Censorship

[pappabee]

Censorship is a word that has been used a lot on this site recently. Just so we're all on the same page.
Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please understand that this is all my opinion.

Deleting posts that are in direct violation of the site rules is not censorship but managing the site. Saying that the poster is a fool and should be banned is breaking the rules and deserves to be deleted. That is not censorship but again just following the rules of the site. No one but the mods have the ability to delete posts. So no poster can censor someone else. Saying that you don't like what someone else has posted is not censorship but a statement of opinion. Saying that what was posted is incorrect and citing something to try to prove it is not censoring but the right of each poster to try to insure that facts are being posted and that opinions are labeled as such.

In many cases I've seen newbees have posts deleted only because they didn't understand the rules. I've also seen (and has happened to me) that us old farts get deleted because we become so engrossed in the thread that we forget what we are posting.

BUT, in no case is any of this censorship.

[Ken Wood]

Originally Posted by pappabee

Censorship is a word that has been used a lot on this site recently. Just so we're all on the same page.
Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please understand that this is all my opinion.

Deleting posts that are in direct violation of the site rules is not censorship but managing the site. Saying that the poster is a fool and should be banned is breaking the rules and deserves to be deleted. That is not censorship but again just following the rules of the site. No one but the mods have the ability to delete posts. So no poster can censor someone else. Saying that you don't like what someone else has posted is not censorship but a statement of opinion. Saying that what was posted is incorrect and citing something to try to prove it is not censoring but the right of each poster to try to insure that facts are being posted and that opinions are labeled as such.

In many cases I've seen newbees have posts deleted only because they didn't understand the rules. I've also seen (and has happened to me) that us old farts get deleted because we become so engrossed in the thread that we forget what we are posting.

BUT, in no case is any of this censorship.

I agree that censorship, by definition, can be applied only by the mods, but, kind of like "what the definition of is "is", it is sometimes easy to hide behind a dictionary. To post an alternate opinion here is healthy and is why the forum exists, but to simply say that another's post, that they evidently put a lot of thought into, is without value and should not be here, is actually a form of virtual censorship. It is an effort to prevent then from posting what they feel is important information.

[RPBHaas]

Originally Posted by Ken Wood

, but, kind of like "what the definition of is ".

Slick Willie! Gotta love him. To me, one of those "Where were you?" moments.

[xabiachica]

Originally Posted by Ken Wood

I agree that censorship, by definition, can be applied only by the mods, but, kind of like "what the definition of is "is", it is sometimes easy to hide behind a dictionary. To post an alternate opinion here is healthy and is why the forum exists, but to simply say that another's post, that they evidently put a lot of thought into, is without value and should not be here, is actually a form of virtual censorship. It is an effort to prevent then from posting what they feel is important information.

as mods, the only form of 'censorship' or editing or deleting of posts, that we do, is if the post contains info which is against the rules of the site

that might be sneaky, or even plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face advertising or touting for business

it might be insulting, racist, inflammatory or encouraging something illegal

none of which, I am sure you would agree, is 'censorship' by any definition

we never delete posts simply because we believe the info they contain is incorrect or which we don't agree with - that would be censorship

we would simply post that we don't agree, or post the correct info

[pappabee]

Originally Posted by xabiachica

as mods, the only form of 'censorship' or editing or deleting of posts, that we do, is if the post contains info which is against the rules of the site

that might be sneaky, or even plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face advertising or touting for business

it might be insulting, racist, inflammatory or encouraging something illegal

none of which, I am sure you would agree, is 'censorship' by any definition

we never delete posts simply because we believe the info they contain is incorrect or which we don't agree with - that would be censorship

we would simply post that we don't agree, or post the correct info

Exactly, I never said that posts that I don't agree with have no value. Even totally incorrect posts have the value of showing just what ideas are out there.

My reason for this thread was to show that there is NO censorship on this site just a requirement that we all follow the rules. All of us have the right to post what we feel and give our opinions of what we think. None of us have the right to tell someone else that they can not post something. If it breaks the rules then that's the job for the MODs.

[pappabee]

Originally Posted by Ken Wood

I agree that censorship, by definition, can be applied only by the mods, but, kind of like "what the definition of is "is", it is sometimes easy to hide behind a dictionary. To post an alternate opinion here is healthy and is why the forum exists, but to simply say that another's post, that they evidently put a lot of thought into, is without value and should not be here, is actually a form of virtual censorship. It is an effort to prevent then from posting what they feel is important information.

I must take offense to your comment about saying that someone's post is "without value". No place did I say that nor did I infer that.

Please when you quote or say that I said something be sure that you are correct. I didn't say it, nor did I mean it so therefor don't say that I did. Right here you have posted something that is completely incorrect, how do you suggest that I go about saying that without saying that you're wrong?

