Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[luchog]

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.

Except that that's not what they're doing. If they were honest about it, people really wouldn't care all that much. But what they're doing is profoundly disingenuous. They're dropping the Atheism+ association, making it less clear that it's socio-political-agenda-driven and not actually safety-driven. They're also insisting that it's a list of abusers, when in fact it's at least as much, if not more, a list of people who disagree with them. And they're doing it in such a way that they are in effect publicly calling those who simply disagree with their militant dogma abusers and trolls.

It's the fundamental dishonesty that is objectionable.

 

[Quinn]

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".

That is certainly my problem with it. If it were presented as nothing more than a "safe space" for far-left victimhood fetishists to out-PC one another, I'd pay it no more attention than I do forums for bigfooters, Christian fundies, UFO nuts, or any other group of deeply mistaken individuals. It's only because they operate under the guise of promoting skepticism and critical thinking, while in reality undermining it at nearly every step, that I find their errors worth pointing out and calling attention to.

 

[squealpiggy]

What kind of loser needs to defer to such a list anyway? Someone harasses or abuses me on twitter, I block them and move on with my life. Done.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What kind of loser needs to defer to such a list anyway? Someone harasses or abuses me on twitter, I block them and move on with my life. Done.

Yes, but A-Plussers aren't the brightest bulbs in the box.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

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.

OK, now we're going places.

I probably disagree with you on ... the extent to which they're actually ignorant of those dissenting view points

Yes, you're going to disagree with me quite a lot. Not only are A✝ers ignorant of dissenting view points, they seem to be pretty ignorant in general. Take a gander at this, what appears to be the latest in a string of half-assed incomplete projects from their side:

http://217.174.252.162/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3569&sid=0b14c99767d6a286df9a3b5d4e13b037

And with a few exceptions most of these users are just testing the water with material that is almost entirely included in the ~30 page first chapter of the popular ecology text Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems.

Aww, why are you giving them such a hard time? True, you have to start somewhere and there's no shame in that. As such. But A✝ers see themselves as Oracles through whom the Revealed Truth speaks and become instant experts on anything they talk about. I was expecting just a bit more from them at this point. I think if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and walling themselves off from having to see points of view slightly different from their own—and, in Setar's case, spending that welfare check on dope—they might make more a lot more headway. Just a suggestion!

but it's certainly true that the forum shuts out a number of view points.

Did you grow up in Britain? Because that's quite an understatement.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Aww, why are you giving them such a hard time? True, you have to start somewhere and there's no shame in that. As such. But A✝ers see themselves as Oracles through whom the Revealed Truth speaks and become instant experts on anything they talk about. I was expecting just a bit more from them at this point. I think if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and walling themselves off from having to see points of view slightly different from their own—and, in Setar's case, spending that welfare check on dope—they might make more a lot more headway. Just a suggestion!

Oh gawd, not THE THREAD, pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaasssse, no. I thought I'd erased it from my mind.

I can't read that without homing in on Onamission5's post on that page. If I may paraphrase, Xie/Zit/Zlob was going to cite zir's ex as an example of an actual "slacker", something they'd decided doesn't exist. But upon thinking about it, Xir realized that although the ex had been mooching off of others and not doing anything constructive FOR THIRTY YEARS, why zlop was just a poor misunderstood artiste who had to drop out of art school, so this was Znir's reaction to the heartbreak of not being allowed to pursue the art. Been in a blue funk for THREE DECADES.

This is what passes for logic and intelligence over there? They banned a member who dared disagree with SubMor or Ceepolk on some topic dear to their hearts. Said member was a veteran of the anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa. Dawkins has done more for Atheism and Skepticism than the entire lot of them could ever dream of doing. He's persona non grata because he upset Teh Watson. Matt Dougherty had the audacity to call them on their closed-mindedness, regardless that he's, like Dawkins, done far more than any of them for THEIR causes. The Atheist... in terms of an active and annoying voice on the intertubes, far more effective. CFLarsen. Double or quadruple the effect. In every single case, their past history of doing the right thing and taking stands that these people only dare take from behind their computer screens are totally ignored because of something recent.

