Uncivil Dialogue

[Scott Mayers]

The people leaving the comments that are at issue are what's ruining things.

I suspect when more news outlet forums shut down we'll see forums like our's become busier noisier places.

I didn't see the comments of concern. However, I DO know from experience posting there that they ALWAYS screen each and every post. I had trouble with this before where they'd selectively NOT post what I might write or respond to with such inability to appropriately create a fair representation in many responses.

It also raises the question politically that since those moderating are private censors of the privately owned site AND they are protected from accountability since they can represent a particular political bias, our content being moderated can also be manipulated to appear more problematic than it is. If you want to prove a crowd 'bad', just focus attention on the bad and remove the good IF that crowd is representing something unfavorable to those capable of policing it.

So I question whether the abuse actually exists. It is just as likely too that regardless of potential dissent in common, the act of total censorship is purposely done to prevent what the censors realize is actually representing true sincerity of the majority. I don't believe in bullying or abuses even by the masses. But it can be curtailed by the very involvement of those participating. Censorship to any degree by moderation should be removed from our public media, period!

[Big Guy]

Media outlets have owners. Owners are identifiable. The owners of media outlets are responsible socially and financially for the print that appears on their pages. For that reason, they make sure that any message appearing on their pages has the authors name identified and double check the accuracy before printing.

Media outlets also have accountability for accuracy of what they print.

Public access anonymous bulletin boards have no accountability for accuracy nor do they identify the author.

Anyone using anonymous public access bulletin boards for accurate information is wasting their time.

[Scott Mayers]

Media outlets have owners. Owners are identifiable. The owners of media outlets are responsible socially and financially for the print that appears on their pages. For that reason, they make sure that any message appearing on their pages has the authors name identified and double check the accuracy before printing.

Media outlets also have accountability for accuracy of what they print.

Public access anonymous bulletin boards have no accountability for accuracy nor do they identify the author.

Anyone using anonymous public access bulletin boards for accurate information is wasting their time.

Like yourself here and now? The CBC requires a good registration capacity to identify us, especially as they want to appeal to Canadians when we speak. They also have even in their regulations a declaration that they can and will post members with their real names. I also use my own real namesake there.

[Big Guy]

Like yourself here and now? The CBC requires a good registration capacity to identify us, especially as they want to appeal to Canadians when we speak. They also have even in their regulations a declaration that they can and will post members with their real names. I also use my own real namesake there.

Every once in a while I read an interesting point of view here with which I disagree. I then research that point of view to test the background and decide if that new (for me) point of view worth considering.

[Big Guy]

"It is disappointing to me that online commenting at the Star and just about every other news organization in the world never lived up to its promise of providing a new digital means to engage readers and foster communities of interest around public issues. Indeed, several other organizations also shut down online comments this year."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2015/12/18/end-of-online-commenting-isnt-an-end-to-engagement-public-editor.html

"How quickly my idealistic optimism was dashed. Within months, reader complaints flooded in, largely about nasty rants, name-calling and misinformation from anonymous “trolls” in the comments section. Not surprisingly, longtime readers were aghast to see hateful, racist and sexist comments published on the Star’s website, particularly on news related to religion, immigration and poverty."

It appear that there is a limit to the bigotry, nastiness, intolerance and misinformation that appears under anonymous avatars that is palatable by the mainline press.

I commend them for the move and I commend the moderators of this site for their efforts here.

It is easy for the "nastiness" to dominate civil discourse.

[Guest]

I find it easy enough to ignore or argue against people I disagree with. Even those with extreme views, if I can be bothered. I oppose shutting down online commenting.

[Big Guy]

It is very difficult to host an electronic opinion board. If you require names and verifications of names then it makes it cumbersome to moderate. If you allow anonymity then it is soon taken over the crazies who seem to have time all the time in the world to spread their filth.

The major challenge is that the commercial entity which provides the service is responsible for everything that appears. Moderation is read as censorship or moderator bias. Lack of moderation leads to law suites by those targeted.

I always believed that using verifiable real names is the only solution - but would restrict conversation if people had to accept responsibility for their posts.

I often participate in newspaper and magazine comments through letters to the editor.

I do not blame commercial businesses from shutting down anonymous public access bulletin or opinion boards.

[Guest]

I didn't realize that the commercial entity which provides the service is responsible for everything that appears. It would seem, given some of the stuff I've read, that no-one is paying too much attention with a view towards punishing them. Still, if they are concerned, fair enough.

[Scott Mayers]

I was going to say something and went to check the CBC for backing but they seem to have altered what they had set up before on the site.

I already pointed out my disapproval of public sites censoring to even a slight degree. Supposed trolling is easy enough to curtail and stop by members themselves. Ignoring the ones that appear to be doing so. Avoid the internal emotional drive to want to voice even the word, "troll", as it only enhances the abuse. Don't presume that even if one is doing so that they ARE a troll (emotions get reasonably heightened in political arenas) and accept that you yourself may potentially be stepping over bounds on contributing to abuses too.

However, the worst thing to do is to ban. It also creates MORE real and righteous anger and resentment against those like the CBC and the ones they are 'protecting'. I am a preferably social democrat and yet find now that I can no longer support the CBC based sufficiently on this last straw! They've completely screened out the average person to fulfill a likely mandate to more than over-represent the strictest and extremest pluralities with an ax to grind that only adds more fuel to the fire as they don't even represent those they think they do.

To me, they're worse than the stereotypes against a Donald Trump. If anything, they are acting as multi-Trumps in a veil of communal support they no longer represent. If they don't change things, then our media is no longer viable here in Canada. They are all speaking in tune now for a select and limited set of Constituted cults of powerful interests.