I encourage "alternate opinions" they are the foundation of much conversation, so please do post opinions just make sure that they are not covered in a supposed quote.

If this whole thing makes no sense then blame my doctor.!!!!!!

[RVGRINGO]

"Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts"
Facts are hard to argue with, but that seems to be changing as education systems falter.
Opinions are the realm of religions, where nothing is provable and arguments abound without end. Amen.

[Longford]

Websites are private businesses to which we are invited to be participants provided we adhere to the site owner’s terms of participation, and we have no “right” to be here beyond that. Our participation is an extended courtesy. Site owners through their managers / moderators have the right to limit the content of what’s posted at their discretion and becomes the owner of what we post after we post it. More or less. If we disagree with the management / moderation of the forums we can take our ball, our bat and play the game elsewhere. We can start our own websites and forums, where we’re King of the Hill. This is not a democratic process; something many people fail to recognize.

My observation over the years has been that online communities comprised of mostly “regular” participants form and in their own loosely-knit standards which can be more restrictive than what the website owner has established. More often than not it’s done as an expression of the majority. At other times it’s done at the behest / enforcement of the most dominant / assertive of the individual regular participants. Provided conflict doesn’t arise, the mangers / moderators and site owners tend to let things be. Self-regulation.

I’ve further observed that this self-regulation oftentimes results in forms of censorship imposed or which are sought to be imposed by the majority/dominant personalities and evidenced by attempts to control the information and ideas posted and discussed. There are online communities where the adherence to a shared social code is a fact of life. We might describe that as censorship through consensus (by the dominant and/or most frequent participants).

Infrequent participants typically will not know how to discern where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with - objected to - in a consensus situation.

In Ancient Rome freedom of speech was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books. And I don’t think the world functions much differently today. Those in power tend to decide, or attempt to decide, what the rest of us can say … how and when.

I’m no stranger to web forums. Particularly not forums which focus on Mexico. Though my time here has been short. There’s a cross-pollination / cross-participation linking most of the Mexico forums. People who post here can most likely be found regularly posting on other forums. The discussions which arise here are oftentimes similar to discussions posted across the span of the Mexico-specific forums. So we’ve discussed many of these issues over and over and over and during that process of reading through the many comments we’ve formed some opinions on the most frequently talked about things.

Then someone comes along who is either new to the forum or is an infrequent poster or is someone who doesn’t spend as much time on these forums as some of us do, the regulars, and posts information or asks a question we’ve made our decisions about previously and now don’t want to discuss it further. We’re worn-out on the topic.

That’s when I observe that censorship through consensus arises. Here on this forum. The most assertive in the group proclaim an issue has been talked about enough, or it’s unimportant, or they deflect a comment they don’t agree with by veering off-topic and even personally criticizing / attacking the poster. When someone lacks a thoughtful response to what’s been said then attack the messenger. These attempts to cut-off discussion are forms of intimidation, bullying and I believe they result in censorship. Mob rule. They’re inappropriate. Who wants to participate in a community where freedom of expression (within the guidelines established by the website owner) is looked upon as a bad thing? Nothing will render a forum useless as quickly as a cut-off of it’s life-blood … participation by a wide-range of persons who will engage us in a broad range of ideas and opinions.

Each of us should sit back and reflect on our participation here and elsewhere and determine if our behavior is appropriate so that the broader community flourishes.

Thank you.

[Ken Wood]

Originally Posted by pappabee

I must take offense to your comment about saying that someone's post is "without value". No place did I say that nor did I infer that.

Please when you quote or say that I said something be sure that you are correct. I didn't say it, nor did I mean it so therefor don't say that I did. Right here you have posted something that is completely incorrect, how do you suggest that I go about saying that without saying that you're wrong?

I encourage "alternate opinions" they are the foundation of much conversation, so please do post opinions just make sure that they are not covered in a supposed quote.

If this whole thing makes no sense then blame my doctor.!!!!!!

I assumed (yes, I know) that we both knew where this came from. From your post, I thought you were referring to the security thread of a few days ago and my response referred to the same. Re-reading my post, I cannot see exactly why you thought I was quoting you, but, this is a forum for entertainment/education/enlightenment, etc, it is not something that elevates to the level of real life concerns. As such, I apologize that I have created a situation where you felt offended.

[xabiachica]

Originally Posted by Ken Wood

I assumed (yes, I know) that we both knew where this came from. From your post, I thought you were referring to the security thread of a few days ago and my response referred to the same. Re-reading my post, I cannot see exactly why you thought I was quoting you, but, this is a forum for entertainment/education/enlightenment, etc, ]it is not something that elevates to the level of real life concerns. As such, I apologize that I have created a situation where you felt offended.

isn't it?