately Keith, and only Keith is responsible for what is said here. The living room analogy is decent, but I like to think of it in more political terms…Keith is the leader, and we all as comment posters help not only to foster free (and good) discussion, but in a way that completely reflects on the character of Keith’s blog–as well as help him create both legitimacy and credibility for himself and his words.
If one views this particular form of censorship in this manner, then one cannot help but come to the conclusion that Keith should absolutely reserve the right to delete, and occasionally carry out a delete.
Of course, it’s the manner in which he does this censorship that helps add to his credibility. How many other blogs do you know of that would be so open about what he’s doing, and solicit opinions about it?
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:15 AM | #
34. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Once again, I am not meaning to demonize Keith at all. He is, to be completely honest, one of my favorite bloggers. Period. He does a fantastic job with Asterisk.
Kyle,
I am thankful! But I don’t really think I’m “rocking the boat”! Like I said… nah, let me try letting others speak for me for a minute. As stated by Jurassic 5:
Fuck the First Amendment
My speech was free the day that my soul descended
This is at the core of one of the most important ideas I was trying to communicate: the freedom of expression is absolute and inherent. Any decision to intentionally hinder that for another individual because you have certain power to do so is removing that freedom, plain and simple, and an unecessary act.
Does this mean that, without exception, the person doing so is a demon? Of course not. We obviously have a long way to go, us humans, with this freedom concept, myself included.
Just don’t forget what it is, know when you’re toying with it, and remind yourself of that as we all keep working towards something close to if not smack on top of the ideal.
Peace! :)
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:33 AM | #
35. Keith said:
Seth – Oh you had to go and quote J5. Hard to disagree with that.
I get your point and agree with it for the most part. It’s too idealistic to be 100% practical 100% of the time. Ego, prejudice, misconception, etc. all have a hand in hindering the kind of free speech you talk about.
It’s not right, I’m guilty of this and I imagine you are as well.
Having said that, I’ll all for what you’re talking about, to a point. I have a problem with negative attitudes and I don’t want that here on my site. If you pass the line I’ve laid out in my head as to what is uncivil or not I *may* take issue.
I don’t think this is as black and white as you may imply. These things never are. Life is lived in a grey area, whether you like it, believe it, or no. I don’t have problems with this, in fact, I’m glad there is a bit of wiggle room on issues like this.
I’ve never understood the notion that people have to agree 100%. I agree with most of what you say, and I’d like to leave it there.
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:51 AM | #
36. beerzie boy said:
I view a blog as the same way I view any hosted social event. You are the host here, and you have the right to let people know when they are out of line, and – if necessary – kick them out when they cross that line.
Anyone who regularly visits blogs has a general idea about the rules of commenting; keep it civil, on topic, etc. There is nothing wrong with shooting off your mouth, (I do it all the time) but remember if your rant runs counter to what is acceptable to the blog’s host (and you should be able to figure out what is okay on a site by familiarizing yourself with it) you may find yourself censored. (It has happened to me when I have gotten carried away in someone’s comments. It stung a little, but I got over it. And after thinking about it, I understood why.)
It is a fact of every day life that you can’t say whatever you want wherever you want. Can you mouth off at work? At your kids’ school? In court? Why is a blog any different? Speech on the Internet is “free”, but we need to understand that all freedoms have limitations, and I am not sure there is anything wrong with that. If you want to say whatever you want and not be censored, get your own site. If you want to comment on other people’s blogs, you need to abide by their rules, and if you don’t like the rules, the blog is probably not right for you.
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:55 AM | #
37. Nathan Logan said:
Seth,
I find it ironic that you promote unhindered free speech and yet claim that “spammers” (i.e. those who would promote a product or service in an uninvited and/or unrelated manner) should be ‘censored’.
I’m sorry, but to me, given your previous (and subsequent) statements, it’s not at all obvious. For instance…
What fundamentally places spammers in a different category? Why can’t I just “ignore” them? The only thing that seems to differentiate them is their message.
Girlwonder presents a similar logical contradiction.
Again, this is ‘censorship’ based on message
alone. Even I am the sole person in the world who believes something (even if that something is as inflamatory as racism), and you ‘censor’ me, you have abandoned the idea of truly unhindered speech.
