h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sure. It is the fact that the BBC pretends that it is not biased and corrupt, and that most people beleive that they are independent and liberal and all that jazz - (see the early posts on the integrity of the World Service) - which sticks in my throat.

I absolutely agree that we should do what we can to make sure that we keep the flag of freedom of speech flying here. Which is why (1) I donated to Amnesty, and (2) I said so, and (3) changed my name and (4) am still here posting.

I miss Duncan, and Star, and the other researchers who felt that it was all too much and left. They chose to go in protest, but H2G2 is the lesser place for it.

I chose to subvert from within. Besides I like it here.

I thought I hadn't seen Dunc around for a while - I didn't realise he had actually left though..... Indeed H2G2 is lesser without their voices.

Subvert from within is the only way to get change. (apart from subversion from without - via boycotts etc - eg:Apartheid).

BTW did you see in (I think) the Guardian today (or yesterday) that a fervent anti apartheid campaigner has had her book banned in South Africa because it is Racist!?

having missed the original opening arguements, i'll just add my two cents:

i had a post referred a while back. it wasn't obscene, it wasn't offensive. all i did was mention my religion, which happens to be wicca.

now, i'm not saying that the post was referred purely because it mentioned wicca, but i'm pretty sure it wouldn't have gotten a second look had the word "wicca" been replaced with a more widely accepted religion, ie. "chrisitanity".

and i agree, i'm not leaving because i like it here. but if it gets to be too reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984 , i just might HAVE to go.

Having read some of the arguements expressed here (not ALL, but I like my free time), I have to express my view on the situation:

(1) This site has a history of being moderated, with the smut and offensive material at a bare minimum thanks to the influence of the members who have made this site what it is.
(2) This is the BBC's site, yes, but this is also public domain. They advertise the ability to freely express one's views here. Not allowing "offensive material" is hypocritical, as this is a site dedicated to the free exchange of ALL information, and shouldn't be moderated as much as you want your friendly conversations with your comrades in real life to be under supervision.
(3) The BBC does not have to right to impose on us its view of what's morally correct. What happens if we start up a conversation about abortion and they block out all the pro-choice arguements because Catholics might read it? Let them read it. There's a disclaimer anyway. I have a right to say it, they have a right to a conflicting view. I have a right to talk about sex, BDSM, and all sorts of lurid acts because this is NOT a family site, is not advertised as one, and as public domain can never be one. This isn't a Disney production, and we as the members of it don't want it to be one.

this site has a history of NOT being moderated...

NYC, good post, but they did remove objectionable material on pre-BBC h2g2. I think they even called it "moderating," maybe, but it was reactive moderation, when they occasionally ran across problems, or when complaints were made.

I wouldn't argue against reactive moderation, in the way it used to be done pre-BBC, or the way it is done on most online communities.

But you make some good points. It is tricky to guess at what should be community standards for "offensive" material.

personally, i'd say that anything you can find in a dictionary or encyclopedia isn't offensive, unless, of course, it's hateful, etc. even if some of the so-called "unsuitable" topics aren't on h2g2, they're still on the internet. kids are going to find them whether we like it or not. so whether they learn about sex from a Guide entry that is kept clean and unoffensive or a site that details some psycho's sexual experiences, they're GOING to learn about it. it'd be best if it was from a reliable and respectful source.

This is my first post on the Guide since the switch so I'm a little out of touch.

Not many people know this, but before h2g2 I was involved in another community. I started a project, TLDF, which aimed to ensure some freedom, for writers, from nannying censorship which publishing houses seemed a bit fond of. I closed it down because the community in which the project started began censorship.

Then I came to h2g2. What attracted me was the freedom to be me. Most of you know that I am very... individual. I liked the way I wasn't considered anything less. I wasn't shoe-horned into another "minority group", I wasn't told to talk in certain places about certain things in a certain way. I was allowed to be the real me. I liked that. It helped me overcome my last few hangups.

Then the Beeb came. I'm a pessimist, so I was fairly doom and gloom, however pessimism is just a way to ensure that I'm not dissapointed so I was shocked when I was. I expected the tighter moderation, I expected the change of URL... but I didn't know the moderation would be so tight. I left again.

I have started a new project, Open Comline (availiable through sourceforge), which aims to allow content and communities to be free to spread throughout the internet. This is just a continuation of my previous position. My views haven't dampened.

What most people don't consider is that any concept is local. I don't mean that it depends on point of view (although it does), I mean that it describes a limited volume. Ben's argument about the heavies defined freedom of speech to be lost when ALL channels are gone. So are the Chinese free? They can talk to each other. That means they have some channel so some freedom of speech by Ben's argument. Therefore, Ben's concept defined a volume which is very large indeed. Most people in the world are free.

What if we change the area of effect to be just h2g2? What if our country (as some feel this place to be, myself included) of h2g2 is restricted. Surely then you would consider our freedoms to be violated? We have been censored in our land. It doesn't matter who is in charge, who the government is. The soul of a country is the populace, and those are who are being restricted.

Please bear in mind that I'm not arguing for indiscriminant freedom, freedom of speech isn't absolute, and in some cases censorship is appropriate (Germany being one, obscene content on h2g2 another), but isn't it the duty of a good 'government' to ensure that it is fair and just. The citizens of the country of h2g2 aren't bound to stay here, and they won't if they feel that they are being punished unfairly.

To the Towers, I apologise if this is considered... uncalled for... but I love this community, and have seen too many explode into shards once this behaviour starts (the community TLDF formed in being one *shudders*)

What I meant was, while there was no official moderation (cursing was disallowed in theory but wasn't enforced, for example), the influence of long-standing and widely regaled members of the site would be able to direct attention of the Towers or even themselves deal with certain individuals who were being blatantly offensive.

