Because it's more likely that people will actually see it if they don't have to go looking for it.
True, but the people who want to find it will have no trouble finding it. So it seems a relatively unimportant point to me even though I tend to agree that allowing comments is better than not allowing comments.
Let's say that there's a major methodological flaw with the study, but it's not one that's readily apparent to the layperson. If that methodological flaw is pointed out in the top-voted comment, then there's a fair chance that Layperson A watching the video will read that comment and might think "oh, that's a good point, actually. I didn't think of that." On the other hand, they're unlikely to google for it, because people tend to just accept what's put in front of them, especially if it concurs with what they already believe, or what they would like to be true.
Not a situation that is going to arise every time, or even in a majority of cases, but fair enough.
Equally, if they see some criticisms of the video in the comments, then they may be inspired to do the googling you suggest where they otherwise might not have been.
True.
I haven't said anybody is obligated to do anything, and nor have I said that I'm annoyed by anything that anybody has done.
Okay.
Although you can, of course, ban individual commenters on your own blog.
Moderation can be time consuming, however. Whether one wishes to go through the trouble is up to them.
For someone being payed to engage in research by donors, I do agree that avoiding dealing with criticism is not a great way to handle things (I don't know if Sarkeesian actual does avoid responding to criticism or not because I haven't followed her work very closely--just speaking hypothetically). If I donated money to someone to make some sort of educational/advocacy video series, I would be annoyed if they didn't respond to criticisms, so long as the criticisms did not seem to be ridiculous, trollish or petty and were in regard to the actual subject matter of the videos. However, I think one can do this with or without allowing comments on their personal youtube channel and/or blog. Allowing blog comments is best though, IMO. If you're being payed a lot of money to reserach/advocate for some topic then you can probably find the time to do a bit of moderating or to ask for volunteers to help with that business.
But like I said, I don't know if Sarkeesian has addressed criticisms and I haven't donated money to her, so I don't care much about how she does things.
Would a person watching the film be more likely to do independent research if the comments suggested that the film was full of inaccuracies or not?
Fair enough.
And let's not forget that to the average, non-involved layperson that a slew of comments saying " F U #%()# feminazi" are actually going to speak for themselves, and it's not the author of the video that it's going to be making look bad. If those are the only counter-arguments on offer, then most people are only likely to think that the video has a better case than they otherwise would. So, again, I don't see why they're anything to be afraid of.
Who said anything about being afraid or looking bad? That isn't the only reason one might not want to see ugly comments under their videos/blogs.
Since the creator of the video series is making an attempt to turn it into something that could be used in an educational situation and not allowing any debate over the content (and purposefully walling herself off from anyone but her echo-chamber), then yes the discussions we have on the periphery isn't really a discussion because the one who made the points and trying to sell the material isn't here.
Apparently discussing the writings of Thomas Paine isn't really a discussion unless Thomas Paine is participating or listening in?
And no, she can't be engaging in discussion and debate if she has control over both sides of the floor.
I've no idea what this means in the context of what you were responding to.
Yet you still posted here and not via telegraph, smoke signal, or messenger pigeon. Why is that? With all sorts of alternative means of communications, why haven't you carved it into a block of ice in the hopes that I might read it. Does it have anything to do with the fact that I am here?
Again, I don't understand this in the context of what you were responding to.
I said, to me, the most appropriate way of expressing disagreement with a research/advocacy video, such as the type made by Sarkeesian would be to make a video critique or critique via blog article or something similar.
I don't see how that implies I shouldn't respond to a post with a post. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you were here. If my intention were for you, specifically, to read it then I would have PMed you instead of posting in a public discussion thread.
Can't prove a negative. Prove that she has. Find the revised, improved or expanded argument. Find anywhere that there is criticism that she has refined her message. Given she has refused to permit any discussion or feedback where she posts or expresses her ideas, specifically her youtube and blog, find anything that shows she is responding to any sorts of feedback.
I think you must have misread what I wrote. I said "Do you really believe that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames did not receive any feedback?" I didn't ask whether you believe Sarkeesian has read the feedback or not.