You see, any distinction you try to make seems to be artificial. Taken to its logical end, if you claim that to be free, speech much be entirely unedited and unhindered, then you must (in my estimation) take the good with the bad. Even if the bad is spam, racism, etc.
Which is why, IMO, we all inherently believe in some restrictions on speech, it’s just a matter of where we draw the line.
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:03 AM | #
38. Cody Lindley said:
This is your platform, created by you, I wouldn’t be tempted in the least little bit to shake the responsibilities thrusted upon anybody in a leadership role.
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:05 AM | #
39. Stefan Visser said:
Well Seth, please allow me to post 50 randomish non-sensical comments on your blog. I might even post some links to online casino’s, Dai.lEY Savvigns and other (in my mind) appropriate content.
You don’t mind, otherwise you would be a bad man and undermine my freedom of speech.
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:07 AM | #
40. Gidget said:
I think this “new media” still parallels the old. If I published a newspaper or a magazine, you could write a Letter to the Editor expressing your views.
If the letter was pertinent, I’d publish it. It could be controversial, it could be ridiculous, but as the editor, if I thought it had merit, it would be my decision.
Only a very silly person would cry censorship if their Letter to the Editor didn’t get printed or published. If they have something to say, they have any number of outlets to use.
Keith, I am sorry to hear you will be writing less. I’m a huge fan.
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:24 AM | #
41. Keith said:
Gidget – I’ll still be writing, just spending less time. New job, gotta focus, etc. I hope you’ll still be reading what I do have time to publish.
The good news is I write fairly quickly and I still have a backlog of posts in the hopper!
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:30 AM | #
42. mike said:
Some of you are far off base. This site is privately run…you have no “freedom of speech” here. Keith can decide to do whatever he wants with his site. He pays to run this site, so the only right you have, if you so chose, it to not visit it.
What you guys are describing is similar to saying that you can come and post a sign on my house and if I take it down I’m censoring you. That’s absolutely ridiculous. This site is owned and operated by Keith, so the content here effects the reputation of his work and the quality of his site. He is in no waying stopping your voice. Nothing is stopping you from buying your own webspace and publishing your own blog where you can post whatever you please. Sorry if i sound a little harsh, but I moderate several forums, another large site with a commenting system, and a few blogs as well. This is an arguement that i’ve heard countless times from people who feel that it is my duty to provide them with a forum for whatever they please to say. This is not the case. Further, those of you who argue this have no concept of the actual meaning of free speech and are under the false impression that it is provided to all over the internet. It is not.
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:43 AM | #
43. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Nathan,
No offense, but I’m amazed this distinction needs to be made:
If I break into your house through the living room while you are eating a steak dinner and start ranting about the evils of meat production while trying to convince you to purchase some of my fine vegan products, then you would not be censoring me to call the cops or simply reach for the baseball bat you have stashed in the umbrella stand. (Unsolicited comment spam)
But if you invite me over and, in the course of the aforementioned topic of discussion, somehow revoke my ability to contribute my thoughts, however annoying they might be to you… then you are doing something wrong. (Deleting posts one doesn’t agree with)
Now, of course this topic like ANY topic can be stretched to ultimate relativity, but you and I both know that’s useless in the current context.
For the record though, I actually allowed sunny@moonlightshadow.us to spam my site for a few days straight because I loved that he filled the comment text not with links but amusing and sometimes even throught-provoking quotes and passages. I eventually deleted the comments, but immortalized his initial efforts nonetheless.
Cheerio, m8…
Posted on October 21, 2004 10:59 AM | #
44. teli said:
All things in moderation. Healthy moderation.
I’m all about free speech - it’s my birthright (or well since I was actually able to talk) - however, what I find some people don’t understand is that there is a certain responsibility that immediately gets attached to what they are saying.
How many people have actually said something that they regretted later (be it 2 seconds or 2 years)? I’m betting on most everyone. The solution is basically to “think before you speak” - now, I’m guilty of not actually doing this myself….(did I really just admit that?) and I know others are as well.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and expressing their opinions - however, if someone is trying to run something (a blog post, for instance) on a specific subject - people should do well to be responsible enough to remain on that subject - with a sensible tone. This basically boils down to using good judgement. You can express your views and opinions without seeming crass and unreasonable.