Yet, we have a textbook definition of a slacker, but that's understandable because zlip ran out of money and couldn't finish art school thirty years ago, so their three decades of being non-productive can be justified.

It's Bizzarro World over there, isn't it? Up is down and black is white.

And let's not Godwin the thread, but..... Hmmm who else do we know who was just a frustrated artist deep down inside?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Getting to this out of order because I needed time to read the article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23510635

Have a read of that, ApostateltsopA.
What conclusion do you think that anyone unfamiliar with the situation will come to about those on the blockbot's blacklist?

Interesting article. I suspect that people not familiar with the situation would believe that those on the block bot's list are misogynistic. Or more accurately are believed to be so by the blockers. Their own prejudice will then help them decide if the blockers are credible and if the accusation holds water. I think the efforts of the block bot administrators to keep a better tab on exactly what got each person on each level will help a lot with misperceptions.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intention; to me, the phrase "or any other" implied any other medium, and much of this thread has been devoted to providing examples of A+ forum censorship (which is clearly a "medium").

Thank you, I will agree that there are quite a lot of things that can not be said on A+ forums without encountering moderation and even bans. These range from aggressive proselytizing to x-ist statement of the week. Heavy moderation is required to have a safer space on the internet. It made things uncomfortable for me when I first joined, but the experience has been well worth it.

To address the blockbot specifically, though, the obvious question is "why even have it"? What purpose does it serve other than an attempt to control debate through public shaming of people as "abusers" or "annoying", or as an attempt to keep out the ideologically impure?

I think your disconnect here is in perceiving it as a debate. People engaging in blocks are not debating with the people they are blocking, they are rejecting them. It is not about public shaming, there would be a much larger effort to repeat the names if that were a goal, not to mention many efforts at signal boosting. The focus would also be on the specific people blocked.

The block bot is a means for people who find interacting with trolls stressful or upsetting or undesirable to enjoy twitter without having such persons interrupting the conversation. Just like using the block feature in a non-automated fashion.

It's important to note that by "stamped out ruthlessly" you're not talking about simply being contradicted by a substantial (and possibly voluminous) consensus of contrary opinion, as might happen on any forum (such as, advocating atheism on a Christian forum, or advocating homophobia here). You're referring to those contrary opinions being hidden from view, replaced by sarcastic and uncharitable re-phrasings by moderators, and/or the people posting them prohibited from any further posting.

Do you mean that if I advocate homophobia here I won't be banned?

The reason it's important to make that distinction is because there appears to be a doctrine, which ApostateA appears to be employing and advocating here, that expressing disagreement with someone (criticizing, questioning, or contradicting them) is somehow equivalent to silencing them.

Just Apos is fine, I don't believe I've ever equated criticism to silencing. Perhaps you've missed my elaborations. The comparison I am making is criticism in one format to criticism in another. Specifically negative comments about people on this thread with the negative comments about people which is what having your name on a block list at the block bot entails.

For the record I explicitly do not equate criticism to silencing. Please walk back your statement.

If that were so, "you made a post disagreeing with me so I banned you" as practiced at the A+ forum would become a fair and equitable transaction!

Disagreement will not get you banned on A+. I have disagreed there many times, as have others. Being banned from a forum is also not silencing. You are beating straw and engaging in a lot of hyperbole here.

And "how is your criticizing A+ on this thread any different from A+ putting your name on a block bot and declaring on national media that those whose names are on the block bot are abusers?" would actually be a reasonable question.

How bizarre.

Respectfully,
Myriad

So, you finally get to sort of addressing my question, except you didn't answer it. How is criticism on one place different from another? The media attention? If there were an article on this thread or a segment on BBC would that make this thread abusive? Would you immediately disavow yourself from this activity?

Stop evading and answer the question.

I wouldn't if that was what we were actually comparing. But it's not anyone here is free to express whatever opinion they wish no matter how wrong it may be.

Not true, the terms and conditions of this place prohibit many specific words and also personal attacks.

With the blockbot that is not the case because it is an app not a forum, the bot is not expressing any actual opinion.

The block is a tool, the opinion of being listed on it is from the collective of the administrators. It's not like it blocks on some kind of AI.