[Big Guy]

We had a local radio station that allowed an anonymous opinion board through their web site. It was moderated poorly and individuals were able to criticize identifiable individuals while doing it anonymously. One anonymous group was claiming to become ill from eating at a local restaurant.

The restaurant sued, the radio station gave up all information they had on all board participants and a few "trolls" were outed. Very, very embarassing. The station lost the court case and paid over $10,000 to the restaurant.

This is not an isolated case. If you provide a platform for people to express their views then you are liable for what those people write.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Big Guy

[Guest]

We had a local radio station that allowed an anonymous opinion board through their web site. It was moderated poorly and individuals were able to criticize identifiable individuals while doing it anonymously. One anonymous group was claiming to become ill from eating at a local restaurant.

The restaurant sued, the radio station gave up all information they had on all board participants and a few "trolls" were outed. Very, very embarassing. The station lost the court case and paid over $10,000 to the restaurant.

This is not an isolated case. If you provide a platform for people to express their views then you are liable for what those people write.

I remember someone writing on this site that DT craved carnal relations with a female relative. If he read that could he shut us down?

[Scott Mayers]

We had a local radio station that allowed an anonymous opinion board through their web site. It was moderated poorly and individuals were able to criticize identifiable individuals while doing it anonymously. One anonymous group was claiming to become ill from eating at a local restaurant.

The restaurant sued, the radio station gave up all information they had on all board participants and a few "trolls" were outed. Very, very embarassing. The station lost the court case and paid over $10,000 to the restaurant.

This is not an isolated case. If you provide a platform for people to express their views then you are liable for what those people write.

I understand. But without knowing for certain, the case could have been lost merely by the lack of good council or by another's capacity to keep the case going. There are many factors which CAN be altered to address these. One is to require no one use generic names, like "Big Guy". Another is to find newer means to register the people online with better accountability. Google, for instance, does this and improves over time as it evolves. For instance, while not ideal for all, they ask for a confirmed phone number usually of a cell phone which adds a means to confirm. However, this method can discriminate against those of us who prefer NOT to use cellphones. But they too have evolved to handle this slightly although not very convenient as of yet.

The law has not caught up on this. In the case of your station, this can represent justification to alter the law to reflect whether a site may or may not be held liable. If they use an affirmed means to register, this CAN work. You can grant the option of a site to either risk their own liability or USE a standardized form of confirmation through the registry process to assure the individuals speaking openly online are at least able to be tracked. And then, this can in turn be used to hold those responsible for speaking accountable.

I've noticed from arguing on another forum this factor in what started out to be their own 'right' to censor content. I argued that they should keep the content where those of us contribute instead of deleting whole threads where they might see personal concerns. Yet they felt that they would PREFER the right to censor privately. I argued that since our governments and law demand the right to information where they would no doubt voluntarily give this information up, they should equally be required to preserve the words of the members for equal concerns (legality, like one's personal input of novelty they could use for publishing elsewhere, for instance. Destroying it can be an attempt to co-opt one's record of initial ideas for profit by the sites.

Since such sites still want the luxury to have this capacity, they, and not the laws that make them liable, MUST remain. But this CAN be addressed. It is just that those in media want their cake and eat it too. So your station should be held liable unless they are willing to be universally accountable. [You can't have the right, for instance, to free copyrights to member content that the site FAVORS while opting to choose what they don't FAVOR. Thus, liability is accepted when or where they do this with good reason.

The CBC can do this too. But because they want to have the right to profit on preserving copyright with more strength than anything, this is why they are preserving the right to discriminate through censorship. I think we need to ban the CBC or other public funded institutions the right to censor AND allow open rights for people to copy what they see there for free use. It is the political greed to preserve the copyrights, at high rates, which also makes them utilize censorship the way they do. And they DO have at least a partially secure way to assure accountability to transfer to those who are legitimately being abusive. They just don't want to.

[Big Guy]

I believe that those who make statements on line are just as accountable for their statements as those who make statements on television or face to face.

This idea that you have the right of anonymity when you attack, demean, slag, ridicule, libel or slander another individual or group is unacceptable to me. Anonymously purposely creating problems for identifiable others is cowardly and should be discouraged.

[Scott Mayers]

I believe that those who make statements on line are just as accountable for their statements as those who make statements on television or face to face.

This idea that you have the right of anonymity when you attack, demean, slag, ridicule, libel or slander another individual or group is unacceptable to me. Anonymously purposely creating problems for identifiable others is cowardly and should be discouraged.

Agreed. But do you think it wise to moderate CBC forums? We have no capacity to interpret the sincerity of those 'censoring' if they are doing so out of their own political bias. Are we supposed to just blindly trust their words when they say they experience something as abusive? Do you not think that a place like North Korea, who would no doubt do this too, would argue rationally to their people that their acts to censor are due to sincere abuses of 'others'? This is the Catch 22 of the whole concept of censoring any public communications between its people.

[eyeball]

"It is disappointing to me that online commenting at the Star and just about every other news organization in the world never lived up to its promise of providing a new digital means to engage readers and foster communities of interest around public issues. Indeed, several other organizations also shut down online comments this year."

The idea behind the promise is still sound but we just need to work on how to keep it better. The wide open model was fun but it's obviously wearing thin so it's time to come up with something different. It's time to evolve.

Perhaps forum administrators from around the country should get together and come up with a way of moving the best of the best of the best into an online forum that the rest of us plebes can observe and strive to match in our own efforts to be heard, understood and appreciated. I think a good case could be made for providing public funding for an uber-forum of really quality online posters who've figured it out. Such a pool of talent could be a pool of potential political candidates or even the basis for moving representation towards a more fluid assemblage of really smart people capable of leading by example.

We can toss the baby, but keep the tub and the water.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The CBC site tends to shut down any sort of animated discussion at all, left or right.