Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Diogenes]

...
Calling this censorship, on the other hand, is redefining the word beyond recognition. No one on the Blockbot list, and no one banned from the atheismplus forums is prevented from publishing their views on the internet, or anywhere else they'd like to speak. Kochanski is particularly hypocritical in calling it censorship, when she appears to be threatening litigation using the infamously censorious UK defamation regime.

You are repeating the claim that she specifically refuted and never made in the first place...and are apparently using a special definition of censorship. Banning people for their perspective or view or what they write on the atheismplus forum is practicing censorship by the individuals running that board. Censorship is not restricted, by definition, to the government.

Similarly it was intended that the block bot would be able to get accounts auto-banned from Twitter. I can see why you continue to ignore that programmed feature...but I still think that intent is very relevant to any block bot discussion...as that was an attempt to censor accounts twitter-wide which speaks volumes towards mainly Oolon's attitude towards silencing. You can already report harassing twitter accounts, but it would then be up to the media owner, Twitter, to determine of their ToS had been violated rather than trying to circumvent that mechanism through a "DoS"-style reporting frenzy.

 

[jhunter1163]

If you want to argue that atheismplus members refuse to listen to people of dissenting view points, I think you've got a reasonable position. I probably disagree with you on their duty to do so or the extent to which they're actually ignorant of those dissenting view points, but it's certainly true that the forum shuts out a number of view points.

It's not simply refusing to listen; it's actively denying people who hold those contrary views permission to post them, because privilege and patriarchy.

 

[qwints]

First, if you're using censorship to mean any restriction of speech of any kind anywhere, then censorship is everywhere. Both this forum and atheismplus are censored. I don't oppose private entities regulating the speech that takes places where they control it, unless that private entity has enough control that it's policies effectively control public discourse. But I strongly disagree with the idea that every discussion forum has a duty to be an open forum. I'm glad such open forums exist, but I also see the need for other spaces.



Second, let's look at what Kochanski actually said -

Who says I am threatening litigation? I am just saying that they have left themselves open to litigation. Could I bring litigation against them, yes. Am I doing it, not at the moment and if I do I will not announce it anywhere on the internet, I am not a fool.

In other words, she's not suing them right now but she could. Combine that with repeated references to slander, libel, and damages, and I see an attempt to create a chilling effect against future speech.

 

[qwints]

It's not simply refusing to listen; it's actively denying people who hold those contrary views permission to post them, because privilege and patriarchy.

On one internet forum that several people in this thread see as virtually empty. Freedom of speech doesn't include a duty for private entities to publish your material. I could imagine scenarios where a small number of private entities had sufficient control over people's ability to meaningfully speak that it would be different, but the internet is a long way from being such a place.

 

[Kochanski]

If you want to argue that atheismplus members refuse to listen to people of dissenting view points, I think you've got a reasonable position. I probably disagree with you on their duty to do so or the extent to which they're actually ignorant of those dissenting view points, but it's certainly true that the forum shuts out a number of view points.

Calling this censorship, on the other hand, is redefining the word beyond recognition. No one on the Blockbot list, and no one banned from the atheismplus forums is prevented from publishing their views on the internet, or anywhere else they'd like to speak. Kochanski is particularly hypocritical in calling it censorship, when she appears to be threatening litigation using the infamously censorious UK defamation regime.

When they actively change what people say in their posts, when they ban people on their forum they are censoring people on their forum. Now, they are free to do so, it is a private forum and they can make up their own rules. It is censorship all the same.

I am not threatening litigation because of the BBC blockbot. I am saying that what they did leaves them open to litigation for slander/libel. Even if litigation was brought, it would not be censorship, because the BBC report has already gone out and while they may have issued some disclaimers about what was reported it remains out there as reported.

There is no hypocrisy in my position. I am for freedom of speech, but I recognize there are limits to it.

 

[Diogenes]

...But I strongly disagree with the idea that every discussion forum has a duty to be an open forum. I'm glad such open forums exist, but I also see the need for other spaces.

Who is promoting that? Whose argument is that statement rebutting?

The only problem with the degree of censorship on the A+ forum, in my opinion, is where a stated goal of A+ is "promoting critical thinking".

Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime.

Are the bolded phrases of that mission statement being genuinely upheld on the forum?

So maybe my complaint is more inappropriate branding. Capricious and ideological censorship can't in any way be conducive to applying "skepticism and critical thinking to everything". Without knowing anything else I would expect that kind of moderation when it came to taboo subjects on any religiously-focused forum...and wouldn't frequent them. A+, on the other hand, does a bait-and-switch, claiming one thing and delivering an entirely different product focused solely and exclusively on the special SJW definition of "safe space".