Anyone can come here and defend themselves and would be welcome to do so, as both you and quints are. With the bot some group of people are making the decision to put twitter handles into it without having justifying why or how they concluded that person should be there.

Leaving the a fore mention twitter user no real recourse but to try to appeal on the A+ forums. I will stick by false equivalency, if the two were like to like, only then would equating the two, the way you are doing, be even remotely passable or plausible.

So? Do you feel you should justify your opinion of the people you block on social media? Perhaps you think there should be no block option. However you can rest assured, the people on the block bot administration are working to make the reasoning on why they blocked clearer. Also, the block bot website has a comments section and there are literally scores of places where someone can get in touch with Oolon.

Lastly, back to the "So?". Why do you believe private citizens keeping a list of people they do not wish to hear from and blocking twitter comments based on that list should have such accountability attached? You are trying to limit their free speech by stating they need to be moderated in how they speak or open to criticism from those they speak against. I think this fits into the debate worldview I mentioned earlier. Why do you think everything, everywhere should be a debate forum? Or is it only the block bot that should be a debate forum? Do you think that creationist ideas should be welcome in biology courses? Would you allow christian parents to debate evolution and intelligent design in school during the biology classes or do you see their exclusion from that place as valid?

Putting the blockbot aside for one moment, ApostateltsopA do you consider this thread to be the equivalent of the treatment of those with widely dissenting opinions on the A+ forums?

ETA: Qwints you're welcome to answer as well. In fact, I've found you in particular to be a sane and reasonable person so I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

No, I do not consider them equivalent, save that I do not object to the existence of either. I do find much of the cometary on this thread to be morally objectionable. I also stand by the right of those who have said things I do not agree with to be able to say such things. However if the moderators here decide to change policy and make a list of conducts which can get a poster banned then that will also be acceptable to me.

Forums, other than those owned by public institutions such as a government office, are not public property. They are owned by private individuals. Thus the moderation policies are up to those owners to decide. The only 'rights' I have here are those ceded to me by those who established and maintain the place.

Slander and libel have specific legal definitions. The way blockbot was presented in the BBC program can be seen that way. It is presenting the information about the blockbot in the show that is the problem. This is what I am addressing.

No it can't. Not legally. For the accusations to be libelous they would need to be false and they would need to be not an opinion. In other words if I call you a jerk it can't be libel. If I call you a murderer it can. (I am not currently calling you either of those things.)

Here is an excerpt from a legal dictionary online. I don't normally do dictionary definitions but in the case of the legal meaning of a word I don't see how it is avoidable.

"Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. " Source

Again, I don't care if they choose to include me in the blockbot. If they are that butthurt about the few tweets I have done that might address issues or individuals they care about, fine, they can choose to block me individually or as a group.

Good.

I am not out there competing for twitter followers. My concern once again is how blockbot was characterized on the BBC show. And YES I am concerned when they have characterized people on the blockbot list as abusers within the BBC show and YES it could cause damage to me or to others on the list.

So your objection is not to the block bot, but to the reporting of the BBC.

It is possible that the listing on the bot could impact someone there. It is also possible that their twitter feeds could affect them. It is possible that someone reading here could also adversely affect the people criticized here. I don't see the issue, if the possibility of affecting someone negatively were grounds not to say bad things about them then no one could criticize anyone.

Yes, I object to the WAY it was presented on the BBC.

Ok, have you taken that up with the BBC?

I speak of censorship generally, I am not referring to twitter, but the whole way that A+ deals with things.

This is entitlement to me. Why should people be allowed to say whatever they want wherever they want? Do you believe anything viewable to the public is owned by the public?

...Censorship is not restricted, by definition, to the government.

So is the banning of personal attacks and certain vulgar words in this place censorship? I ask because I don't see you objecting to those things. Perhaps you are not of the opinion that all censorship is bad. Do you think all censorship is bad?

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.

I think you should apply for the million, by what method have you divined Oolon's intentions for the block bot to be banning users? I've read, and watched, his comments and he states the intention is to remove objectionable material from user's twitter feeds.

