Censorship by mob rule

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

How much of a mob mentality can there even be on an online message board?

I've seen it happen at least twice. Sweetie would be a prime candidate for a "virtual lynching" here, except that I don't think she's emotionally vulnerable enough to let it happen.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the majority can make you believe lies about anyone, then you are not doing your own thinking and there ain't much hope for you anyway. In which case, any opinion you might form about the "odd man out" is pretty worthless anyway.

From an objective POV, yes - but of course it is hardly worthless to the manipulators who start the such things.

ETA:
One of the real benefits of this type of communication is that one's words can stand on their own and are there, in black and white, for anyone to read and analyze. You don't have to rely on the reports and opinions of others.

Indeed, you don't have to...but you certainly can when it's convenient.

[quiet bear]

Well, I don't have any examples offhand to back it up, but it's been my experience (here and in every forum I've ever been part of), that most times, when a person is 'dogpiled', it's not simply because of their view, but also because of their attitude and their delivery, and, quite frequently, their past history.

People develop opinions about others because of previous experiences with that person.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I think the problem is certain people screaming "OMG!! CENSORSHIP! OPPRESSION!!" when you call them an idiot or a narcissist.

[quiet bear]

As far as I have seen, there hasn't been a single instance of censorship in this forum. Everyone has had their say. I could be wrong, I haven't been here but maybe 5 months.

[viscousmemories]

It's late and I have to go to bed, but I wanted to make a couple comments.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As I understand it the argument goes something like this. When a poster posts an unpopular opinion and a lot of other posters dogpile on him/her with critical comments the volume of noise generated by those posters drowns out the original poster's voice, effectively censoring his/her opinion. This, it is asserted, constitutes a suppression of free speech.

My basic objection to this argument is that it is based on a poor analogy. Actual speech (as in a public oration) can certainly be drowned out by the protests of the mob. If the speaker can't be heard, then his/her voice has been effectively silenced. In an online discussion this is not possible. Anyone interested in the minority opinion can simply ignore the noise and focus on the expressions of that opinion.

I'm not sure the analogy is as poor as you suggest. It's true that it's not possible for a member or members to physically prevent anyone from reading anyone else's posts, but it is possible to make it difficult or undesirable to read and follow a thread, which may effectively prevent someone from reaching his desired audience. For example frequently posting several long, convoluted posts in rapid-fire succession can quickly overwhelm a derail a thread. As can repeatedly baiting or attacking other posters, or constantly setting up and attacking strawmen.

I don't know if anything can be done to prevent those things either.

Originally Posted by quiet bear

As far as I have seen, there hasn't been a single instance of censorship in this forum.

That's arguable, but of course depends on the operational definition of censorship.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by quiet bear

Well, I don't have any examples offhand to back it up, but it's been my experience (here and in every forum I've ever been part of), that most times, when a person is 'dogpiled', it's not simply because of their view, but also because of their attitude and their delivery, and, quite frequently, their past history.

People develop opinions about others because of previous experiences with that person.

Originally Posted by yguy

I've seen it happen at least twice. Sweetie would be a prime candidate for a "virtual lynching" here

There you are

The times when I have seen this happen was when someone (usually 'Sweetie', TJL or Iron Man) starts hurling insults left and right, including wholesale insults aimed at the FF itself and its membership in general or refuses to back up his/her views with evidence, usually both of it. It is NEVER because of a minority opinion by itself.

[Pendaric]

On a board without moderation there are pros and cons. This is one of the cons, but people posting here generally know the situation, and know the reactions they are going to get.

I think it's a shame that quite often I've seen people react to the person a lot more than to the arguments being posed, and to be frank it does the people doing the insulting no favours - if the reaction to an unpopular poster is to dogpile on them rather than to respond to their posts then it leaves the impression that the unpopular poster is winning the actual debate because all the other side can do is throw insults.