Combine that with repeated references to slander, libel, and damages, and I see an attempt to create a chilling effect against future speech.

Because you're looking for one in order to argue about it. Or, maybe, you're not being as genuinely disingenuous towards her as you appear to be and there is, instead, a sufficiently high level of cognitive dissonance such that you think you're making an honest, good faith statement.

 

[Kochanski]

First, if you're using censorship to mean any restriction of speech of any kind anywhere, then censorship is everywhere. Both this forum and atheismplus are censored. I don't oppose private entities regulating the speech that takes places where they control it, unless that private entity has enough control that it's policies effectively control public discourse. But I strongly disagree with the idea that every discussion forum has a duty to be an open forum. I'm glad such open forums exist, but I also see the need for other spaces.



Second, let's look at what Kochanski actually said -



In other words, she's not suing them right now but she could. Combine that with repeated references to slander, libel, and damages, and I see an attempt to create a chilling effect against future speech.

Qwints, I continue to bring up slander and libel because Oolon and others refuse to accept responsibility for the fact that what they have done can cause actual damage to individuals reputations. Oolon in particular thinks it is extraordinarily funny. For a group that is so concerned about how people are affected by others, they show callous disregard for people.

And chilling effects, really? My few posts here on one forum, not say on a BBC news program, that is going to have some sort of chilling affect against future speech? I don't expect them to stop their actions, I would just like them to THINK OF SOMEONE BESIDES THEMSELVES AND THE SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE who they seem to think should be treated like delicate flowers.

 

[qwints]

Repeated references to causes of actions, legally cognizable damages and the potential of litigation are different from talking about whether the list is fair or the effect being placed on it had on you.

If what you're trying to say is: I was unfairly put on the list, it hurt my feelings and unfairly affected how people have treated me, say that. Dwelling on possible legal action is a very different discussion.

 

[Kochanski]

Repeated references to causes of actions, legally cognizable damages and the potential of litigation are different from talking about whether the list is fair or the effect being placed on it had on you.

If what you're trying to say is: I was unfairly put on the list, it hurt my feelings and unfairly affected how people have treated me, say that. Dwelling on possible legal action is a very different discussion.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I have repeatedly said I don't care if they block me, I don't care if they put me on a list that lets others block me. I really don't care who does and does not see my tweets. They are for my own amusement. Period.

When I realized I was on the list I was genuinely amused and I was amused that I rated level 2 blocking. I am a nobody in the skeptical movement, I don't have a blog or a podcast, I don't speak at events and nor am I ever likely to, I am not interested in any of that. The only reason people know me is simply because I tend to volunteer to help out, I will be gofer, table sitter, or whatever people want me to do so that I have a chance to contribute to the movement and help out.

It bothers me that they have arbitrary methods of choosing who goes on the list BECAUSE THEY PROMOTED IT ON THE BBC and now their "happy" little list has been shared with the general public and that public has not really been told the background of that list and the people who created it and they may now accept that people on that list are "abusers' of some sort.

No one has treated me differently since this happened. No one really knows who I am. There has been no fall out from this for me.

However, that does not absolve them from what they did in promoting it on the BBC.

Please do not put words in my mouth that are not there. I am not the most eloquent individual but I have said exactly what I meant. Don't read between the lines. The space between the lines are quite blank.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

First, if you're using censorship to mean any restriction of speech of any kind anywhere, then censorship is everywhere. Both this forum and atheismplus are censored. I don't oppose private entities regulating the speech that takes places where they control it, unless that private entity has enough control that it's policies effectively control public discourse. But I strongly disagree with the idea that every discussion forum has a duty to be an open forum. I'm glad such open forums exist, but I also see the need for other spaces.

There's no need for a "space" like Atheism+ unless you consider the need to keep dysfunctional would-be dictators away from other fora. Atheism+ is where thinking of any sort goes to die. That place is about as productive as a salt flat.

 

[Diogenes]

There's no need for a "space" like Atheism+ unless you consider the need to keep dysfunctional would-be dictators away from other fora. Atheism+ is where thinking of any sort goes to die. That place is about as productive as a salt flat.

anti-halophile-ism!....besides if you enjoy soy sauce you've enjoyed a halophile's fermentation efforts.