Also where are you getting this bit about a denial of service attack? The bot communicates at regular intervals, 15 minutes, with twitter specifically to avoid excessive contact.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

Oh gawd, not THE THREAD, pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaasssse, no. I thought I'd erased it from my mind.

Someone's probably going to show up and start giving me a rough time for ripping into people like Setar who all appear to have major mental illnesses of some kind. Well isn't that something. This poster has schizoaffective disorder and has experienced ultradian cycling. Put down the bong and start getting your poop together, Setar.

Come to think of, it I don't even really care that the Atheism✝ user base consists of crabby losers and dilettantes, nor do I really find Setar spending her welfare checks on cannabis truly repugnant. Guys in suits and ties are getting away with frauds and thefts many orders of magnitude greater. All I ask is that the losers of the A✝ cult don't try to call the tune for the rest of the skeptical movement. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Someone's probably going to show up and start giving me a rough time for ripping into people like Setar who all appear to have major mental illnesses of some kind. Well isn't that something. This poster has schizoaffective disorder and has experienced ultradian cycling. Put down the bong and start getting your poop together, Setar.

Come to think of, it I don't even really care that the Atheism✝ user base consists of crabby losers and dilettantes, nor do I really find Setar spending her welfare checks on cannabis truly repugnant. Guys in suits and ties are getting away with frauds and thefts many orders of magnitude greater. All I ask is that the losers of the A✝ cult don't try to call the tune for the rest of the skeptical movement. Is that too much to ask?

Well, you might find that since Saint PZ has said he wishes to dissociate himself with Teh Skeptics, they're slowly singing the same tune. Their Skepticism sub-forum is sort of poorly attended, and I've seen posters there parroting the "I'm just fed up with skeptics" meme. I think this was a logical step. Skepticism requires open discussion. These people don't have the spoons for open discussion; they say so all the time. They just want to talk with like-minded individuals and get virtual pats on the back for how hard they have it.

My concern is that they pretend to be the vanguard of Social Justice and their tantrums and antics are giving a bad impression of a section of the progressives that I have always been a part of, much as the radical feminists with their silly agendas like stamping out any word with even a coincidental placement of m-a-n in it have harmed the actual goals and needs of feminism. I think skepticism will continue to grow whether PZ and his sycophants want to be a part or not. It's not like they really have a choice. You're either a skeptic or you're not. It's like voting progressive in every election for forty years and saying, "But I'm not a progressive". SJ, on the other hand, like any difficult cause, suffers when the blabbering right can get their hands on a few extremist statements to make into straw men.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What process does the maintainer follow to correct errors?

Given that there's so little information about the Bot it's hard to be sure, but it looks like there can be no error connection. If you change your mind and want to uninstall the BlockBot first you have to uninstall the app itself, then you have to use the Unblocker app which will go through your account and unblock all those who were blocked. Then you have to go through your list manually and unblock all of those who were missed.

So it seems that if it were to be decided that someone had been blocked erroneously that the BlockBot itself would have no way of unblocking them and that even if it did it may still require a manual unblocking.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's finally happening, Setar is getting called on his made up reasons on both A+ and Ophelia Benson's blog.

It seems the poor guy is insisting that the Nairobi incident was motivated by "protest" against western colonialism.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...or something like that.

A+ thread here
Ophie's Blog

Well, they're lucky ceepolk's left the board. There's a lot of people there criticising Islamism without also criticising Christianity. I mean, that's racist, right?

As far as Setar goes, it seems that the problem there is that he doesn't know anything about the groups he's talking about and, further, doesn't know what the word "Islamism" means or how it's different from "Islam".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and lack of censorship. Nobody is invoking freedom of speech at A+. And you're right that this place is censorious, too.

It's a difference of degree, however. Posts are censored here on the basis of advocating illegal activity, being overtly sexual, or using rude language (the latter being mainly for indexing reasons). On A+ posts can be censored for advocating a position that the admins don't agree with. People can be banned for that. As was said above, were you to come to this board and post a homophobic thread, you'd be shouted down quite loudly. You wouldn't, however, be banned and nor would your posts be censored. On A+ you'd be banned instantly.