One solution to this without introducing moderation on a board wide basis is to introduce a formal debate forum, similar to the one at II, where posting is restricted to the 2 people involved. That wouldn't compromise the rest of the boards and would give a chance for an unpopular viewpoint to get a fair hearing.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by yguy

I've seen it happen at least twice. Sweetie would be a prime candidate for a "virtual lynching" here, except that I don't think she's emotionally vulnerable enough to let it happen.

I don't get the lynching analogy, no individual member here has any power to stop her from posting if she wants to continue posting.

[Watser?]

Anyway, here is an example I think: http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ad.php?t=10973

I think the dogpile here is directly related to the ridiculousness of the original claim.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I don't get the lynching analogy ...

You really need to keep up, it's becoming quite fashionable. "Carlos" was like a black slave in a KKK town and TJL was forced to feel like a "nigger."

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Sweetie, by the way, has been advocating for one form of moderation or another since arriving here.

Bull shit. What was it I was actually saying, and when did that start? A year and a half of being here, targetting two people who I felt, were harassing me, following me from thread to thread for the sole purpose of trying to ruin threads, turn everything into a shit storm, or what have you, to such a degree that it qualified of harassment. No, I do not think harassment should be tolerated or allowed here.

Anyways, get your story straight, so you'll know what you're talking about.

I was attempting to make a case to prove that. Liv just said, "Nope, I spent an x amount of time looking myself, I won't hear your case, I can't keep up with you, so that's that." Ignore, ignore, ignore.

vm told me in one thread to take it to Forum Administration, then he bitched when it was in Forum Administration and his "friends" were turning it into a shitstorm as opposed to a fair minded discussion, as they always do, vm has such smart and good friends.

[Sweetie]

Anyways, my solution to the problem as outlined in the OP, is mostly to get the people in disagreement talking, as I've suggested in another recent thread, ie: those who disagree with the mob, but who are "friends" of the mob, and those in the mob who want to be liked by said person, that that person make it clear they do not agree with the behavior. That should really cure most of it, it just wouldn't touch someone like Adora.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the majority can make you believe lies about anyone, then you are not doing your own thinking and there ain't much hope for you anyway. In which case, any opinion you might form about the "odd man out" is pretty worthless anyway.
ETA:
One of the real benefits of this type of communication is that one's words can stand on their own and are there, in black and white, for anyone to read and analyze. You don't have to rely on the reports and opinions of others.

I think that's rather false. Problem is interpretation. Who was it that said, "no sentence is ever read the same way twice," or something.

There is a question and the problem of interpretation to consider, most especially with this type of communication. People invest their own intentions into other people and other people's meanings and writing, it's a difficult thing to explain. It's like they could say," If I'm stupid enough to be emotionally invested in x or y, therefore if someone else says x or y, it's because they mean to be emotionally abusive, because they are emotionally invested in x or y, because I am."

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Cynical-Chick

I think the problem is certain people screaming "OMG!! CENSORSHIP! OPPRESSION!!" when you call them an idiot or a narcissist.

Kinda sounds like someone whining that she was called a ho, after she spent a great deal of time calling someone else crazy. Sounds just like something a ho, in my definition, would do.

And then they go whine that the "crazy one" really was crying "Censorship, Oppression," when she isn't, at all, but it's easier for hos to deal with, becuase they're often idiots and find value in being liked and accepted by other hos.

Sauce for the gander, is sauce for the goose.

[Sweetie]

So, I missed most of the happenings. Carlos was banned for what? For potentially being latinjral who was using Carlos' account or is Carlos?

One man in one thread in eleven months, ah I see, he was harassing the admis this way, is that it?

And why was latin banned again? How many of us disagreed with the banning, we felt the ignore feature was suitable yet, he was harassing Beth specifically. But no, that's unfair to say, harassment doesn't occur on message boards. Hmmm......someone remind me how things go again?

Live To Ride was banned? Why, exactly?

[wei yau]

I don't think there was anything "potential" about it, latinjral admitted to using Carlos' account to circumvent his ban.

As for the rest, I'm reasonably confident that you're aware of the history.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I thought it might be a good idea to devote a thread to it away from the heat generated by an unrelated debate. In retrospect, I think I should have left the reference to TJL, Sweetie and Fence out of the post. The last thing I want is for this thread to turn into a discussion of particular personalities.