 

[qwints]

Kochanski, I guess what I'm not getting is why the medium matters. Their list was already shared with the general public by being on a public website, wasn't it?

 

[Kochanski]

Kochanski, I guess what I'm not getting is why the medium matters. Their list was already shared with the general public by being on a public website, wasn't it?

There is a world of difference between something promoted on a forum that has limited membership and is promoted within a group that does not seek out the general public for anything and something shown on a news program of a major news provider.

A+ is basically a private club, indeed they seem to work very hard to be ever more private and exclusive. Sharing something within those confines where everyone knows why and know at least a little about who created it and the criteria involved is not an issue. Even if some of their pages are public and even if the blockbot list is public, without knowledge of its existence people outside the A+ crowd are unlikely to find it.

When you take it to a public and trusted news source that is putting the information out for public consumption it is different.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

How many people will go to the A+ website and see the list? Very few.

How many people watch BBC News and/or read the BBC News website? Millions.

 

[qwints]

I get that how big a deal it is changes depending on the size of the audience, but that doesn't change the nature of what they're doing - curating a private list of people they're encouraging others to ignore. The Blockbot was never (or at least for a very short period of time) just promoted on the atheismplus forums, it's been promoted more widely since its inception. I get that people might criticize the list for being poorly or unfairly constructed, but I don't get the argument that it's fine for them to do unless too many people hear about it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I get that how big a deal it is changes depending on the size of the audience, but that doesn't change the nature of what they're doing - curating a private list of people they're encouraging others to ignore.

So they're trying to make their echo chamber even smaller? Kind of odd for a group that wants to change atheism.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I get that how big a deal it is changes depending on the size of the audience, but that doesn't change the nature of what they're doing - curating a private list of people they're encouraging others to ignore. The Blockbot was never (or at least for a very short period of time) just promoted on the atheismplus forums, it's been promoted more widely since its inception. I get that people might criticize the list for being poorly or unfairly constructed, but I don't get the argument that it's fine for them to do unless too many people hear about it.

The problem with the newsnight report was not that more people heard about it or they can chose to ignore who they like but was partly because it was described as a ''list of abusers'' by the BBC reporter Paul Mason while showing on the screen those who simply disagreed or were critical with those associated with atheism plus. Thus conflating , not for the first time but not on a national T V broadcaster, those identifiable or named individuals with a strong difference of opinion with obviously abusive and often anonymous trolls.When pressed on this question on twitter, Mason apparently just er...blocked those who queried this.

 

[Diogenes]

... - curating a private list of people they're encouraging others to ignore. The Blockbot was never (or at least for a very short period of time) just promoted on the atheismplus forums, it's been promoted more widely since its inception....

With the "Atheism Plus" part conveniently dropped-off.

How would a "PETA Blockbot" work where a curated list of animal researchers and people opposed to the mass euthanasia of pets when we drop the "PETA" part and promote it as just list of trolls and annoying people?

Any group with a specific agenda and narrow ideology making a tool that is then marketed as a tool for anyone to generally be benefited by using to "minimize internet harassment" is looking to shut-up a lot of people by indiscriminately labeling people that *might* disagree but haven't specifically had any interaction with the atheism plus bot maintaining folks (it is A+ers that maintain the list, right? as any "appeal" was directed to the A+ forum) as abusive trolls or "annoying" people that should not be listened to?

The icing is still the claim, at least on the title atheismplus.com page, that critical thinking is actually promoted and discussions about how social justice issues affect *everyone* is a primary objective.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

If I say to you in a private room that you're on a list of racists, just me and you, are you harmed?

If I put the list of racists and racist apologists with your name on it in the second category onto a small messageboard that will likely get maybe 1000 visitors ever seeing it are you harmed? Are you more harmed than if it was just the two of us?

What if I went to a widely used and respected news organ and told them about my list of racists and race apologists and they created a report about the list of racists, did a long report on it, and highlighted the availability of said report plus lets say mentioning a few names including yours? Would that harm you? More or less than before?

It isn't the list itself that people object to, it's the BBC's reporting of said list.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

On one internet forum that several people in this thread see as virtually empty. Freedom of speech doesn't include a duty for private entities to publish your material. I could imagine scenarios where a small number of private entities had sufficient control over people's ability to meaningfully speak that it would be different, but the internet is a long way from being such a place.

I think semantic quibbling over whether the A+ moderation efforts should be referred to as "censorship" or not is a way of distracting attention from the real issue of whether their moderation efforts are irrational and serve to shield logically invalid or factually false views from scrutiny.