I can’t say anything to what was posted on the “mysterious deleted topic” but as far as I can read of Keith’s blog, he is very liberal in allowing people to express themselves as long as it brings some life and personality to the topic at hand. So the fact that he felt he needed to delete something tells me that it was more hurtful than helpful.
I don’t believe it was “censorship” so much as keeping the thread respectable. I’m sure he would have allowed the comments to stay if they were addressed in a proper manner and tone. That is well within his own personal rights.
Although we were taught that “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me” - words do carry a lot of impact and it all boils down to responsibility. If you stand by your words, make sure you get your point across sensibly - more people will be inclined to listen and there will be less need for censorship.
I agree whole-heartedly with the “it’s your blog, it’s your rules” policy.
If someone feels censored on your blog Keith, so beit, they can start their own blog and blog about it and it would make for wonderful irony.
My $0.00025 cents :)
Posted on October 21, 2004 11:05 AM | #
45. Taco John said:
Seth,
Even if I invite you in, I still have the right to say “I’m tired of this discussion, we are done now.” I have the right to say “I have invited you here under the premise you agree with me, I see I was wrong, we are done here.”
Imagine if I had you over for dinner and began a political discussion. It may be childish and immature to make faces and noises everytime you say something I disagree with, but not immoral. Not wrong. And in fact, I would say by deleting a comment, I am expressing something, which could itself be called “free speech.”
I understand you used the Jurassic 5 reference to show you believe the First Amendment and its limitations does matter here. But even if this is some natural right, it is not the right to act how you want, when you want, where you want. Nothing is preventing you from disagree with someone somewhere else. Now, if I disagree with you, delete your comments, then harass you on your own site when you post the disagreements there, we have a problem.
Posted on October 21, 2004 11:13 AM | #
46. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Heh… people keep missing something I stated several times: I don’t deny the right of anybody to do whatever they want at any given point in time. I questioned the necessity of actions such as silencing a dissenting or “disrespectful” voice. Period.
I also thought it obvious that people tend to speak in absolutisms, as I have a few times here, because it emphasizes the surrounding ideas. The audience members just have to have the rationality to filter appropriately.
I mean honestly… one has to see the absurdity of taking an absolutist statement literally and trying to criticize it. Makes no sense…
Posted on October 21, 2004 11:33 AM | #
47. Dave P said:
lol Taco:
You do have that right, although most people would conclude, myself included, that you have the maturity level of a four year old, and pretty soon you won’t have anyone to invite over for dinner.
I know you’re making a point, but I had to say it. ;-)
Posted on October 21, 2004 11:44 AM | #
48. Nathan Logan said:
Seth,
Pardon my density, but I think I missed the message behind your analogy (I got lost in the details). Would you mind rephrasing it minus the analogy?
Really, I would just appreciate a reasoned justification for why it is okay to post whatever you want except spam. Either that, or a clarification pointing to my (mis)understanding of what you initially said.
In my understanding, you initially stated that due to your right to free speech (about which Mike made a great observation in #42), you should be allowed to say anything you want. On-topic, off-topic, offensive, or not, you should be able to state it.
So if I got that right (and I very well may not have), how do you justify drawing the line when my comment is advertising my site or my product? Also, what is your view on comments that are inflammatorily racial or prejudicial?
Just FYI, I probably won’t be able to get back to this post until tomorrow, so pardon my impending silence.
By the way, this is a great discussion. I’m thoroughly enjoying it. =)
Posted on October 21, 2004 11:52 AM | #
49. David Chen said:
I run fallenearth.org, which pretty much hosts blogs for people. In order to get a blog, people must contact me directly, and I inform them rather nicely that I run the site as a benevolent dictator. I outline some general rules, but reserve the right to delete posts or their entire blog if I feel I have sufficient enough reason.