Too late. It was intelligent and rational while it lasted.

[TomJoe]

5 in a row! w00t! That's some sort of record, no?

[Sock Puppet]

Unfortunately, no.

[maddog]

No. (ETA: And so what if it is or isn't? It doesn't matter a bit. Some people's thinking process is different from mine. And even I can have another thought ... I'm editing this post, after all, right now.)

And it's off-topic.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the OP was meaning to talk about. This is a kind of "piling on" based on personal antipathies or whatever about the poster, rather than a discussion of the topic. I don't see a solution, on an open and unmoderated discussion board, to prevent such posts. People post what they want to.

For myself, however, I prefer to engage on the substance of a topic. I endeavor to exercise enough self-discipline to refrain from simply making personal comments or responding to negative or hostile statements with a tit-for-tat exchange. That's been a theme for me in several threads now: lots of times (and I see this frequently, for example, at iidb when the issue of civility comes up) people think that, if someone is rude or snarky to them, it "justifies" responding in kind. Or if someone says something they regard as stupid or fallacious or whatever, they are "justified" in "calling them on it." There are parts of human interactions in which it's simply not necessary to "call someone on it." There's no Pavlovian stimulus-response necessity to respond in kind to negative behavior by another person. It's simply not true. In the moment between the stimulus and the response, we have the choice, we have the opportunity, we have the power, and we have the responsibility to select what we will do in response. There is hardly ever a simple reflex action over which we have no control. It's up to every individual one of us to exercise integrity in the moment of choice.

#1037

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by maddog

And it's off-topic.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the OP was meaning to talk about. This is a kind of "piling on" based on personal antipathies or whatever about the poster, rather than a discussion of the topic. I don't see a solution, on an open and unmoderated discussion board, to prevent such posts. People post what they want to.

Duly noted. But frankly, I can't be bothered. I should prolly just *plonk* her again and be done with it.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by maddog

There are parts of human interactions in which it's simply not necessary to "call someone on it." There's no Pavlovian stimulus-response necessity to respond in kind to negative behavior by another person. It's simply not true. In the moment between the stimulus and the response, we have the choice, we have the opportunity, we have the power, and we have the responsibility to select what we will do in response. There is hardly ever a simple reflex action over which we have no control. It's up to every individual one of us to exercise integrity in the moment of choice.

I, for one, would never argue that I was compelled to respond in kind, to anything. I make the choice, I own it, and it's my responsibility. I have my own rules of engagement, and believe it or not, I do exercise restraint. I don't expect a medal for that, it's just a fact. However, my rules obviously differ from others', and I don't always consider courtesy to be paramount. I do value courtesy, but it's one factor among many for me.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Duly noted. But frankly, I can't be bothered. I should prolly just *plonk* her again and be done with it.

This is another exemplar. "I can't be bothered," and yet you "bothered" enough to expend energy posting the irrelevant remark about the number of posts in a row. It does nothing to advance the topic, provides no solutions, and is an example of and in fact exacerbates the problem under discussion. If you "can't be bothered," then why bother posting in the first place? And the talk of "plonking" is yet another. It's rude. It's an in-your-face expression of "hey, I don't like you and I'm going to tell the world that I don't." That isn't very nice. It's the side issues, the personality conflicts, which lend the appearance of "censorship by mob," when that isn't really what's happening, IMO. It isn't that minority ideas are being censored by the tyranny of the majority, it is that disfavored behaviors from others are used as justifications to engage in similar unsocial behaviors oneself. So the whole interaction degenerates into battles of personality. There's nothing necessary or compelled about any of it. Almost always, we have a choice about what we say or do when we are presented with behaviors we don't like or negative feelings we have.

#1038

[TomJoe]

So, I'm a dick, and I chose to be a dick. I can certainly cop to that. If that changes people's perceptions of me ... so be it. I'm fine with being a dick when I want to be a dick.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. ... Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit! - Team America