And it's not like it's consistent, as it seems that what is or is not allowed depends on which mods are reading the thread and what those mods had for lunch. The latest thread posted here is a prime example. We've had people criticising Islamism and nobody has told them that they shouldn't. On another thread earlier this year we had someone criticising one small aspect of Islam and he was threatened with banning for being racist because he didn't say that the same criticism could be applied to Christianity. That was the whole "religion of brown people" thing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Do you mean that if I advocate homophobia here I won't be banned?

Yes, unless you tell another poster directly that they are evil.

We HAVE homophobes, racists, out and out nazis....they're all allowed to spew heir filth here because instead of shutting out the bad men and crying so loud hat we can't hear them we actually deal with this. Go have a look around (and forgive me, I'd point you to a specific section but I've forgotten where it is) for the Holocaust thread. Go look, seriously.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Disagreement will not get you banned on A+. I have disagreed there many times, as have others.

Yes, it has got people banned from A+. There are numerous examples on this thread. The fact that YOU or others haven't been banned and the behaviour is thus, not applied consistently (or one might say fairly), doesn't mean it never happens.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Yes, unless you tell another poster directly that they are evil.

We HAVE homophobes, racists, out and out nazis....they're all allowed to spew heir filth here because instead of shutting out the bad men and crying so loud hat we can't hear them we actually deal with this. Go have a look around (and forgive me, I'd point you to a specific section but I've forgotten where it is) for the Holocaust thread. Go look, seriously.

Right! JREFers have the SPOONS to actually battle evil people. We don't just wall them out. I'm proud to be a part of it, and not join the A+ spoonless wonders.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

My concern is that they pretend to be the vanguard of Social Justice and their tantrums and antics are giving a bad impression of a section of the progressives that I have always been a part of, much as the radical feminists with their silly agendas like stamping out any word with even a coincidental placement of m-a-n in it have harmed the actual goals and needs of feminism. I think skepticism will continue to grow whether PZ and his sycophants want to be a part or not. It's not like they really have a choice. You're either a skeptic or you're not. It's like voting progressive in every election for forty years and saying, "But I'm not a progressive". SJ, on the other hand, like any difficult cause, suffers when the blabbering right can get their hands on a few extremist statements to make into straw men.

That's what hacks me off about it.

I can't claim to have done a great deal on the progressive cause beyond voting with my conscience and having one stand off/run from riot police, but it is a cause I hold dear to me. Equal treatment for men and women, gay straight bi or other, proper acceptance of the disabled and mentally ill...all wonderful causes that I think should be championed. Just not by these clowns.

It is an anathema to fighting for civil rights when you just hide behind a keyboard and keep away from the people you should be fighting. That isn't what being progressive is all about. It is absolutely insane, if you will forgive the wording choice, to claim that people with severe mental illnesses should not get treatment for them because that's suppressing their individuality. My cousin committed suicide because of his untreated and un-properly diagnosed mental illness, I've attempted it before. It isn't something that should get you a pat on the head because you're a special little snowflake, it's something that needs to be cured or at least managed. It's not some eeeevil conspiracy to get you if your shrink gives you pills and tries to get you therapy. It's something you need to function in human society.

I have a question for those who know, does Setar actually work or is she on welfare? It's just some of you have mentioned her spending her welfare on weed but she mentions needing time off from work to (god help us all) recharge her spoons (incidentally can just anyone use that now? Sure looks it). If she works, all fine and dandy, but if as I suspect "work" means "small personal project that maybe makes e a few bucks" then I have to tell you guys about one of my friends. Let's call him Simon, because that isn't his real name.

Simon is a weed smoker. It's actually getting to the point where he really needs to stop because it's ridiculous now, but here's the thing. Simon has a job. I don't mean he flips burgers either, I mean he's in a management position at a major financial institution in the UK, in charge of dozens of people and getting a big fat cheque. He works something like 40-45 hours a week at an often difficult and intense job and at the end of the day he sokes some pot and watches DVDs to "recharge [his] spoons". It's entirely possible to smoke weed AND have a good work ethic, but of course "work ethic" is ableism because...some people can't work I guess?