People have good alternatives for other ways of expression, and at the pure no-censorship extreme too much usefulness is lost. Most people agree that design-by-committee tends to yield subpar results. Linux and Python are both examples of successful endeavors run by benevolent dictators. The failure of many idealists is that they do not account for, ah, reality. An optimal long-term plan is worth nothing if it doesn’t survive in the short-term.
Also, to never censor is to limit the owner of the blog’s own ability for expression. If people are allowed to express ideas in rude and uncivil ways, I think it is just as valid to express your dislike by deleting their comments. There is loss of information, true; but from a realistic standpoint, there is far more loss when threads are reduced to incoherency.
Posted on October 21, 2004 11:55 AM | #
50. seth said:
To all the “free speech” people:
Eh? This is a private site, not funded by any gov’t bodies or owned by stock holders, etc. Keith can do as he wishes. He has no obligation to let people speek freely. You have no “rights” on his site. He extends the “privilege” for you to comment here.
If you don’t like it, don’t comment. If you really don’t like, don’t continue to visit the site.
Posted on October 21, 2004 12:02 PM | #
51. Keith said:
David – Thanks for your points and perspective. I see things much the same way.
To address Nathan’s question about saying anything you want:
Seth’s views are his own, and he’s got a right to them. The answer to your quesiton is no you can’t say anything you want here. Or rather you can, but that doesn’t mean I won’t censor it.
If you insult me, or my readers (or even if I think you are) you may get deleted. It’s a judgement call that is all my own to make.
When I deleted the posts the other day, it wasn’t because I disagreed with them or anything like that. People disagree with me all the time.
I felt some of them were rude, negative and didn’t add to the discussion in any productive manner. This goes for my own comments as well.
Had the flamewar looked to have an end I might have left them, but it didn’t seem to be slowing down, so I decided to kill it as close to the source as I could. Make no mistake, I tried to put and end to it first and it didn’t work.
It’s no one person’s fault, it just happened and I felt it was best to move on.
Posted on October 21, 2004 12:05 PM | #
52. Thomas Skrimstad said:
Interesting discussion.
In my opinion freedom is a concept relative to it’s parent, i.e.. the community or setting in which this freedom is found. Everyone wants freedom, but few wants absolute freedom. Rules and guidelines guard what we perceive to be freedom, and those rules and guidelines will vary from setting to setting. If you forcefully impose the concept of freedom found in one community onto another community you’re taking away this second communities freedom. In short, your own freedom pretty much ends where another’s freedom begins.
A blog is a fairly uncomplicated arena as far as freedom goes. After all, you have the freedom to choose wether or not you wish to enter and participate. A blog has an author who ultimately holds the right to define the rules and guidelines of the freedom found there. That is not to say that the author has an obligation to do so, that too is at the discretion of the author. If you do not like these rules you can voice your opinion on them, perhaps enter a discussion with the author on them, but at the end of the day you have entered his freedom.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Posted on October 21, 2004 12:06 PM | #
53. Adrian said:
Well, since I run 3 different blogs, I’d have to say I’ve moved to a fully moderated way of doing things. All comments pass through me before they even show up. I don’t usually get many comments, so it’s not a huge deal, but I’ve found that on occasion, I post something that really gets people up and going…
My viewpoint is, it’s my site, it’s my blog(s), as a visitor, you are a guest, and are expected to act/post like one. If you do not act/post like a guest, then I will do the real world equivalent of kicking a rude guest out of my house (i.e. your posts are gone, or severly pruned). Act like a guest in my house, and nobody will have any problems.
Posted on October 21, 2004 12:06 PM | #
54. Dick said:
I think your comment policy should be inline with your goals for the blog. A comment either furthers that goal or it doesn’t. And the latter should be deleted.
My blog is very specialized and targeted, so my goals are a little easier to define. I want to have the best (most informative, most visited, most referenced) web site for the subject matter. It’s easy to determine which comments further that goal and which don’t. I delete the ones that don’t without notice or apology. I almost never delete posts that disagree with me, because if I want to be the best, I need to offer other points of view right there - one stop shopping. Again, my blog is so different from yours, but I think the principle is solid.
If you just want to write and spend as little time on site maintenance as possible, then your policy might be to turn comments off or let them run rampant. Then you will have achieved your goals.
