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

Not that we're "censors" or anything, but "Any Conversations or Guide Entries that talk about the General Election will be removed by the Moderators."

This is the clearest step towards censorship on h2g2 seen so far. How often will the Beeb decide that our contributions from here on out will be seen as upsetting the balance of their journalistic integrity? When will they recognize that h2g2 is not even remotely a broadcast by the BBC, that anyone who viewed our site would understand that we form thousands of conflicting and independent opinions? May we discuss theories of mad cow or foot-and-mouth or HIV or the Holocaust without fear of our opinions being removed as "unbalanced?" Not that I personally have any opinions on these subjects that would conflict with commonly accepted views, but I worry about the trends in France and Germany to censor those idiotic "Holocaust revisionists." The government should not decide what topics are allowed, or which topics appear to need "balancing." Nor should h2g2, nor the BBC.

Mark, don't you have some reservations, at least some butterflies down in the pit of your stomach, for having to tell people that anything they write on h2g2 regarding elections will be removed, and that it may only be discussed on this "Great Debate" link?

The day I returned to h2g2 and saw all my pages "hidden pending moderation" used to be the day I felt the most ashamed of h2g2. Today is a new low.

Hmm.

Technical comments first: it would be nice if instead of simply removing stuff in this reason, the moderators moved them to the "Great Debate" instead. In the place where that message was then, instead of saying "this post has been removed because..." it could just say "This post has been moved to [url removed by me]" - so anyone who wanted to know what had been said could do so. If possible (and I understand if it's far too much work) it'd feel a lot nicer.

Diplomacy comments next: A clarification on what we can talk about would seem in order. My guess is that we'd be allowed to talk about anything we'd talk about anyway if there was no election - so, for example, mention of the foot and mouth "crisis" and so forth would be ok. It'd be nice to give a few examples of the kind of stuff that would be OK and would be passed - just to reassure.

For example, my home space says that I am "vaguelly Lib-Dem" - it's said this for almost as long as I've been on h2g2, so I would assert that it isn't election related. If, on the other hand, I said "Vote for [politician removed by me]!!" then this would clearly be election related. But I'm reading between the lines here: what is needed is for the lines themselves to tell us what the heck is going on...

Doedzoeb - Incidentally, at the Great Debate there's a topic on "Your BBC". Could be a good place to raise your concerns with someone a little higher up the BBC power chain. Give TPTB a bit of a break, huh?

> "Let's play 'Fantasy Controller'. What would you do if you were in charge of the BBC. What kind of TV and radio programmes would you want? How about online - what would you change? Let us know your opinions."

MyRedDice - is wondering whether he should start calling the Italics - "The Lesser Powers That Be" or "The Powers That Were"...

I only alerted to this page because I happened to see its number mentioned in a Zaphodista thread... and because the site speed is quite unpredictable, I don't always visit the "front page" when I log in. Should I? If you have to make these sorts of decisions, Mark, (and I understand your position) will you be putting them on the front page? So, although I want to be cooperative, I am feeling uncertain. Is our rather vigorous discussion with Smiley Ben over at the Zaphodista page OK?

"Let's kill all the lawyers." - Henry V

I ought not to have an opinion on this, being American. Oh well.

I've never been so thankful for the American Revolution in all my life.

This is a decidedly unamerican thing to do. It would never fly over here. We tend to think the debate is a crucial part of the election, and should be engaged whenever and wherever possible. A news organization that tried to funnel the debate into a narrow channel would lose the respect of the public, and an organization that received government funds (whether as a tax or an excise) would end up in front of the Supreme Court, charged with violating first amendment rights.

The problem though lies in the way the BBC is funded and in the way the Corporation was set up. They have to maintain an exact balance. If we assume the UK inhabitants of h2g2 reflect the split of opinion in the country then our unrestricted comments would by definition be unbalanced (since one side or another will always win). The BBC would then be breaking its charter.

There is no easy answer to this.

I have no desire to enter into political debate on this site but I will miss the opportunity to try to explain things to my non-UK friends some of whom have very parochial news services with which to contend.

