OBX Connection Home > OBX Connection Forum > Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'
Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'

Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Like I said, this will get out of control when everyone starts cancelling each others' posts.


OBX Connection Sponsored Links




RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Well, this system’s been in place for quite some time.
Frankly, I think it’s the National politics that people just don’t want to see here. I mean the name of the subforum is “local” politics. I get enough of the National politics on FB...actually more than enough. And I’m pretty sure there are forums dedicated to political debate, if that’s your thing. Why you would post thread after thread after thread of
“Cancelled post about cancelled post” and expect a different outcome surprises me.


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Like I said, this will get out of control when everyone starts cancelling each others' posts.

Greg MD


The question is : Could it lead to a civil war?
While we claim to be a tolerant people celebrating inclusiveness and diversity, it would seem that any opinions, beliefs, or conclusions that differ or collide with the alleged majority are declared offensive and either redacted, bowdlerized or ridiculed. The most disturbing example is the number of people that are closing the door to scientific discovery and finding it more convenient to follow their political party's dictate.


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Like I said, this will get out of control when everyone starts cancelling each others' posts.

Greg MD


The question is : Could it lead to a civil war?
While we claim to be a tolerant people celebrating inclusiveness and diversity, it would seem that any opinions, beliefs, or conclusions that differ or collide with the alleged majority are declared offensive and either redacted, bowdlerized or ridiculed. The most disturbing example is the number of people that are closing the door to scientific discovery and finding it more convenient to follow their political party's dictate.

lowtide


It’s an OBC-based manifestation of a growing and disturbing trend across the social media landscape where conservative thought is censored into oblivion:


New report shows ‘troubling’ social media censorship of conservative views

April 17, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) On Monday, the conservative Media Research Center released a comprehensive report detailing the suppression of conservative opinions on major social media platforms.

The 50-page report, “Censored! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech,” was written by Ashley Rae Goldenberg and Dan Gainor. It examines the four largest internet entities Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and declares that their handling of political speech is “far more troubling than most conservatives realize.”

“War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing — badly,” the report’s executive summary says. “If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideas and conservative media.”

The report finds that all four websites actively hide or deemphasize conservative content from users, and that in some cases staffers have admitted doing so was intentional. It further criticizes the platforms for relying on left-wing organizations to provide advice and screening sources that are presented as impartial.

The report finds that Google, the world’s most influential search engine, displayed a “tendency toward left-wing bias in its search results.” Its lead source was a study by Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, which found that search results for decided voters “were nearly twice as biased in favor of (Hillary) Clinton” in the 2016 presidential election.

“Censored!” also highlights a January 2018 Project Vertias video, which filmed Twitter employees admitting that they “shadow-ban” some conservative users a practice by which others cannot see a shadow-banned user’s content, but the target has not been notified of an action against him. Twitter has attempted to block several pro-life advertisements, as well.

The report also notes that Twitter attorney Sean Edgett admitted to a House panel that during the election Twitter censored 25 percent of tweets carrying the #PodestaEmails hashtag, and 48 percent of those tagged #DNCLeak (referencing a scandal over leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee).

Regarding Facebook, the report calls attention to a 2016 Gizmodo report that quoted several former employees as admitting that Facebook “routinely” manipulated its trending news feature to exclude topics such as the Conservative Political Action Conference, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and the scandal concerning former IRS official Lois Lerner.

“It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” one former news curator is quoted as saying.

YouTube has suppressed conservative content as well, according to MRC. It lists the conservative blog Legal Insurrection, foreign policy commentator Pamela Geller, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, video bloggers Diamond and Silk, Dennis Prager’s PragerU series, and several pro-gun channels as having seen their videos either deleted, age-restricted, or demonetized, and in the cases of Geller and Legal Insurrection, their accounts terminated entirely.

Prager and Diamond and Silk’s cases are ongoing, but YouTube has since reversed most of the decisions listed here, claiming they were unintentional errors.

Nevertheless, suspicions remain that the trend is due to a persistent, deliberate bias rather than occasional, benign mistakes. “Censored!” notes that each company takes advice and outsources some fact-checking and guideline enforcement to organizations that themselves have left-wing biases.



Fully expecting to see this thread nuked in 3…. 2….



RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I wanted to weigh in here because I keep seeing people use the term "censor" in respect to the forum. The definition of censor is:

Censor: A person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a. An official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b. An official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

The bottom line is that it is a person with authority who removes the information. That is not the case here. About five years ago I got out of the business of removing posts and instituted the member flagging system. If five different members flag a post as inappropriate for the form, it is automatically removed. It is more of a community policing mechanism.

Is it possible that posts may be removed that shouldn't be? Sure. But you would have to have multiple members who all felt that way. I have found it to be very effective at keeping the forum civil. I know some people don't like it and feel that all posts should remain, but that's just not possible. Unmoderated forums degenerate in hostile, ugly places over time. I've seen it happen and I won't allow it here.