If your goal is to have a great free speech forum, then you probably shouldn’t delete any comments.
If you want to have the most visitors possible, then your policy might be to delete all comments that would generally be considered inappropriate for, say, television.
The two main factors are what you want to achieve by blogging and how much effort you want to put into it. Once you know those, make your commenting policy fit and don’t apologize for making your site the way you want it.
Posted on October 21, 2004 12:17 PM | #
55. Tony said:
Let’s keep things in perspective here.
This web site is a publication, like the New York Times.
You can write a letter to the New York Times, but they are under no obligation to publish it.
Just because this web site is a “publish first, moderate second” medium, doesn’t change the fact that this is a publication owned the web site owner, and he has a right (and a duty to his readers) to keep things coherent as he sees coherent to be.
Posted on October 21, 2004 01:25 PM | #
56. Eddie said:
I agree with Tony. This isn’t censorship … no one is stopping you from expressing your opinion. But your comment does not have to be perserved for all of eternity … especially if the owner thinks the comment is not relevant or inappropriate.
Cheers.
Posted on October 21, 2004 01:41 PM | #
57. seth said:
just wanted to point out that this seth (comment #50) IS NOT Seth Thomas Rasmussen. sorry for the confusion.
Posted on October 21, 2004 01:55 PM | #
58. Michael said:
Keith, I think you’re in your every right to moderate as you see fit. As a long time reader, I trust your judgment, as I do with most of the bloggers whom I enjoy reading.
While Seth would like to make it sound as if every comment has equal rights, that is in my opinion a grave misunderstanding of how things work. An idealistic attitude for sure, and I can appreciate that, it fails to take a number of things into consideration:
1) Assholes Trolls are abundant on the Internet. Always interested in shouting louder than everyone else, damn the torpedoes. Some can be ignored away, most can’t. Regardlessly…
2) For most topical conversations to be productive, they have to be just that. Topical (no, not tropical!). If I were to suddenly divert this thread into a talk about foam beards (the next big thing I might add), it would lessen the value of this thread, and in turn Keith’s site. It should be clear to everyone, that if and when I want to talk about foam beards, I can do it on my own site, in a random forum or on IRC. Anything else is…
3) A total lack of social and situational awareness.
A year or two ago, when my blog was young, I hardly ever deleted comments. I was starving for traffic, and would entertain most people willing to spend a little time dropping of a comment on my site.
Now I get more than enough traffic, and peak threads can develop at breakneck speeds. And while - luckily - most of the people who visit my site are entirely benign, there are some that suffer from one of the above three problems (lazy grammar and splelling msitakes not withstanding).
And just like Keith, I do my very best to be just on my site. I have never, and I doubt I ever will, deleted a comment with a valid argument. In fact, I have even allowed some comments to remain even though I thought their tone to be inappropriate. (Mostly so as to not have someone bitch on his blog about the grave injustice perpetrated on his person… It didn’t always turn out that way).
Bottomline? Blogs are often topically oriented. Most allow for some deviation, but failure to understand common etiquette is as out of place online as it is offline. Luckily online, we can clean up the mess for posterity’s sake.
As long as a just hand leads the scalpel, I really don’t see the problem.
Posted on October 21, 2004 02:35 PM | #
59. Keil said:
I wanted to say thanks to Seth for responding with wit, and thought-fullness to so many people who are bouncing a very changed subject off your posts.
I have one question for you and or others, I entirely agree that censorship is about power. When one person or group uses their authority to silence the voice of others who do not have the power to resist, this is censorship. But, is that what is really happening when someone like Keith removes what is basically a fight? He did not say you can not express yourself, in fact at least one of the folks is still expressing his voice. And the others are welcome to join in if they have not already.
The only thing Keith asked, and did so more that once before deleting, is that people treat each other with respect. I do not see this as censorship, they have the power to express an opinion, they are only asked not to do it in violent way. Whether in words or deed, violence is just as/ if not more oppressive then deleting off topic flamewars.
