|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 161 of 299:
| 
Apr 3 20:18 UTC 2005 |
I don't think anyone has suggested that a good voluntary filter system is
censorship.
|
russ
|
|
response 162 of 299:
|
Apr 3 22:12 UTC 2005 |
A global twit list would have to be maintained by the system, and
wouldn't be as "voluntary" as it might; most users are going to use
it as-is. But as long as you can modify or discard it, it's not
censorship.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 163 of 299:
|
Apr 3 23:11 UTC 2005 |
Exactly.
<BTW, good response to Natey H. in agora today, Russ>
|
dpc
|
|
response 164 of 299:
|
Apr 3 23:33 UTC 2005 |
I'm leaning in favor of a system-wide staff-maintained twit
filter, plus a more user-friendly individually customizable
twit filter.
|
naftee
|
|
response 165 of 299:
|
Apr 4 00:52 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 166 of 299:
|
Apr 4 00:54 UTC 2005 |
slashdot is lame, and I can't imagine why us GreXers should care how it
operates.
|
keesan
|
|
response 167 of 299:
|
Apr 4 02:28 UTC 2005 |
Is there any question about what should be on the system-wide filter?
|
spooked
|
|
response 168 of 299:
|
Apr 4 03:55 UTC 2005 |
That would be at staff's discretion... however, like I pointed out earlier:
- Each individual user would have the choice to apply or not utilise staff's
system-wide filter;
- And, if they apply the staff system-wide filter, a user should still be
able to override communication with a certain user on that list...
e.g. staff system-wide filter has users a, f, o, y, z to be filtered
I want to apply the staff system-wide filter, but I still want communication
with user y - thus, from that a, f, o, z would be filtered out for me
Moreover, if I do not want the staff system-wide filter at all, either from
day one or at a later time, I can disenable it easily for me.
Furthermore, I may choose to maintain my own filter as well - thus, say I had
personally filtered users a, b, m, y, z the union of the two sets would
be a, b, f, m, o, y, z and I would hear nothing in terms of
communications from them.
Is that understandable? This is technically not a huge task.
|
naftee
|
|
response 169 of 299:
|
Apr 4 04:11 UTC 2005 |
Decision of who is a twit should be made by vote.
|
tod
|
|
response 170 of 299:
|
Apr 4 05:30 UTC 2005 |
re #133
Don't be gay
|
mary
|
|
response 171 of 299:
|
Apr 4 10:49 UTC 2005 |
Nope, asking users to vote on who is filtered would take way too
much time. I'm not even sure staff has the time to maintain such a
feature and stay ahead of newuser.
But it would be a good place to start. I'd support a system-wide,
default on, staff maintained twit filter.
I will predict there will be a bit of a backlash with twits using
newuser to protest such a thing. It's not going to give us
immediate relief. But it's a start.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 172 of 299:
|
Apr 4 11:48 UTC 2005 |
Actually, I think the filter should be available as an opt-in system, at least
for existing users. Place a message in newuser explaining that grex comes in
two flavors: obnoxious, offensive and sometimes even off-topic, and also a
filtered, peaceful, less disruptive version. Explain how to toggle on the
filter. Then let the newuser wade in and make up their own mind.
|
cross
|
|
response 173 of 299:
|
Apr 4 12:35 UTC 2005 |
I really don't understand why people think that filters are going to work.
Looking at the history of the people currently in my mental list of twits
(I don't use a filter otherwise), these are people who have no problem
creating many accounts very quickly if they feel they're not being heard.
As soon as they discover that they're on the system twit filter, they'll
just create a new account to get around it. We'd do just as well locking
and/or deleting their accounts. While such an action would have different
consequences with respect to what those users were capable of, as far as
the issue of polution in BBS goes, it's not going to do any good.
It seems to me that the only solution is to place any new users on some
sort of provisional twit-like status until they've shown themselves not
to be twits. At that point, you might as well restrict newuser.
|
tod
|
|
response 174 of 299:
|
Apr 4 15:59 UTC 2005 |
I don't want any other soul on this system to "cleanse" my reading process
by censorship. I prefer censorship be a process left to my own choices.
Richard obviously feels strongly about homophobic slang and I can respect his
decision to block such things from his terminal but it doesn't mean he should
be allowed a system-wide ban on the more abrasive postings. If staff or the
membership feel compelled to start implement systemwide censorship at their
own discretion and it impedes my viewing or responding to postings then we're
going to get into some real 501c3 games in the near future.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 175 of 299:
|
Apr 4 16:11 UTC 2005 |
You really don't read so good, do you, tod? *EVERY* suggestion I've seen is
for any "system-wide" filter to be user-choosable: If you don't want to use
it, then don't.
|
tod
|
|
response 176 of 299:
|
Apr 4 17:12 UTC 2005 |
re #175
You really don't read so good, do you, tod? *EVERY* suggestion I've seen
So you think re #141 is about the user having a choice on posting/reading?