So instead of succumbing to the BBC trying to bring this site up to the dignity of their morals, as they aren't us, we should be trusted as an internet community to deal with the site ourselves, as it is our community. There are times when one needs to call in outside intervention (Little Rock, Arkansas, 1957), but you don't need to call in the paratroopers every time someone jaywalks.

Joe, you have misunderstood what I have said. It doesn't matter about how many channels are available for you to express your opinion. In fact, it could be that *nobody* would allow you to express your view through their channel, and your freedom of speech would still be intact. If the BBC were to say 'Do this, and will kill your family', your free speech would be threatened. If they say 'Don't do this on our website', it isn't. This isn't because they have simply closed one channel, rather than all of them, it is because they aren't restricting your *rights* at all. You can still set up your own website - in fact, you can still set up your own Internet.

Just because they prevent you expressing your ideas using a *channel* does not mean they've prevented you expressing your ideas - you just have to be a little more imaginative about how to do that.

Smiley Ben.

They don't have to threaten, they just have to censor. The effect is the same. In America, we have the First Amendment that guarantees everybody to say whatever they feel like. But, we still can't get our message out. Do you know why? Because every media organization, every television network, every radio company is owned by a Republican corporation. Yes, my life is not in danger, but I still can't express my views to the masses.

What's more, you didn't read my earlier post:

(1) They advertise the ability to freely communicate here without censoring. They're not delivering. This is false advertising, and we're angry.
(2) This site has a history of self-determination, this is an infringement on the traditions of h2g2. This is OUR community, we're not leaving. You're saying: "If you don't like it you can leave". We were here before the BBC, and we don't want this community to die. This is online gentrification. In order to make it safe for "everybody", we must eliminate the bustling bohemia that has made it so popular in the first place. This is wrong, can you not see that?
(3) I already HAVE a site, called Ranters' Network. I can't show you the URL here, and the URL was taken down from my page a couple of weeks ago. That's censoring.

Any more questions?

Umm... you just exposed quite a nasty contradiction in your argument. In your world you can't define limiting free speech at all, because no matter what a government does, it is IMPOSSIBLE to lock up all channels. This is why my definition is the more correct one. You just have to define the space in which the concept exists. This space is already defined for us by the very subject we are discussing. It isn't the Internet, its h2g2.

Here is the definition of "Freedom" from the latest edition of the Penguin Dictionary - Freedom, noun. Being free, the absence of necessity or constraint in choice or action.

Total freedom is not possible, however to aspire to it is. The rules as they are currently enforced blunt this aspiration within the community of h2g2 (and I'm sure many here feel that h2g2 is more than just a website where you can build a guide, everyone2 is THAT). There is no way you can defend a (wonders what you call it given that your definition of free speech is so impractical) /curtailing/ of free speech on such a scale. Beyond making people feel that they are little more than writing slaves to the beeb (and some do feel like this), it sows distrust between the site owners and the community who actually make the site worthwhile (we are the USP for h2g2.)

Do you really think that no one else's opinions matter? Do you really think that your definition is workable?

Sadly - this isn't our site - it IS the BBC's. They pay for it.

One of the things which is nice about H2G2 is the technology behind it - the software is sophisticated and pretty bug-free. That costs. The servers are fairly reliable and fairly fast. That costs. The pipes are by and large big enough. That costs. And the towers are inhabited by stars with their names in italics. And that costs.

And we have always been able to come here for free. We may be the community, but we are the guests, here, not the owners.

I am sorry, but the BBC are entitled to call the shots.

As you know - I have big big problems with what the BBC say and do - both here on H2G2 and elsewhere - but they absolutely do have the right to say and do these things.

It grieves me to say it but they are entitled to go to hell in their own way.

a freedom-fighter called Ben

'Sadly - this isn't our site - it IS the BBC's. They pay for it.'

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Beeb is funded by Licence payers money isn't it?

If that's true (and it probably isn't for BBC online) then surely, we, the TV licence payers should really have some say as to what we think should go into the site...

OK, I maybe wrong... But it's just a hypothesis...

P.S. Donate blood!

It's free, saves lives, and gets you out of college!

Freedom works best with self censorship - that is what we had.
Treated as responsible persons, most researchers behaved as such. Miscreants were generally straightened out by their peers. The most angry arguments sorted themselves out to a reasonable debate.
This we've lost.
Treat people as unreasoning and give them tight rules and they will either seek to subvert the rules or apply them to absurdity.
This we've got.

Political abstention;
even the best intentioned of BBC broadcasts cannot guarantee "impartiality": e.g.PM @ 5.00 pm, if they get a whole heap of mail supporting one political point of view and none opposing, they don't decline to broadcast them because of "lack of balance". They do broadcast and say that there are no other views. This almost always ensures the balance arrives next post.

Yes the BBC "owns" the machinery but, as has been said many times, who provides the cash? The BBC does not own the labour force, well only a small part of it - what is it 8 or 10 plus moderators? and wouldn't continue to fund it without researchers. We still have an option even if it is nowhere to go to. (See me for details or ask Ian Hislop who seems to have some idea of what is going on.)

Are we all forgetting pre-BBC times, Girl named Ben? They didn't own us, and the towers let us do as we liked. The money came from the banner ads up top. So now we're under the BBC, which means they bought us out, which means it's not government control but corporate muscle, which is even worse.

Fine, let them make the rules, since they own us now. I feel sorry for the future of h2g2. I know of researchers who have walked out already.

Actually, NYC, the money *didn't* come from the banner ads, which is why the BBC bought us out...

Speaking of "the banner":
"On h2g2, YOU decide what goes into the guide ..."
Shouldn't we mention this erm, inexactitude to the Advertising Standards Agency?
Or has this already been covered in the postings which I have yet to investigate?

details, details. the point is that the beeb bought us out.