Full Version: Ethics in online forums
I have been attempting to participate in a dialog with those with the opposite political opinions to mine.
One of the sites I've visited is Redstate.org a "conservative" blog.
Yesterday I created an entry which attempted to illustrate historically what happened economically to societies when they were run by religious minorities.
Apparently the editor felt that being exposed to historical examples was too risky for his readers to handle and removed the entry.
You can read the original and our correspondence here,
censored entry repost if you are interested in the details.
The greater point is should online forums just be tools to energize those who agree with the founders, or should they play a role in promoting dialog and the debate over ideas?
It is my opinion that a group that needs to censor material knows it has a weak position. They run the risk of being soundly rejected when their followers find they have been deceived.
Or, if they are successful, as was the case with the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, they end up with a society where everyone is being lied to and are effectively slaves of the government.
Such societies are economically inefficient since slaves don't make good workers and eventually collapse usually with great suffering on all sides.
The other possible outcome is that people realize they are being kept from the truth and dump the government. This is what happened during the Hoover administration and the Republicans were out of power for the next 40 year as a result.
I realize that online forums are private enterprises and thus can set their own policies but, by offering the option to participate, do they then take on a moral obligation to be, if not fair, at least open?
One of the sites I've visited is Redstate.org a "conservative" blog.
Yesterday I created an entry which attempted to illustrate historically what happened economically to societies when they were run by religious minorities.
Apparently the editor felt that being exposed to historical examples was too risky for his readers to handle and removed the entry.
You can read the original and our correspondence here,
censored entry repost if you are interested in the details.
The greater point is should online forums just be tools to energize those who agree with the founders, or should they play a role in promoting dialog and the debate over ideas?
It is my opinion that a group that needs to censor material knows it has a weak position. They run the risk of being soundly rejected when their followers find they have been deceived.
Or, if they are successful, as was the case with the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, they end up with a society where everyone is being lied to and are effectively slaves of the government.
Such societies are economically inefficient since slaves don't make good workers and eventually collapse usually with great suffering on all sides.
The other possible outcome is that people realize they are being kept from the truth and dump the government. This is what happened during the Hoover administration and the Republicans were out of power for the next 40 year as a result.
I realize that online forums are private enterprises and thus can set their own policies but, by offering the option to participate, do they then take on a moral obligation to be, if not fair, at least open?
by offering the option to participate, do they then take on a moral obligation to be, if not fair, at least open?
In short, no.
Every site sets their own guidelines. If you fail to follow the rules, then your submissions will be removed, edited, or moved. You yourself may be banned from a site by not conforming.
For example, on America's Debate, we have Rules which must be followed. If you don't follow the Rules,your posts may be removed, edited or moved. There is no freedom of speech in a private venue.
Given the vastness of the Internet, I am sure that every opinion has an outlet. The outlet here is intelligent discussion with a variety of people with a variety of political viewpoints.
Try to spam the forum by selling male enhancement products, however, and you will find yourself gone.
That's just the way it is.
In short, no.
Every site sets their own guidelines. If you fail to follow the rules, then your submissions will be removed, edited, or moved. You yourself may be banned from a site by not conforming.
For example, on America's Debate, we have Rules which must be followed. If you don't follow the Rules,your posts may be removed, edited or moved. There is no freedom of speech in a private venue.
Given the vastness of the Internet, I am sure that every opinion has an outlet. The outlet here is intelligent discussion with a variety of people with a variety of political viewpoints.
Try to spam the forum by selling male enhancement products, however, and you will find yourself gone.
That's just the way it is.
Take solace in the thought that - if they are prepared to censor an opinion that is not generally objectionable (i.e. racist, full of swearwords or spammish) - then it probably isn't worth your while posting there....
There are millions of sites where people can post or blog or whatever. 99.9999% of them get read by very few people. Thats the internet. Best thing you can do is find a more intelligent community to post in....
There are millions of sites where people can post or blog or whatever. 99.9999% of them get read by very few people. Thats the internet. Best thing you can do is find a more intelligent community to post in....
by offering the option to participate, do they then take on a moral obligation to be, if not fair, at least open?
I would agree with Amlord. Its their sandbox, they control the toys. That doesn't make what the blog moderator did "fair", but its certainly his right. If he wants to quell dissent of his ramblings and discourage discourse and just hear himself talk, so be it. Eventually they will find that to be a very lonely place.
Places like that are what makes me appreciate America's Debate even more.
Doc
I would agree with Amlord. Its their sandbox, they control the toys. That doesn't make what the blog moderator did "fair", but its certainly his right. If he wants to quell dissent of his ramblings and discourage discourse and just hear himself talk, so be it. Eventually they will find that to be a very lonely place.