Is it ableist to suggest that a child with autism needs assistance in dealing with social situations with kids his or her own age? Apparently so, and if you suggest that your own autistic kid needs help you are a terrible parent for daring to crush the specialness of your child! Why, you're just trying to make them into clones of everyone else in the abelist patriarchy! I'm sure if there were a disability version of the phrase "Uncle Tom" they would use that here. You know, like Chill Girl is for women!

So far so bad of course, but what about ageism? I remember watching a Comic Relief years back that had the various horrific adverts about people in poverty and people who are abused, and I remember the one that left me the most affected was an age abuse one, that had a terrified looking old man sat on an old armchair while a voice screamed abuse at him including things like "You're not my dad, my dad isn't pathetic." I can still see this advert in my mind if I close my eyes some 10 years later. Ageism in the workplace, at home, and in our wider society are all horrible things that need to be fought against.

On A+ on the other hand, it's ageist if you tell a teenager they aren't finished growing up yet and aren't in 100% control of their own minds. That's also gaslighting. Why, adults are always trying to impose on their kids, and teenagers have it the worst! Plus the old are like, icky or something, and if you're an old white man well you're just an oppressor aren't you? Yes, in opposite A+ Land it's the young who are the victims of the worst ageism.


Here's a radical concept. Free speech is a wonderful thing that should be turned AGAINST the racists. The BBC let the ultra-right fascistic racist homophobe Nick Griffin on Newsnight and he got ridiculed on national television. The nay-sayers claimed it would give him a platform to spout his offensive views and that people might start to agree with him. The sensible, free speech proponents instead pointed out that if you shine a light onto something disgusting and show it for what it really is, most people will reject it and realise how dangerous it really is. Griffin got caught weasling on the Holocaust, he was ridiculed and taken apart bit by bit simply by allowing him his free speech on a wide scale.

The French have this attitude towards alcohol, interestingly enough. They give their children small amounts of wine with meals and the like, and let them know about what alcohol is and how it can be drunk in moderation. This demystifies it for the children and they grow up with a better understanding of alcohol, and don't treat it like a big taboo thing they can do to flaunt the rules. On the other hand in the UK we are very strict with it, in general. Everywhere alcohol is sold posters exclaiming that if you don't look over 25 they will ID you on an alcohol sale, when the age limit is 18, and I remember knowing that my parents giving me small amounts of wine a la the French was an unusual thing. I never held alcohol as a strange and wonderful thing, just a luxury product to be consumed responsibly when I was older, and a treat every now and then with meals "now" (that is, when I was young). Does France have alcoholics? Yes. Are there Fascists in Britain? Yes. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to demystify things, and give these vile people their free speech.

How is that treated on A+ again? Oh yeah, "freeze peach". How lovely.

I of course have no problem with a small insular community preaching their hateful nonsense on the interwebs, be they A+ or Stormfront. The web is big enough for all kinds of lunatics and kooks, and it's proven it time and again. What I don't like however, is when Stormfront claims to speak for whites, or when A+ claims to speak for progressives. If A+ were really in charge we wouldn't have a progressive world, we would have a hellish dystopia complete with thoughtcrime and the suppression of anyone, at all who disagreed with them one iota and no free speech for anyone who didn't parrot party lines. What a hell hole.

 

[Diogenes]

...


So is the banning of personal attacks and certain vulgar words in this place censorship? I ask because I don't see you objecting to those things. Perhaps you are not of the opinion that all censorship is bad. Do you think all censorship is bad?



I think you should apply for the million, by what method have you divined Oolon's intentions for the block bot to be banning users? I've read, and watched, his comments and he states the intention is to remove objectionable material from user's twitter feeds.

Also where are you getting this bit about a denial of service attack? The bot communicates at regular intervals, 15 minutes, with twitter specifically to avoid excessive contact.

You missed the use of "-like" as in it was originally designed to be able to submit massive numbers of spam reports in order to get whoever they felt like adding to their list banned on Twitter. I don't have to be a mind-reader it was right there in the code and all the discussions about it. If you weren't being overtly snide I might even be willing to hold your hand and trace back the line of evidence for you in case your Google fingers were broken.

