Internet Censorship

[WebmasterAlex]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/19/commenting.on.news.sites/index.html?hpt=C2

One newspaper is even charging to leave comments?

 

[Magic Mom]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/19/commenting.on.news.sites/index.html?hpt=C2

One newspaper is even charging to leave comments?

I don't think I'd pay for the option to leave a comment.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

I think it is reasonable. But, as one paragraph stated, someone working for a company may want to post anonymously about that company to protect their job. Jut as in print, there should be a way for the person to provide their information (so they can be verified by the news organization) while the signature would be "Name Withhel By Request".

 

[mickeyfan1]

Gosh, a lot of places censor what people post. People think they are free to say anything they want and the board owners don't agree, things are removed. You chose to post somewhere that is "public", you have to play by the board owners and moderators rules. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[LuvOrlando]

All I know is that if i had to be me all the time I would never ever even consider saying what I really think or feel. I'm a grown up with a family and kids and a social life. I tend to be very forthcoming on the DIS because there is no way this stuff would come back to me. Sheesh, people on here know more about my childhood than most of my friends in real life and it's no accident, I'm open here because its controlled vulnerability. I get that some wackjobs run around making everyone miserable just because they can. But, on the flip side, so many people like me can open up and heal old wounds because there is no threat of real-life backlash. Don't people like me matter too or is the entire world going to bend because some people can't stand the fact that true genuine freedom means sometimes we're just gonna have to deal with stuff we don't like. When did American's get so darn thin skinned?

To me it's a shame to think that the best forums for public discourse will be silenced due to fear that someone's feelings might get hurt. Man up America.

 

[FireDancer]

Private companies censoring their own sites is one thing, the government attempting to censor it like they do the television or radio though is unacceptable.

I do wish all online identities were linked to the real life identity of the poster but that will never happen. To many people like to hide behind their computer.

 

[LuvOrlando]

double post

 

[tvguy]

Hey, the owners a website are free to operate as they wish.
We are free to not pay and not use their site if we object.

Historically, to this point, pay sites, unless the offer unique content, find that forcing users to pay, and jump through hoops does not work out.

Of course, that could change. If you had told me I would actually PAY to receive TV signals....cable tv to you.....known as PAY TV in the 80's......I would have told you you are crazy.
But I lay out $75 a month, but I am getting unique content that I did not get with off the air free TV.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I like the idea of some kind of moderation on news sites. I learned a long time ago not to read comments on news sites, in about every 25 or so comments might be one worth reading. Most are bigoted, ignorant comments or else spam or sexual come-ons. You can tell that the vast majority of the readers do not actually read or comprehend the piece. How does that make for enlightening discourse? I think that such comments drives away those who would engage in real discussion about the article or issue at hand because it's tedious (and pointless) to wade through all the inane ramblings just to have a thoughtful comment get buried on the fifth page where nobody will read it or respond.

I don't know that I would post on a site that would link to my real name or facebook account. It's not that I'm ashamed, but there are too many wackjobs. We've already seen what happens when people have too much time on their hands, it's scary how much information somebody can put together when they decide to stalk somebody, and I would rather not have my personal life intruded upon by somebody with no sense of boundaries. But I don't mind providing that info to the site as long as I can choose to keep it out of Joe Public's hands.

Maybe news sites should go to a forum type registration with the ability to ban or suspend users and their IP addresses. It works well for most forums, they would still get lots of people posting, but they would be able to weed out the trolls.

 

[Sparx]

I don't understand why people are bothered by this example. In the article it quoted one very hateful and racist comment. If the newspaper left that comment up, wouldn't it be really really easy to say that that newspaper is racist and hateful and agrees with what the poster said?

It even happens here. I can't say certain things here, none of us can. If I say something against the rules my post will either be deleted and/or I will be banned. I'm pretty sure these newspapers allow anatomically correct terms in discussion, however.

 

[bicker]

I think it is reasonable. But, as one paragraph stated, someone working for a company may want to post anonymously about that company to protect their job.