Posted on October 21, 2004 04:34 PM | #
60. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
I am amazed at how many people continue to use irrelevant situations to invalidate the points I was making. For instance, Michael just used the situation where somebody diverts a thread off topic. That’s entirely different from somebody espousing an opinion on topic that one merely disagrees with, or their tactics for expressing that opinion, etc.
Also, the constant, peurile, grade-school style, “wah wah wah” arguments got tired, oh when was that… oh yeah, in grade school. :thumbsup: I understand that this is not a government sanctioned blog, etc.. That’s completely irrelevant, once again, to my point.
Finally, Nathan (#49): You are not dense, dude. These blog comment formats are often hard to follow, and the internet is notoriously bad for subtle communication. What’s more, people are used to skimming, taking in large amounts of small chunks of content, etc. No worries man.
What I was trying to say though is not that it’s okay to post anything but spam, but rather that it’s okay to post anything you want whenever you want. Meaning, as a living individual on this planet, nothing can stop you from doing that. The matter of deleting a comment, of removing somebody’s voice, is an entirely different issue. With that in mind, read my horrible(they usually are) analogy and see if it makes anymore sense.
***
Eh, nobody likes an idealist… ;)
Posted on October 21, 2004 04:43 PM | #
61. Keith said:
Keil – Welcome to the party, yo! ‘s that your first comment here? Good to see ya.
Seth – You made the only point you need to make with your comment, “…but rather that it’s okay to post anything you want whenever you want. Meaning, as a living individual on this planet, nothing can stop you from doing that. The matter of deleting a comment, of removing somebody’s voice, is an entirely different issue.”
That sums it up rather well, IMHO. Thanks for the comments.
On this site I reserve the right to remove your voice if I feel it’s in my, or my reader’s best interests. That’s pretty much what it boils down to. Don’t have to like it – but there it is.
If you want total control over your own voice – get your own blog!
;0)
Posted on October 21, 2004 05:24 PM | #
62. Brian Howell said:
I think you should error on the side of liberalism with regard to this issue. Of course you will want to delete the spam and overt self promotion; but I think freedom of ideas is what the net is all about, and that’s the real value of blogs.
Leave it up to the reader to sift through the cruft and dreg. Usually the other people commenting take care of the flammers anyway, especially on a well respected site like this one.
~Brian
Posted on October 21, 2004 05:44 PM | #
63. patricia said:
Seth, you’re right. People do have the freedom to express themselves in any manner they so desire. I understand that even though I did a poor job of stating my case. I would just hope that, when faced with an awkward situation, people would choose to express themselves in a manner that moves the discussion forward.
Off-topic, uncivil (and yes, I understand that this is subjective, but people are smart. I’m willing to bet very good money that the people who visit my site regularly understand what I consider to be uncivil.) comments shouldn’t have to be tolerated. I sort of view these comments as graffiti. If someone came to my house (invited or not) and spray painted a curse word on my living room wall, I wouldn’t leave it up. I’d paint over it. If someone leaves a comment which is full of spite and insults directed at me or another commenter, it will be deleted. I make that quite clear in my comment guidelines.
Posted on October 21, 2004 06:19 PM | #
64. Ray said:
When it comes right down to it… who gives a damn. It’s just open conversation between people… no different than you’ll find at a Starbucks or a local tavern on a Saturday afternoon. Or at the family dinner table on a Sunday evening for that matter. People are always going off on tangents. That’s “part” of what makes us interesting. We can go all over the map and still be friends at the end of the day. The nice thing about the web is that you can quickly scan over the off topic bumble fluff and not insult anyone while you’re doing it. They don’t know!
Delete the filth and spam… leave the rest and enjoy your evening.
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:04 PM | #
65. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Patricia,
This a completely different topic, but this comment absolutely must be said:
“Graffiti” and “vandalism” are not interchangeable terms. Somebody writing curse words(whatever that means) on your living room wall against your will is vandalism, but graffiti is not necessarily vandalism.
Please educate yourself about graffiti.
Posted on October 21, 2004 09:20 PM | #
66. Ray said:
When I first read this article, late last night, I thought “what an interesting question”. I quickly scanned the previous posts and then added my own (#64). Over breakfast this morning I mentioned the article to my significant better half which made me want to go back and read the article again. This time I carefully read all the posts.
