NPR joins other news orgs banning comments from its stories

[realibrad]

Shitting disrespectfully all over news articles where someone died, or ranting your opinions about illegal immigration in every news article that includes a Hispanic-sounding name, or spewing profanity and threats at anyone who doesn't agree with you, is not free speech. It's just being a douchebag troll.
These media outlets have been incredibly generous in providing their private space for public comments and, unfortunately, much of that has been abused by idiots who wouldn't know the 1st amendment from a hole in their own head.

All the things you listed are free speech, and people being douchebags. You are right that many of the comments would turn into if not start out as shit posts, but those shit posts are free speech. The private firm shutting them down does not break any laws, because its their property. Only the government is not allowed to limit speech.

 

[Vic]

All the things you listed are free speech, and people being douchebags. You are right that many of the comments would turn into if not start out as shit posts, but those shit posts are free speech. The private firm shutting them down does not break any laws, because its their property. Only the government is not allowed to limit speech.

Thank you for reiterating my own point?

 

[realibrad]

Thank you for reiterating my own point?

Nope. You said it was not free speech, and it is. Its not government protected free speech, but its free speech in that the government cannot punish you for what is said there.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I read comments on news sites, and post comments on sites like motherjones and huffpost.

Even sites like Sciencedaily have leaned towards agenda based articles, rather than posting facts.

There is an article on NPR about the clinton foundation. The author praised the foundation and defended hillary, neither of which should be in an unbiased article.

In the recent Louisiana flooding and whites were helping blacks, was the national media calling out black lives matter for not helping? Nope. Were the black panthers and nation of islam called out for not helping the flood victims? Nope.

Who ever claimed that black lives matter, the nation of islam, or the black panthers were civil service organizations? So because you claim "whites were helping blacks", the media is supposed to point out every non-white organization or movement or tree-house club that didn't reciprocate? I'm sure there are thousands of examples of "blacks" helping "whites" in Louisiana. So fucking what? You see a conspiracy in the media because it doesn't cover non-stories to feed your sick persecution complex.

 

[Spungo]

I don't even bother reading articles where the comments are filtered or disabled. Look at every video on youtube and you'll see an immediate pattern. People who are lying always turn off the comments. People who are being honest always keep the comments turned on and unfiltered.
Look at any creationist video. The comments will always be turned off or heavily filtered.
Look at any video debunking creationism. The comments are never filtered.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube was a video about a single mom looking for dates. It was actually a makeup commercial, Revlon I think, and the comments were filled with hilarious trolling. People would post stats about single moms raising criminals, single moms consuming enormous amounts of welfare, single moms abusing children, and saying any guy who dates a single mom is a cuckold. It was highly educational. Response? Shut down the comments. Too many facts were happening.

 

[shortylickens]

well, they could have implemented a post per day limit to slow things down. but then I suppose the real assholes would just get multiple accounts.

 

[Vic]

I don't even bother reading articles where the comments are filtered or disabled. Look at every video on youtube and you'll see an immediate pattern. People who are lying always turn off the comments. People who are being honest always keep the comments turned on and unfiltered.
Look at any creationist video. The comments will always be turned off or heavily filtered.
Look at any video debunking creationism. The comments are never filtered.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube was a video about a single mom looking for dates. It was actually a makeup commercial, Revlon I think, and the comments were filled with hilarious trolling. People would post stats about single moms raising criminals, single moms consuming enormous amounts of welfare, single moms abusing children, and saying any guy who dates a single mom is a cuckold. It was highly educational. Response? Shut down the comments. Too many facts were happening.

I think there's a difference between comments on YouTube and comments on news sites.
On my local newspaper's site, it's a common occurrence for trolls to hit articles where people died tragically in car accidents, etc. I'm sure they believe their speculations about cell phone or seat belt use, or their firm belief that every single person in America with a Hispanic-sounding name must be an illegal immigrant, are all just good public service announcements, but friends and family members of the deceased don't always agree.

 

[jackstar7]

Comments on: Noise > Signal

 

[Texashiker]

Who ever claimed that black lives matter, the nation of islam, or the black panthers were civil service organizations? .

Are duck hunters and sport fishermen civil service?

When it comes down to it, here in the south race is set aside and people come together to help each other.

So, if some duck hunter, or someone with a boat can help, where is black lives matter?

Couple of weeks ago there was an elderly man man who got lost in the woods in a nearby county. I called the sheriffs office two days in a row to volunteer to help look for the man.

Why did I offer my help? Because it was the right thing to do. I am not civil service.

So, if black lives matter really cared, where are they in the floods?

 

[1prophet]

Comments on: Noise > Signal

Critical thinking skills with the ability to look at things impassionately (not easily triggered) and not needing censorship (safe space) can filter out all and any noise from the signal.

 

[Ken g6]

well, they could have implemented a post per day limit to slow things down. but then I suppose the real assholes would just get multiple accounts.

A competent moderation force generally has ways of dealing with that.

 

[1prophet]

I don't even bother reading articles where the comments are filtered or disabled. Look at every video on youtube and you'll see an immediate pattern. People who are lying always turn off the comments. People who are being honest always keep the comments turned on and unfiltered.
Look at any creationist video. The comments will always be turned off or heavily filtered.
Look at any video debunking creationism. The comments are never filtered.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube was a video about a single mom looking for dates. It was actually a makeup commercial, Revlon I think, and the comments were filled with hilarious trolling. People would post stats about single moms raising criminals, single moms consuming enormous amounts of welfare, single moms abusing children, and saying any guy who dates a single mom is a cuckold. It was highly educational. Response? Shut down the comments. Too many facts were happening.