Places like that are what makes me appreciate America's Debate even more.
Doc
Yes, they're free to do whatever they want. Your original post was a good piece of work, thoughtful and informed. The fact that they chose to delete it demonstrates that they are not open to the truth. This is their own sin and they are their own victims in this. Let them fester in their cesspool of lies; enjoy the fresh air here on AD.
Maybe you should put the word "moral" in bold in your debate question.
I disagree with previous posters on this. I believe"moral" is a bet of a strong word, but ethical obligation to be open in an supposed "open forum" seems about right to me. Else you are not being "honest" to your readers or website viewers, which agains is unethical.
It goes with out saying that there are other websites, but this is beside the point whether there is some sort of ethical/moral obligation to be what we say we are, and to do what we say we are doing. IF AD started striking opinions just because it didn't go with their political ideas it wouldn't be legally wrong, but legality is only one way someone or an organization can be wrong.
How many people would teach their kid that if you are playing a game of basketball or football or soccer that it is perfectly o.k. to make and change the rules in their advantage, simply because it is their ball??
I disagree with previous posters on this. I believe"moral" is a bet of a strong word, but ethical obligation to be open in an supposed "open forum" seems about right to me. Else you are not being "honest" to your readers or website viewers, which agains is unethical.
It goes with out saying that there are other websites, but this is beside the point whether there is some sort of ethical/moral obligation to be what we say we are, and to do what we say we are doing. IF AD started striking opinions just because it didn't go with their political ideas it wouldn't be legally wrong, but legality is only one way someone or an organization can be wrong.
How many people would teach their kid that if you are playing a game of basketball or football or soccer that it is perfectly o.k. to make and change the rules in their advantage, simply because it is their ball??
Redstate.org's policy is:
Redstate.org posting rules
We simply do not know where this was originally posted at Redstate.org. Perhaps it was off topic and removed, which would be consistent with that site's rules.
The real issue here is money. You have no right to spend other's money to espouse your views, unless the other party agrees. Redstate.org seems to welcome opposing viewpoints (to a degree), so the real cause of this conflict is uncertain.
QUOTE
A little clarification is in order. Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning. You may or may not get a warning -- it depends on how harried the moderators are. If you are coming from a non-conservative, non-Republican context, you are still welcome here, but you must respect the site's stated purpose.
The posting rules benefit everyone. By promoting civility even in disagreement, they help the site avoid the pitfalls of notorious dens of iniquity like Democratic Underground and every unmoderated Usenet thread that has ever existed.
The posting rules benefit everyone. By promoting civility even in disagreement, they help the site avoid the pitfalls of notorious dens of iniquity like Democratic Underground and every unmoderated Usenet thread that has ever existed.
Redstate.org posting rules
We simply do not know where this was originally posted at Redstate.org. Perhaps it was off topic and removed, which would be consistent with that site's rules.
The real issue here is money. You have no right to spend other's money to espouse your views, unless the other party agrees. Redstate.org seems to welcome opposing viewpoints (to a degree), so the real cause of this conflict is uncertain.
I read the banned post. A few comments. First, the forum can set its own rules and if they wish to ban the post that is their choice. I don't think there is any kind of ethical duty to keep it up. I do think the thesis of the post is pretty weak. It tries to draw a meaningful relationship between religion and slavery, which seems forced. Slavery was driven by economic concerns, not religious ones.
First, I think the issue being debated here is whether such a site is ethically/legally? required to follow its own guidelines. Pursuant to that, here are the relevant rules from this site.
Amlord posted the other relevant section above, the key sentences being....
They also explicitly state what is probably tacitly assumed anyway...that they are the sole arbitrers of any dispute (so, basically, they can do what they want, regardless of the stated rules).
From their mission statement....
Taking all three of these into account....
I don't think this post explicitly violated the stated 'rules', but that it did fall under the 'disruptive behavior' description. So, they are probably 'off the hook' in their actions, in my book. They want to be color blind, in fact have that as their stated mission, and have the right to be so, and even explicitly state this in their rules and mission. Now, feel free to dislike or criticize their policies...but it doesn't seem to me they're violating them.
I think the fact that this occurred on the Internet masks the basic interaction that took place. If you walked into a meeting of Republicans meant to build momentum for their policies, and tried to make a similar discussion, would you be surprised if you were tuned out? That's basically what happened here...it just took place over the Internet. Hecklers/dissenters are seldom welcome at such events.
QUOTE
The posting rules for redstate.org are as follows:
# No profanity.
# No personal attacks.
# No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
# No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.
Banning for ideological reasons will take place only in the cases of fundamentally anti-American ideologies.
# No profanity.
# No personal attacks.
# No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
# No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.
Banning for ideological reasons will take place only in the cases of fundamentally anti-American ideologies.