In general… what a disappointment.
Keith… do whatever makes you happy. I’ve loved your site “as is” for a very long time. Warts and all :|
Seth R … keep up the good fight. I appreciate what you are saying. Thank you Seth 8 )
Posted on October 22, 2004 05:58 AM | #
67. Ray said:
{off topic}
Keith,
Not sure if it’s my system or the timestamp setting in your backend.
The times on the posts appear to be off by -4 hours.
# 64 was made at 1:04 am
# 66 was made at 9:58 am
In my browser they show…
#64 9:04 pm
#66 5:58 am
Just thought you’d want to know.
Carry on
Posted on October 22, 2004 06:09 AM | #
68. Richard Wright said:
Much of my opinion has been expressed. It is Keith’s site and as such he has the right to do what he wants with it. Moderation does not amount to censorship. Anyone has the right to say what they want. But they don’t have the right to say it wherever they want. The fact that some comments may be removed does not mean that you are being censored, there are plenty of other forums where your comments can be made.
I visit this site because it is helpful to me and I am grateful to Keith for what he puts up here - as a self employed work alone person I need sites like this for education. The comments form part of the site and reflect upon its value as a whole. Of course he has the right, perhaps the responsibility, to ensure that his site remains of the highest standard.
If the moderation amounted to a hagiography of Keith and his views then no one would visit. But the fact that there are so many visits probably means that he is getting it somewhere close to right.
Posted on October 22, 2004 07:11 AM | #
69. Taco John said:
I often have the maturity of a four year-old, and not only am I not ashamed of that, I’m proud of it. Maybe if we thought like four year-olds more, the world would be a better place. And to sorta get this post back on topic, four year-olds believe in the golden rule, so maybe “Don’t delete me, I won’t delete you” is a good attitude.
Posted on October 22, 2004 07:46 AM | #
70. Nathan Logan said:
I’m hesitant to continue on with this discussion, but here a’ goes…
Agreed. But the matter of deleting a comment is precisely the discussion we have been trying to have here. Earlier, you said…
So with that said, from your idealistic viewpoint (which, IMO, is what makes this convo enjoyable), at what point is Keith justified in deleting someone’s comment? Is he ever justified in doing so (again, from the idealistic viewpoint), and if so, when?
Posted on October 22, 2004 09:01 AM | #
71. Paolo said:
In cases like this, I’m glad I don’t have the readership volume that you do, Keith. But I do have a suggestion for you.
BLOG LAYOUT
The average blog’s design, similar to newspaper articles, is perfect for reading on a post-by-post basis. Unfortunately, it is not conducive for discussions, especially for popular weblogs that can attract hundreds of commentators. Readers who attempt to track conversations down a narrow space quickly begin to skim read and lose interest in details. Most will attempt to get the gist of a comment so that they may rush on to the portion where they may have their own say, or perhaps more commonly, simply give up due to high comment volume.
THE ALTERNATIVE
Discussion forums are often the opposite. The more people that contribute the more the conversation is spurred on and leaving a comment of your own is not only easier to do but easier to read. The layout is designed for mass volume communication, whereas blogs are designed as personal journals; a place to leave a few thoughts or ideas and just enough space for a few thoughtful comments. In short, blogs are like podiums and discussion forums are like stadiums. Attempting to allow forum-sized crowds to have a say at one podium just doesn’t work as well as letting them all onto the field to speak their minds.
So, if comments are clearly in such abundance and you’re concerned about censorship, perhaps having a sister discussion board might be in order. You can leave the comments closed and leave a link to a discussion board at the end of each post for your readers (fans) to follow and discuss. The overall effect is that you have your say, your blog isn’t *bogged* down by comments and random tangents and your readers aren’t censored; they’re merely diverted.
In other words, you won’t be censoring your houseguests; you’ll simply be sending them out onto the lawn with everyone else so they can talk out there.
SIDE NOTE
Seth, it didn’t take me long to look over your own blog and see statements that contradict your views on censorship. If anything, a few short moments of looking around your blog made me think that the person commenting here isn’t the same poster there. The other Seth seems to think that right wing, bow tie wearing, Crossfire hosts should sooner be “hung from [their] bow tie” than be listened to. Clearly, you’re playing more of a devil’s advocate here than actually trying to bring awareness to freedom of speech and censorship issues.