Exactly and for news sites a level headed even moderator can keep things on topic so it doesn't end up as a troll/spam fest even if they don't personally agree with the subject or comments on hand.

 

[sandorski]

Then you are not for free speech, you are for censored speech. I don't mean that in the pedantic way that if you are not for yelling fire in a room you are against free speech. I mean that you are against the idea that people should be able to say things that others disagree with. Abuse in terms of speech is very subjective.

This should be pretty obvious. There was a time that saying Blacks were equal to whites was far more offensive than saying women were unequal to men. Had we followed your rule and taken away the right for people to speak out and say something offensive, then who knows how much longer equality would have taken? Think about your stance and comment for more than a moment. Allow yourself to have some nuance about speech and what you find to be offensive speech. When you start to take away the right to be offensive, then you take away the power to speak out against injustice. By allowing people to be offensive, you open the door for feelings to be hurt and the ability to speak out against injustice.

Be and adult and learn to deal with those you disagree with. If you dont like Milo (many reasons not to) then don't follow him.

BS. Milo went way beyond Free Speech to Harassment and Slander. He was not banned for unpopular Ideas, he was banned for being a disruptive petulant shit.

 

[jackstar7]

Critical thinking skills with the ability to look at things impassionately (not easily triggered) and not needing censorship (safe space) can filter out all and any noise from the signal.

You must have vastly more time in your day/life than I do.

Enjoy yourself.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Are duck hunters and sport fishermen civil service?

When it comes down to it, here in the south race is set aside and people come together to help each other.

So, if some duck hunter, or someone with a boat can help, where is black lives matter?

Couple of weeks ago there was an elderly man man who got lost in the woods in a nearby county. I called the sheriffs office two days in a row to volunteer to help look for the man.

Why did I offer my help? Because it was the right thing to do. I am not civil service.

So, if black lives matter really cared, where are they in the floods?

you are simply a moron.

 

[Meghan54]

you are simply a moron.

Why are you picking on morons?

 

[realibrad]

BS. Milo went way beyond Free Speech to Harassment and Slander. He was not banned for unpopular Ideas, he was banned for being a disruptive petulant shit.

I did not want to make it about Milo, which is why I made one sentence about him in that post. There was a lot more that you could have commented on, but you choose not to. Is it that you dont have a counter argument? If you ignore the Milo part, do you have anything to say about the argument I made?

Also, because it was on twitter, I think you meant to say liable not slander. Not a huge deal, but they are different.

 

[realibrad]

You must have vastly more time in your day/life than I do.

Enjoy yourself.

Hey look, another personal jab.

 

[sandorski]

I did not want to make it about Milo, which is why I made one sentence about him in that post. There was a lot more that you could have commented on, but you choose not to. Is it that you dont have a counter argument? If you ignore the Milo part, do you have anything to say about the argument I made?

Also, because it was on twitter, I think you meant to say liable not slander. Not a huge deal, but they are different.

Like I already said, he wasn't banned for saying something unpopular.

 

[Vic]

Nope. You said it was not free speech, and it is. Its not government protected free speech, but its free speech in that the government cannot punish you for what is said there.

I believe that the confusion here is the assumption by some that the right to free speech includes the right to be published by a third party, like a newspaper or a website. It does not.

 

[realibrad]

Like I already said, he wasn't banned for saying something unpopular.

So now that I pointed out that you did nothing to answer the argument I made, and you did not again, I will conclude that you cant.

 

[realibrad]

I believe that the confusion here is the assumption by some that the right to free speech includes the right to be published by a third party, like a newspaper or a website. It does not.

Correct. Now, with that said, the reason we have Freedom of speech is what is important. A society that cannot speak out against something is in danger of tyranny. It does not have to be as extreme as Nazi Germany either. As I pointed out earlier, most used to find it offensive if a colored person were to marry a white person. There was a sad time when the majority of the US believed that to be offensive. Trying to advocate for that would really piss people off. You had no right to have your views published, but, it was important to get those views out there.

The reason freedom of speech is important is that it lets people have conversations that could not happen if subjects were taboo. You will correctly point out that someone screaming profanity does not help in most situations, but, you cant have freedom of speech if some speech is silenced. That is why we allow people to have the personal freedom to decide what they want to be part of and what they dont. If you dont like what someone is saying and its your property, you can stop it. If you are walking down a street, you cant. Twitter has every right to kick people off, but, its one less voice. Let us not pretend that we are the perfect moral arbiters for others. Let people decide what they want on an individual basis.

 

[sandorski]

So now that I pointed out that you did nothing to answer the argument I made, and you did not again, I will conclude that you cant.

I addressed it before you posted.

 

[realibrad]

I addressed it before you posted.

Not in this thread. Is your argument that you, at some point, have addressed the argument I have made? Dont double down on dumb.

 

[HTFOff]

Most flame wars have moved to twitter. I'm guessing the change has less to do with unsavory commentary and more to do with loss of traffic, not worth hiring competent moderation.