Amlord posted the other relevant section above, the key sentences being....
QUOTE
Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning.
They also explicitly state what is probably tacitly assumed anyway...that they are the sole arbitrers of any dispute (so, basically, they can do what they want, regardless of the stated rules).
From their mission statement....
QUOTE
RedState.org is focused on politics, and seeks the construction of a Republican majority in the United States. We hope to unite serious, innovative, and accomplished voices from government, politics, activism, civil society, and journalism to participate in this work
Taking all three of these into account....
I don't think this post explicitly violated the stated 'rules', but that it did fall under the 'disruptive behavior' description. So, they are probably 'off the hook' in their actions, in my book. They want to be color blind, in fact have that as their stated mission, and have the right to be so, and even explicitly state this in their rules and mission. Now, feel free to dislike or criticize their policies...but it doesn't seem to me they're violating them.
I think the fact that this occurred on the Internet masks the basic interaction that took place. If you walked into a meeting of Republicans meant to build momentum for their policies, and tried to make a similar discussion, would you be surprised if you were tuned out? That's basically what happened here...it just took place over the Internet. Hecklers/dissenters are seldom welcome at such events.
Some further thoughts...
It seems to me that by setting up a forum that explicitly invites comments the owner is creating the expectation that postings are welcome.
The alternative is the many closed blogs which are the online equivalent of a magazine. The information flows only one way.
The Usenet discussion forum has been in existence for over twenty years and in that time a certain group dynamic has evolved. It's the source of the term "troll" , for example.
Usenet forums can be either moderated or unmoderated. For an unmoderated forum the expectation is that there will be an open discussion and that there are social mechanisms for handling abusers. These include ignoring, condemning, arguing with and filtering via software.
If the forum owner feels that the noise to signal ratio is too high he is free to create a moderated forum (listserv's are a good example) and censor postings or limit group membership. In this case those participating have explicitly agreed to the restrictions.
So, I think an interactive forum implies the willingness for debate regardless of the stated "rules". Otherwise why not use some other format. Accepting only those who agree with your position is, at a minimum, intellectually dishonest. It is meant to give the appearance of an open forum while actually performing as a propaganda vehicle.
It seems to me that by setting up a forum that explicitly invites comments the owner is creating the expectation that postings are welcome.
The alternative is the many closed blogs which are the online equivalent of a magazine. The information flows only one way.
The Usenet discussion forum has been in existence for over twenty years and in that time a certain group dynamic has evolved. It's the source of the term "troll" , for example.
Usenet forums can be either moderated or unmoderated. For an unmoderated forum the expectation is that there will be an open discussion and that there are social mechanisms for handling abusers. These include ignoring, condemning, arguing with and filtering via software.
If the forum owner feels that the noise to signal ratio is too high he is free to create a moderated forum (listserv's are a good example) and censor postings or limit group membership. In this case those participating have explicitly agreed to the restrictions.
So, I think an interactive forum implies the willingness for debate regardless of the stated "rules". Otherwise why not use some other format. Accepting only those who agree with your position is, at a minimum, intellectually dishonest. It is meant to give the appearance of an open forum while actually performing as a propaganda vehicle.
Some further thoughts...
It seems to me that by setting up a forum that explicitly invites comments the owner is creating the expectation that postings are welcome.
I think many Americans feel that such are American rights. However, in creating a magazine we do not expect the editors to air all of our letters or complaints, or accept our editorials are articles.
The internet is still being formed and fleshed out. Blogs are like any other source of information. While the internet can boast a greater democratization of voices, a clearly defined censoring blog does not limit our free speech.
It is not nice being told to go away or having our words removed from a site, but that is not the issue here.
Blog editors should let us know what type of behavior is expected on the blog or debate site, but we cannot presume that these people will have to play by our rules with their funds, time, and effort.
We can vote with our mice and go to a site that treats us the way we want to be treated. There is truly at least one of everything out here in cyberspace.
It seems to me that by setting up a forum that explicitly invites comments the owner is creating the expectation that postings are welcome.
I think many Americans feel that such are American rights. However, in creating a magazine we do not expect the editors to air all of our letters or complaints, or accept our editorials are articles.
The internet is still being formed and fleshed out. Blogs are like any other source of information. While the internet can boast a greater democratization of voices, a clearly defined censoring blog does not limit our free speech.
It is not nice being told to go away or having our words removed from a site, but that is not the issue here.
Blog editors should let us know what type of behavior is expected on the blog or debate site, but we cannot presume that these people will have to play by our rules with their funds, time, and effort.
We can vote with our mice and go to a site that treats us the way we want to be treated. There is truly at least one of everything out here in cyberspace.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.