Using dumb, simplistic and exaggerated arguments about how you feel like sliding the connotative definition of censorship around in the same post you claim criticism isn't silencing and that banning people for..oh, wait, your claim is that the A+ forum doesn't ban people just for disagreeing because you haven't been banned, right?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

It is absolutely insane, if you will forgive the wording choice, to claim that people with severe mental illnesses should not get treatment for them because that's suppressing their individuality.

There's a question that's been running round my head for a while now. If treating people with mental illnesses would suppress their individuality, wouldn't it be equally suppressing to tell racists, sexists, MRAs, 'splainers and all the other personae non gratae to change their opinions/behaviour, or indeed to check their privilege?

I keep telling myself that there must be some obvious answer that I'm missing, but I'm struggling to see an even halfway plausible reason why it's different. Even "because privilege" opens up all sorts of awkward questions, quite apart from the other problems which have already been discussed here.

 

[Stout]

I have a question for those who know, does Setar actually work or is she on welfare? It's just some of you have mentioned her spending her welfare on weed but she mentions needing time off from work to (god help us all) recharge her spoons (incidentally can just anyone use that now? Sure looks it). If she works, all fine and dandy, but if as I suspect "work" means "small personal project that maybe makes e a few bucks" then I have to tell you guys about one of my friends. Let's call him Simon, because that isn't his real name.

Setar does, or at least did, have a full time job working in a concrete plant. Before ze stopped tweeting one could follow the day to day machinations of the Setar where ze was always complaining about how "capitalism needs me".

There were also glimpses into the anxiety disorder that prevented him from carrying out simple tasks, such as going into a store. There was some sort of twitter fight with a friend/follower and now, silence...except for the tweet where he lost his wallet and posted his real name.

 

[bedlin88]

Apos

Not true, the terms and conditions of this place prohibit many specific words and also personal attacks.

I will grant you that, I should have added within reason and abiding by the ToS.

Apos

The block is a tool, the opinion of being listed on it is from the collective of the administrators. It's not like it blocks on some kind of AI

.

And so, the fact remains it, the bot, is not expressing an opinion, it's an expression of an opinion/s there is a substantial difference between the two.

Apos

So? Do you feel you should justify your opinion of the people you block on social media? Perhaps you think there should be no block option. However you can rest assured, the people on the block bot administration are working to make the reasoning on why they blocked clearer. Also, the block bot website has a comments section and there are literally scores of places where someone can get in touch with Oolon.

If I am blocking a person 1 to 1, in other words I am blocking them just for me and me alone for only my reasons then no I don't need to justify it. However, if I am being given the responsibility to block people for people other then myself then Yes I would have a responsibility to justify my actions in blocking said people. And it doesn't matter if there are scores of ways to get in touch with oolon I have had exchanges with him in the past and he is hardly what I would deem an open minded individual, but that is irrelevant. The fact is those folks effected by the bot have to seek out a recourse to address that action and it is not easily spelled out anywhere? Are the people added to the Bot contacted that they have been added to the bot? Have the been told specifically why they have been added? Have they been given instructions on how to appeal that action? These are serious question and I honestly don't know. You would have more of a point if the answer is yes, and much less if it's no imo.

Apos

Lastly, back to the "So?". Why do you believe private citizens keeping a list of people they do not wish to hear from and blocking twitter comments based on that list should have such accountability attached? You are trying to limit their free speech by stating they need to be moderated in how they speak or open to criticism from those they speak against. I think this fits into the debate worldview I mentioned earlier. Why do you think everything, everywhere should be a debate forum? Or is it only the block bot that should be a debate forum? Do you think that creationist ideas should be welcome in biology courses? Would you allow christian parents to debate evolution and intelligent design in school during the biology classes or do you see their exclusion from that place as valid?

Maybe your replying to someone else, however nothing there says anything to the fact that comparing the Blockbot to this thread is still false equivalency. I made no point on whether or not they should be held accountable. I would hold the bot is not part of the "debate worldview" since it really has nothing to do with debate, it can't address you or your points that is not it's function. It's function at the very base is to silence debate not to have it. Lastly point out to me where in my original statement I said everything everywhere should be a debate forum. I never expressed that opinion. It is dishonest to imply that I did.