Posting, though, is not what that person should be doing. Rather, they should be informing. Our news media has a long history of working with whistle-blowers, respecting their anonymity and protecting it even more than anonymous posting would, since there is practically no trail whatsoever when a whistle-blowers hands-off information to a reporter. (If you think that there is no trail when you post anonymously, I've got a surprise for you.)

If the information is important enough to warrant special consideration, then it is important enough to have the information vetted by the fourth estate though its long-standing and well-establish channels.

 

[Ceila]

I would not pay in order to leave comments on any website, and I think owners of sites will find membership/comments drop off considerably if they institute a fee for participation.

As for censorship, this site censors, too. There are words we cannot use, comments we cannot make, etc., so I'm not quite sure if Alex was surprised or simply providing information. I don't see news entities' web sties as being any different in terms of what they allow annonymous posters to post on their sites.

 

[bicker]

... I think owners of sites will find membership/comments drop off considerably if they institute a fee for participation

The question, though, is whether readership will increase or decrease, and even more importantly, how it will affect the demographics of the readership. I know I completely ignore most of the comment sections under news articles and blogs, these days, because of how rife the comments are with posters flooding such services with inane, childish, offensive, or vulgar irrelevancies. I would read the comments (even if I don't pay to add my own) if I felt that the comments were generally constructive and presented all sides of the issues equally.

 

[Ceila]

The question, though, is whether readership will increase or decrease, and even more importantly, how it will affect the demographics of the readership. I know I completely ignore most of the comment sections under news articles and blogs, these days, because of how rife the comments are with posters flooding such services with inane, childish, offensive, or vulgar irrelevancies. I would read the comments (even if I don't pay to add my own) if I felt that the comments were generally constructive and presented all sides of the issues equally.

For news sites, I completely agree with you. I was including comment-driven web sites (such as discussion boards like this one) in my thoughts as well, where I do believe that paid membership fees would decrease readership. (Of course, if I'm mistaken I'm sure you'll point it out! )

 

[bicker]

Hehe... well it does depend. What I mentioned before, the matter of demographics, is important.

- I'm sure you are aware that there are discussion forums that deliberately restrict posting, and perhaps even the ability to read comments, to paid users, creating an exclusive flavor to their demographic, that they exploit for some internal purpose, perhaps.

- There are even discussion forums online that have determined that their demographics are better (from the standpoint of their commercial objectives, perhaps) if they bias the comments on their site, rather than allowing all sides of a discussion be presented equally. So those sites will deliberately squash opposing viewpoints.

So, again, it depends. The only "wrong" answer is that there is only one right answer.

 

[eliza61]

The question, though, is whether readership will increase or decrease, and even more importantly, how it will affect the demographics of the readership. I know I completely ignore most of the comment sections under news articles and blogs, these days, because of how rife the comments are with posters flooding such services with inane, childish, offensive, or vulgar irrelevancies. I would read the comments (even if I don't pay to add my own) if I felt that the comments were generally constructive and presented all sides of the issues equally.

Well said.
I too totally skip and now rarely post under news articles for the simple fact without the "censorship" it usually degrades very quickly into name calling, vulgarity and ridiculous comments. Generally it is far from constructive and never informative.

Anonymity can some times be like alcohol, both give the user false courage. Would you have these rants if the author was face to face with the audience? Why allow it then simple because now it's anonymous?

 

[cm8]

Private companies censoring their own sites is one thing, the government attempting to censor it like they do the television or radio though is unacceptable.

I do wish all online identities were linked to the real life identity of the poster but that will never happen. To many people like to hide behind their computer.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I don't get it. Is the issue really censorship, which we have here as well (no offense) or is it paying to be on a site? Two separate questions.

 

[bicker]

Good point, LP.

 

[mill4023]

The thread title made me think this was going to be about some kind of restriction of free speech rights. But that's not the case at all.
There's nothing wrong with a site owner deciding what content to allow on the site they own.