Posted on October 22, 2004 09:08 AM | #
72. Ray said:
Yup. Spam, vulgarities, trolling, repeated off topic posts by the same poster and Elvis impersonators (you can’t copy the King so don’t even try). The rest was invited (“Post Comment Here”) so it should be left for posterities sake.
This is getting lame.
Posted on October 22, 2004 09:12 AM | #
73. Ray said:
What a smashing idea. I recommend PUNBB.
Posted on October 22, 2004 09:19 AM | #
74. teli said:
In defense of Patricia, Seth (#65) and in general - she mentioned nothing about vandalism - however, I see where you may (mis)construe that she was calling all forms of graffiti vandalism.
Lets’s look at a general overview of the different forms of graffiti:
commissioned = okay as long as both ends of the bargain are met
non-commissioned = generally illegal, frowned upon and considered vandalism by law inforcement
These comments are like a “commissioned” graffiti wall - if you commission someone to draw a picture of George Washington but it comes out looking like George Michael, they did not uphold their end of the bargain and the person you have the full right to paint over it and a) ask them to start again, b) kick them out completely and ask them never to come back, c) commission someone else to continue the project and have them watch…
And in general, a lot of words can have multiple meanings, it is up to use to glean their actual meaning from the context in which they are used or ask for clarification before jumping to any conclusions.
Taco - yes, the golden rules applies, do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. Now, this doesn’t mean the person you are directly applying the golden rule to will apply it back to you. The golden rule should be unconditional.
I treat people with the same level of respect I want to be treated with - it does not mean, however, that 100% of the people whom I treat with respect will treat me with the same respect and I do not expect it (the only thing we have absolute control over is ourselves and some people don’t even have that).
I don’t necessarily flow with “if you don’t delete me, I won’t delete you” attitude - I see it the other way around. I have the mentality of an 8 year old (or so I’ve been told), but I have the sense of an adult (I hope). I wish the world was a better place, but I also know it starts with the individual.
When you depend on someone to do (or not do) something in order to make your own choices, essentially, you’re giving up your control of the situation. I guess it could be considered a question of semantics (I won’t delete you because I wouldn’t want to be deleted)?
The person still has the full right to delete you, but you’ve made your own decision unconditionally based on your own beliefs.
Keith stated earlier that things got out of hand (even himself) and he deleted all related posts (including his) - he could have easily edited them for personal gain, but chose not to. I’m assuming (yes I know the saying) that Keith would have wanted someone else to moderate (or delete) his posts (or the whole thread) had the situation gotten out of hand on their blog topic…
Posted on October 22, 2004 09:29 AM | #
75. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Paolo!
You can’t be serious! Do you honestly think I support the hanging of Tucker Carlson? Seriously?
Or do you think it is one of those hyperbolic and/or absolutist statements used to emphasize a point, like I said earlier?
Ahahaha… please feel free to send me an e-mail with more classy examples. It’s already been a blissful Friday, but I can always get higher!
(P.S. Thanks for visiting the site. Haha…)
Posted on October 22, 2004 11:29 AM | #
76. Kyle Fox said:
Look like this one got a bit off-topic, kinda proving the point eh?
Posted on October 25, 2004 03:52 PM | #
77. Sian said:
I don’t get a terrific amount of legitimate comments on my site but when I do receive them they tend to be good natured debates over programs that I watch. I have moved comments to a more appropriate topic and I have edited so that the personal details of those posting are removed from comments. I’ve been fortune enough to receive very few posts which warrented deletion, mostly derogatory comments aimed directly at me which I didn’t think should be visible on my site.
It’s a tough question to answer. Depending on how off track things or how offensive things were getting I’d have no problem in deleting threads and posts. It’s very easy to say this but if someone was that unhappy I’d suggest they stopped reading the site.
At least you are taking the time to explain to those involved your reasons rather than deleting with no explanation at all.
Posted on October 25, 2004 04:36 PM | #
Comments are now closed