That said, I am open to suggestions for improvements. If you have ideas for tweaking the flagging system to make it more fair, I am willing to listen.

Cheers


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




… It’s an OBC-based manifestation of a growing and disturbing trend across the social media landscape where conservative thought is censored into oblivion …


Say in Darth Vadar voice: "The paranoia is strong with this one." Theeth smiley


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I wanted to weigh in here because I keep seeing people use the term "censor" in respect to the forum. The definition of censor is:

Censor: A person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a. An official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b. An official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

The bottom line is that it is a person with authority who removes the information. That is not the case here. About five years ago I got out of the business of removing posts and instituted the member flagging system. If five different members flag a post as inappropriate for the form, it is automatically removed. It is more of a community policing mechanism.

Is it possible that posts may be removed that shouldn't be? Sure. But you would have to have multiple members who all felt that way. I have found it to be very effective at keeping the forum civil. I know some people don't like it and feel that all posts should remain, but that's just not possible. Unmoderated forums degenerate in hostile, ugly places over time. I've seen it happen and I won't allow it here.

That said, I am open to suggestions for improvements. If you have ideas for tweaking the flagging system to make it more fair, I am willing to listen.

Cheers

Will



Will,

The operative term in use has been "Censorship", of the past tense word "censored".


My take on what's been going on is based on the former. defined here:

Censorship

noun

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought.

Banning controversial books is an example of censorship.



You forum, your rules, and I respect both, but from the numerous accounts of users here, the flagging process may be being abused.




RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I wanted to weigh in here because I keep seeing people use the term "censor" in respect to the forum. The definition of censor is:

Censor: A person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a. An official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b. An official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

The bottom line is that it is a person with authority who removes the information. That is not the case here. About five years ago I got out of the business of removing posts and instituted the member flagging system. If five different members flag a post as inappropriate for the form, it is automatically removed. It is more of a community policing mechanism.

Is it possible that posts may be removed that shouldn't be? Sure. But you would have to have multiple members who all felt that way. I have found it to be very effective at keeping the forum civil. I know some people don't like it and feel that all posts should remain, but that's just not possible. Unmoderated forums degenerate in hostile, ugly places over time. I've seen it happen and I won't allow it here.

That said, I am open to suggestions for improvements. If you have ideas for tweaking the flagging system to make it more fair, I am willing to listen.

Cheers

Will



Will,

The operative term in use has been "Censorship", of the past tense word "censored".


My take on what's been going on is based on the former. defined here:

Censorship

noun

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought.

Banning controversial books is an example of censorship.



You forum, your rules, and I respect both, but from the numerous accounts of users here, the flagging process may be being abused.

Sea Urchin


Sea Urchin,

What can we do to make the system better? I am willing to listen to any ideas.

WIll


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'





You forum, your rules, and I respect both, but from the numerous accounts of users here, the flagging process may be being abused.

Sea Urchin

Or it may be working perfectly...

John


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I wanted to weigh in here because I keep seeing people use the term "censor" in respect to the forum. The definition of censor is:

Censor: A person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a. An official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b. An official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

The bottom line is that it is a person with authority who removes the information. That is not the case here. About five years ago I got out of the business of removing posts and instituted the member flagging system. If five different members flag a post as inappropriate for the form, it is automatically removed. It is more of a community policing mechanism.

Is it possible that posts may be removed that shouldn't be? Sure. But you would have to have multiple members who all felt that way. I have found it to be very effective at keeping the forum civil. I know some people don't like it and feel that all posts should remain, but that's just not possible. Unmoderated forums degenerate in hostile, ugly places over time. I've seen it happen and I won't allow it here.

That said, I am open to suggestions for improvements. If you have ideas for tweaking the flagging system to make it more fair, I am willing to listen.

Cheers

Will



Will,

The operative term in use has been "Censorship", of the past tense word "censored".


My take on what's been going on is based on the former. defined here:

Censorship

noun

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought.

Banning controversial books is an example of censorship.



You forum, your rules, and I respect both, but from the numerous accounts of users here, the flagging process may be being abused.

Sea Urchin


Sea Urchin,

What can we do to make the system better? I am willing to listen to any ideas.

WIll

Will



Will,


Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.



Publishing the poster's handles who flag a thread might go far in keeping the system from being abused, as anonymity tends to help some folks to do things they otherwise might reconsider doing.

This would also point out if there are certain individual(s) who are "gaming the system".



Dump the thread contents, lock the thread, and leave a single post stating" This post was flagged by:___________", for instance?




RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




… It’s an OBC-based manifestation of a growing and disturbing trend across the social media landscape where conservative thought is censored into oblivion …


Say in Darth Vadar voice: "The paranoia is strong with this one." Theeth smiley

PaulOinMA




Said in a Yoda voice:

“The report on conservatives being censored on social media Paul did not read”.


Funny that you called such “paranoia”, as the 50-page study you ignored found its way into the Congressional record recently:


House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) submitted the publication, “Censored: How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech” to the public record in the middle of the hearing. Earlier in the day, he referenced the study and used an example from the document concerning LiveAction’s censorship on Twitter during the hearing “Filtering Practices of Social Media Platforms.”

The report, recently released, detailed the censorship of conservative viewpoints on social media.



If the sources and material are too right-wing for you, here’s a good article from “Forbe’s”:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/01/12/is-twitter-really-censoring-free-speech/#32dc33a065f5

Putting this all together, is Twitter actively censoring certain political views or are Project Veritas’ videos the result of selective editing and employee bravado? We will simply never know. Yet, the fact that we will never know is the problem. Whether it is claims of conservatives being censored on Twitter, allegations of government influence on Facebook, or very real geographic biases, the platforms we communicate through are no longer neutral.



And another from “Politco”:



Welcome to new era of global digital censorship

It’s dangerous to ask tech companies to decide what’s legitimate free speech.

LONDON — Score one for the censors.

In the battle over what limits should be imposed on online free speech, regulators worldwide are on the offensive.


France has proposed banning so-called fake news during the country’s future elections, while in Germany, new hate speech rules impose fines of up to €50 million on social media companies that don’t delete harmful content within 24 hours of being notified.

The growing push to control what can be published online will again take center stage this week when the European Commission publishes its biannual report Thursday on how Facebook, Google and Twitter are handling the hate speech lurking in social media’s darker nooks and crannies. (The likely outcome: EU policymakers will complain that companies aren’t doing enough, and threaten them with more regulation.)

Not to be outdone, U.S. lawmakers are also getting in on the action, with Congress expected to rake tech executives over the coals Wednesday for dragging their feet when clamping down on extremist and terrorist material. (Congress already berated Big Tech last year for allowing Russian-backed content to be widely shared online during the 2016 U.S. election).

Let’s not forget the role tech companies played in getting us here.

Freedom of speech advocates warn of an Orwellian digital dystopia where government apparatchiks dictate what we can read and write on the web. For those worried about online safety, the new rules will force tech companies to finally take responsibility for what is posted on their platforms, which have more users, collectively, than countries have citizens.




Before you simply hand-wave something away while mocking it, you might want to do some research as to its validity.



RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I hear you and agree that transparency can be a good thing in some instances. I'm concerned it would have a chilling effect here.

Someone PM'd me with a good potential alternative. Have the number of "likes" a post gets offset flags. So a post would need to get five more flags than the total number of likes it gets. This seems fair to me, but I haven't spent much time looking at all the potential ramifications.

Thoughts? Anyone?


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I hear you and agree that transparency can be a good thing in some instances. I'm concerned it would have a chilling effect here.

Someone PM'd me with a good potential alternative. Have the number of "likes" a post gets offset flags. So a post would need to get five more flags than the total number of likes it gets. This seems fair to me, but I haven't spent much time looking at all the potential ramifications.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Will




Good point, well taken.

Not to put more on your plate, but if the flaggers are known to you, perhaps you could address any instances of abuse through the PM system?




Raising the flag count threshold sounds like a good place to start otherwise!



Thanks again for your forum, and for your open-mindedness.



RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Someone PM'd me with a good potential alternative. Have the number of "likes" a post gets offset flags. So a post would need to get five more flags than the total number of likes it gets. This seems fair to me, but I haven't spent much time looking at all the potential ramifications.

Will

While I think it's working fine the way it is, that seems like a good compromise. One of the tech sites I visit (Ars Technica) uses a voting system and when a post reaches a certain negative threshold it gets hidden. At the bottom of each post you see where it currently is. For example:

-4 (+10 / -14)

That way if it looks like a posts is getting down voted for no good reason, you can up vote to even it out.

Another option would be to just hide the posts and allow someone to review it to see if the flags should be veto'd and the post unhidden. This of course would take someones time.

John


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Or you could ignore what offends you and move on. Needless drama.


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




… It’s an OBC-based manifestation of a growing and disturbing trend across the social media landscape where conservative thought is censored into oblivion …


Say in Darth Vadar voice: "The paranoia is strong with this one." Theeth smiley

PaulOinMA



Said in Jar-Jar Binks voice:

"Mesa thinks you should read this":


Facebook apologizes to Texas newspaper for part of Declaration of Independence being labeled hate speech

Facebook apologized to a Texas newspaper after it initially flagged a post of the text of the Declaration of Independence as hate speech.

The Liberty County Vindicator in Texas posted excerpts from the document on its Facebook page in the days leading up to the Fourth of July holiday.