Why don't you take that tape out of your sock drawer and restore the parenting
conference like a good staff volunteer instead of obfuscating the topic?
"The wide range of users attracted by our open access policy ensures a wide
range of knowledge and opinion. On-line forums are very effective in drawing
people with diverse backgrounds into shared discussions." http://www.grex.o
rg/local/grex/501c3.html
Lose the blue ribbon, hypocrites. You're not practicing open discussion from
diverse backgrounds with your blatant censorships.
|
scholar
|
|
response 177 of 299:
|
Apr 4 17:35 UTC 2005 |
Re. 171: If there's a system-wide filter, I can practically guarantee there
will be more of a problem.
Think about it: right now, the few people who want to filter do. For the
most part, the twits don't seem to care about this and keep the same names.
Thus, the people who filter don't have much of a problem and neither do the
twits and everyone's happy.
However, when you disrupt this balance by makiing filtering the DEFAULT, and
thus making it impossible for twits to be heard, you're going to GREATLY
increase the incentive to CHANGE NAMES MORE FREQUENTLY> Thus, you're basically
going to end up with an entire BBS filled with a group of people complaining
about how they don't want to be able to read another group of people yet can.
Seriously.
I can't imagine it not happening.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 178 of 299:
|
Apr 4 18:00 UTC 2005 |
If it were possible, I would suggest that during startup of any piece of grex
software where twit filtering were engaged, that a kind of "warning" message
were displayed to that effect. The purpose would be to remind people that
they were not being shown all responses, which might at certain times lead
them to adjust their filter.
|
keesan
|
|
response 179 of 299:
|
Apr 4 18:31 UTC 2005 |
Maybe backtalk could have a button to turn the twit filter on and off?
|
mary
|
|
response 180 of 299:
|
Apr 4 18:44 UTC 2005 |
Re: 173 It's a start. I too predict it won't be the end of the
problem, but it's a start and we go from there. In the end, we'll
probably have to throttle back our open newuser some. But maybe I'm
wrong. Hope so, at least.
|
richard
|
|
response 181 of 299:
|
Apr 4 20:24 UTC 2005 |
I think "censorship" would be preventing somebody from being able to post
because of what they posted. If someone posts an item purely to say the word
"faggot" over and over, I see nothing wrong with removing that item, so long
as that person is not prevented from posting it. He can post that item a
hundred times and fw's can remove it a hundred times. Asking users to use
a little courtesy when they post is not the same thing as preventing them from
posting whatever they think. There IS such a thing as acceptable moderation,
or censorship if you want to call it that, and by "acceptable" it only means
requiring/requesting that you say what you want to say using proper words.
I don't think it makes grex look good at all when new users come here and read
agora and see it full of derogatory hateful slang. Agora needs to be READABLE
for people to want to keep coming back and reading it. Right now it is not
that readable and no filter is going to fix that
|
tod
|
|
response 182 of 299:
|
Apr 4 20:26 UTC 2005 |
If I'm FW, I can deem anything derogatory by my own interpretations.
That is called censorship, chief.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 183 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:09 UTC 2005 |
Richard obviously has no clue what "censorship" means as that term is commonly
used in America. On his planet, the KKK can print thousands of newspapers and
the government can scoop them up and burn them immediately thereafter.
|
tod
|
|
response 184 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:18 UTC 2005 |
re #181
I think "censorship" would be preventing somebody from being able to post
because of what they posted.
Censorship: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered
objectionable
|
richard
|
|
response 185 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:36 UTC 2005 |
cyklone, you are still not understanding what Grex is. Grex is NOT a city
sidewalk. Grex is a PRIVATE organization. do you know what the word PRIVATE
means? It means that the public does not own grex. If the public owned grex,
THEN such censorship would be wrong. But inasmuch as grex-- cyberspace
communications inc.-- is a PRIVATE organization that offers something for the
public to use, it has the right to place rules on how the public uses it.
You might consider defacating on a public bus "freedom of expression" but that
doesn't mean that it is censorship if you are not allowed to take a public
crap! There are acceptable rules in this society for use of public
facilities, let alone public facilities run by private companies.
tod, okay it is censorship in the loosest sense, but I think it is acceptable
so long as you are only prohibiting the use of certain words, and not the
expression of any ideas
|