No “No Platform”

MAY 2022 Forums General discussion No “No Platform”

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 180 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #109421
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    moderator1 wrote:
    I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.  

    I have emails from the IC that states 'the IC has decided….'If you don't hold meetings how do you decide when to allow a suspended  user back on the forum for example?An exchange of emails within a discrete group of individuals resulting in a decision that affects others is  a secret meeting? Don't try and pull the wool over my eys, I am too long in the tooth for that.

    #109422
    moderator1
    Participant
    Vin wrote:
    moderator1 wrote:
    I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.  

    I have emails from the IC that states 'the IC has decided….'If you don't hold meetings how do you decide when to allow a suspended  user back on the forum for example?An exchange of emails within a discrete group of individuals resulting in a decision that affects others is  a secret meeting? Don't try and pull the wool over my eys, I am too long in the tooth for that.

    I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

    #109423
    ALB
    Keymaster
    moderator1 wrote:
    I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

    Good. About time. Why don't you now lock this thread and transfer any further discussion to the technical section where it should be and have beeb.

    #109424
    moderator1
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    moderator1 wrote:
    I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

    Good. About time. Why don't you now lock this thread and transfer any further discussion to the technical section where it should be and have beeb.

    Thanks for the suggestion, but while there is still a conversation going on between SP and YMS it would be unwise to lock this thread.  They are after all discussing how censorship can be applied intentionally and unintentionally.

    #109418
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    YMSI guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of vetting contributions and retroactive removal of contributions, being censorship or not.   I see little point in going round in circles on that aspect. Though I will add that if vetting and retroactive removal of contributions on socialist discussion forums is not regarded as censorship, it (conveniently) allows the discussion of whether censorship is an appropriate tool for socialism, to be ignored. The, "How dare you accuse us of using censorship.", dismissal. Whereas I come from a starting point of accepting the definition I have provided several times and ask, "Is censorship appropriate for socialism?"Perhaps you could redefine censorship.Regarding the idea of improving communication on SPGB sites to reduce the incidences of non intended disruption through misunderstandings, I'm all in favour. I see communication as a central aspect of socialism and something that is an ongoing process. I don't see censorship as a good way of improving communication, and find it difficult to think some socialists do.On a practical note, I think it would be a nightmare to manage, with the likely scenario of endless appeals to the IC. Unless what is unacceptable could somehow be defined including the various contexts, so allowing forum members to be fully informed of what is deemed acceptable.  Not really sure what you mean by your last paragraph. The SPGB has been "rule driven" since day one. But if you refer to online "offenders" then it is already up to a moderator to decide what is a breach of rules and there exists no guidelines to tie moderators down to any one particular approach, as has already been discussed.  

    #109425
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    moderator1 wrote:
    Thanks for the suggestion, but while there is still a conversation going on between SP and YMS it would be unwise to lock this thread.  They are after all discussing how censorship can be applied intentionally and unintentionally.

     Very strange! My posts was in direct reply to YMS. Because he chooses to ignore me does not make my contribution off topic. YMS states there is no censorsip on this forum. Am I not be allowed to challange that? Why claim 'no censorship' then suggest that the thread is locked because that claim is challenged. Lol 

    #109426
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    ALB wrote:
    moderator1 wrote:
    I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

    Good. About time. Why don't you now lock this thread and transfer any further discussion to the technical section where it should be and have beeb.

     Very odd! I was suspended for interfering in moderation. Rememember Rules 13 and 14.  

    moderator1 wrote:
    Thanks for the suggestion,

    Very polite Mod1 but you issued warnings when I made suggestions.  

    #109428
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Vin wrote:
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    No topic has been censored on this forum.

     you may say that but if I engaged in this discussion with you then you would see  differently. I would receive a warning and I would be 'disruptive' and 'off topic'.  SP calls that censorship, what do you call it?

    ALB wrote:
    moderator1 wrote:
    I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

    Good. About time. Why don't you now lock this thread and transfer any further discussion to the technical section where it should be and have beeb.

    Censorship of an opinion. No?

    #109429
    SocialistPunk
    Participant
    Quote:
    Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship

    A fairly accepted definition of censorship. If there is another widely accepted definition I'd love to hear it.The fact is censorship goes on all the time, by many different organisations, for many different reasons. There's no point claiming it can't happen in a socialist space.The question should be is it appropriate, and if it is, when and where should it be used. If after discussion it is deemed acceptable in certain circumstances then that is fair enough.I don't understand the fear.

    #109430
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    SocialistPunk wrote:
    I don't understand the fear.
    #109431
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I guess ther is no answer to my questions.Is that what you mean by 'disruption' YMS? 

    #109432
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    censorship has no place in a socialist organisation. Even when dressed up in 'moderation'  

    #109427
    moderator1
    Participant

    Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules. 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

    #109433
    alanjjohnstone
    Keymaster

    I found this quite troublesome…a person's political affiliation being used in evidence in a child custody case.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-31509391EDL may not be paragons of virtue and probably all members are racists but to declare it immoral creates a precedent. Not often do i agree with a judge but he is right.  

    Quote:
    "The city fathers of Darlington and Darlington's director of social services are not guardians of morality. Nor is this court."

    Committees and specialists taken on responsibilities they probably have no qulaification in i.e. politic analysis but then should such a case be put to a community vote? I fear some occasions that democracy can indeed be interpreted as mob justice and lynch law. 

    #109434
    SocialistPunk
    Participant
    moderator1 wrote:
    ALB wrote:
    moderator1 wrote:
    I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

    Good. About time. Why don't you now lock this thread and transfer any further discussion to the technical section where it should be and have beeb.

    Thanks for the suggestion, but while there is still a conversation going on between SP and YMS it would be unwise to lock this thread.  They are after all discussing how censorship can be applied intentionally and unintentionally.

    Something tells me that YMS is done with discussion on this issue. So I guess ALB could have his way, ensuring no further discussion can be had on this thread.If this thread were to be locked as per ALBs instruction, would it be intentional or unintentional censorship?

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 180 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.