The newspaper received a notice that one portion of the document was removed, likely because of a passage that refers to “merciless Indian savages.”

"Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as 'Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development' that would have been better. Unfortunately, Jefferson, like most British colonists of his day, did not hold an entirely friendly view of Native Americans," Vindicator editor Casey Stinnett wrote on the paper's website.

"Although, to be honest, there is a good deal in that passage that could be thought hateful," he added.

Stinnett later wrote that Facebook had restored the full post and acknowledged it should not have removed it in the first place.

"The Vindicator extends its thanks to Facebook. We never doubted Facebook would fix it, but neither did we doubt the usefulness of our fussing about it a little," Stinnett wrote.



Please excuse some of us while we're "fussing about it a little".......



RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Or you could ignore what offends you and move on. Needless drama.

Fortyfish



I offered the same advice, but was flagged for my troubles.


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'





Someone PM'd me with a good potential alternative. Have the number of "likes" a post gets offset flags. So a post would need to get five more flags than the total number of likes it gets. This seems fair to me, but I haven't spent much time looking at all the potential ramifications.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Will


Am I the only one that would be tempted to "Like" every post (with the exception of vulgarity) whether I agreed with the poster or not, for the sole purpose of protecting the opportunity of that person to express his opinion?


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I guess I don't understand why people are so driven to go off topic or discuss non-local political topics here. I come here to discuss the Outer Banks. I'd hate to see it turn into an off topic mess and you can be sure that it would without some form of moderation (call it censorship if you like). I've seen that happen before and the forum usually doesn't last long.

John


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I guess I don't understand why people are so driven to go off topic or discuss non-local political topics here. I come here to discuss the Outer Banks. I'd hate to see it turn into an off topic mess and you can be sure that it would without some form of moderation (call it censorship if you like). I've seen that happen before and the forum usually doesn't last long.

John

J4yDubs


John,

While your fears are not unfounded, there have been many precedents set in OBC's past that show this forum is very robust, even in times of "off-topic" postings.

Take a walk down the past of this portion of the forum, starting back as far as 2007 or so, (you'll have to go all the way back to ~tab 100(!)), when the NPS' ORV Rule was being hotly debated here and you'll see what I mean.

Political issues from every corner of the East Coast were discussed, as was climate change, carbon taxes, the EPA, ESA, CSA, NPS, DOI, USFWS, USFS, etc., this list goes on forever.

And even though there were volunteer moderators posted each section of the forum at that time, threads were rarely if ever purged, but instead were simply locked down in place, with no more commenting allowed. A permanent "Time Out" if you will, but the OP's thoughts and words were allowed to stand.

The bottom line is, if this forum survived the great ORV debate of 2007-2011, then it can easily survive the debates we find ourselves embroiled in currently.




RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




I guess I don't understand why people are so driven to go off topic or discuss non-local political topics here. I come here to discuss the Outer Banks. I'd hate to see it turn into an off topic mess and you can be sure that it would without some form of moderation (call it censorship if you like). I've seen that happen before and the forum usually doesn't last long.

John

J4yDubs


So you would agree to some form of moderation or censorship in the Photographer's and Artist's Forum to limit subject matter to the Outer Banks?


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'





So you would agree to some form of moderation or censorship in the Photographer's and Artist's Forum to limit subject matter to the Outer Banks?

lowtide

If that were the forum rules, sure. Currently though, the description reads "A place for photographers and other artists to post pictures of their work and get feedback. Amatures and professionals are welcome to post pictures and offer advice to help fellow photographers improve."

If it was for Outer Banks photography and someone flagged a post of mine that wasn't OB photography, it wouldn't bug me a bit. I'd also get the hint that maybe I shouldn't post that there.

John


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Will,

My reply to John made me think about another alternative:


How about simply locking a post from further comments if it reaches the flag threshold instead of deleting it, much like it was years ago?


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Will,

My reply to John made me think about another alternative:


How about simply locking a post from further comments if it reaches the flag threshold instead of deleting it, much like it was years ago?

Sea Urchin


How about a variation of this. 5 flags to lock, 10 flags to delete? This would work at the thread level, but not at the post level.

John


RE: Cancelled my post about 'Cancelled posts?'




Will,

My reply to John made me think about another alternative:


How about simply locking a post from further comments if it reaches the flag threshold instead of deleting it, much like it was years ago?

Sea Urchin


I think this is a fine and SIMPLE alternative, provided that a moderator has the time and judgement to do so.
On the other hand, if you can set a five flag algorithm to delete posts and threads, I am sure a message board forum flag feature could be set to " lock" instead of "delete?"
As a human moderator on several boards, we choose locking to preserve any useful, informative or intelligent debate provided.
Good idea here, seeking solutions instead of battling windmills or band-aiding. Thumbs up