News sites cracking down on trolls

[barbara]

Seems there is a whole lotta trollin' going on... 😉



http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl...1-f0feafdd1394

[donquixote99]

There's a lot to be said for the NY Times method. 100% moderation before publication. In other words, 'it's our site, and we decide what gets published on it.'

If someone doesn't like it, they can always start their own site....

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There's a lot to be said for the NY Times method. 100% moderation before publication. In other words, 'it's our site, and we decide what gets published on it.'

If someone doesn't like it, they can always start their own site....

The only thing I fined useful in news sites that have comments. The voting thumbs up/down it can show you how the group thinks to given articles.

[JJIII]

Anonymity breeds animosity.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Anonymity breeds animosity.

Yep those sites are gang mentality.

Something I had hope to avoid with a small site.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Yep those sites are gang mentality.

Something I had hope to avoid with a small site.

Small sites, large sites, it doesn't matter. Anybody that is a member here or over at AK can figure out who I am and where I live without too much trouble. I also sign all invoices when I repair an instrument. It keeps me honest.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by barbara

Seems there is a whole lotta trollin' going on... 😉

Another old memory triggered to the surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM

[4-2-7]

You know after thinking about this a bit I would give more credit if the sit stops all comments opposed to censoring.

News sites are agenda driven so will their comment censoring be.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

You know after thinking about this a bit I would give more credit if the sit stops all comments opposed to censoring.

News sites are agenda driven so will their comment censoring be.

There is really no sense in having a comment section if you're going to pick and choose which are and which aren't published. The left would be up in arms if someone bought a paper and censored all comments from a protected group, say, African-Americans. Of course, some rules on swear words and known trigger words ought be excluded; however, no such censorship of concepts or ideas. I think an argument could even be made that the paper must allow comments against their known position if there are limited information sources within the paper's publishing domain. Today, with the advent of multiple sources of information available, that would be a difficult case to make.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by bhunter

There is really no sense in having a comment section if you're going to pick and choose which are and which aren't published. The left would be up in arms if someone bought a paper and censored all comments from a protected group, say, African-Americans. Of course, some rules on swear words and known trigger words ought be excluded; however, no such censorship of concepts or ideas. I think an argument could even be made that the paper must allow comments against their known position if there are limited information sources within the paper's publishing domain. Today, with the advent of multiple sources of information available, that would be a difficult case to make.

You are dumber than a sack of rancid guts if you believe that! People like you are why this country has become a festering swamp of every sort of debauchery and evil. You sold your kids into prostitution to pay for a couple of fixes of heroin!

[Not really! This is offered as an example of the sort of comment that would have to be allowed under the standards you suggest.]

But the basic flaw in your conceopt is contained in four words: "the paper must allow." Allowing outside parties to say what a paper must allow is as much the death of a free press as allowing outside parties to censor ideas. The only way you have a 'free press' is when the media has editorial control over itself.

If you are upset that the paper won't print your remarks, your remedy is to go to another paper, or get your own. "Freedom of the Press" is a right of editors, flowing from media ownership.