... would have the audacity to try and teach the world about democracy after their last election. I wonder if next they'll be trying to tell us how to be ecological? Or perhaps how to read maps? Then again, maybe they should start a course on "How to negotiate with the Chinese"?

Hey! Generalisations! Bad!

-Florida Voter (disenfranchised)

He started it...

The BBC policies just get more unbelievable!

And just for the record, we Americans certainly don't always have our act together...sometimes we're a complete mess! But we do treasure our right to freely exchange ideas. Which is why many of us are baffled and angered by the "new" h2g2, and the way the BBC is managing it.

George Orwell (and yes, I have read his work) would have a field day here!

The Ministry of Truth has determined that all views expressed in this message thread have presented an unbalanced portrait of the BBC's definition of "freedom." You will now report to your local detention center immediately.

By the way, Lil, I don't remember ever seeing this tidbit on the Front Page. I stumbled across it when I searched the Guide for keywords "BBC branding h2g2," listed with all the "help pages" and FAQs about h2g2. (is FAQ a dirty word yet?) I imagine that any future verboten topics would be announced with as much obscurity as this one has been.

Lucinda,

"Diplomacy comments next: A clarification on what we can talk about would seem in order. My guess is that we'd be allowed to talk about anything we'd talk about anyway if there was no election - so, for example, mention of the foot and mouth "crisis" and so forth would be ok. It'd be nice to give a few examples of the kind of stuff that would be OK and would be passed - just to reassure."

Sorry if I was confusing. I did not mean to question whether topics like foot-and-mouth might be covered by this rule forbidding discussion of the UK General Election. I meant, how far will the BBC go if they can dictate which topics are too delicate for h2g2 researchers to discuss?

For example, there are laws in Germany whereby citizens may be punished for "insulting the memory" of Holocaust victims. I'm not sure of the exact laws by which a French professor was prosecuted for his Holocaust revisionism five or ten years ago. The revisionists were probably lying bigots, but their freedom of speech ought to have been protected. Since the matter has become an understandably* delicate and potentially illegal subject in some European countries, perhaps the BBC would someday decide that no discussion of Holocaust revisionism, maybe no discussion of the Holocaust at all, could be allowed on h2g2. I don't think I'm making a slippery slope argument here. Deciding to forbid all discussion of the UK General Election on h2g2 seems like a massively big step, and I fear what the next forbidden topics might be.

* I understand their outrage at the Holocaust revisionists. I do not understand why they allow their governments to censor Holocaust revisionists (which is like handing over the keys to your freedom of speech and expecting the government not to take a joyride).

By the way, I'm waiting for someone to try to tell me that it's not really "censorship," since this rule about the UK General Election allows people to discuss the topic over at the BBC Great Debate.

Reminds me of the tactic authorities used in the Seattle WTO protest, the National Conventions for the two major political parties, and on university campuses across the U.S. These days, you don't have Free Speech as much as you have "Free Speech Zones." This way, a city can restrict all protest to one or two blocks or street corners, preferably away from the camera crews and not too close to the event that is being protested, and universities can regulate where protests may take place on campus. The authorities can then claim that they are not preventing people from speaking, just regulating where they can do it. VOILA! They claim to allow free speech.

What it really amounts to is that these cities or universities are only compliant with the U.S. constitution inside of those "zones" set aside for Free Speech. All punishments given to protesters outside of the Free Speech Zones are unconstitutional.

Obviously the U.S. constitution doesn't apply to the BBC, but maybe this illustration will help you decide how much or how little respect you now owe the BBC.

I wonder exactly how ridiculous this will get? Will any mention of Tony Blair, William Hague or any other UK politician get us censored? Perhaps this posting will prove the point one way or another...
I wonder, also, if I'm allowed to point out that the election isn't actually on yet? True, it's expected to take place on June 7, but then for a while it was expected to happen on May 3. No firm election date has actually been set. This ludicrous, cowardly ban could theoretically last for a year.

And another thing...

[sorry I keep rambling, but this whole thing really burns me up]

...I keep re-reading this page "h2g2 and the UK General Election" to see if there was something sensible in it I may have missed the first time, something that would better explain how this position is even remotely defensible. Just gets worse every time I read it.

This latest time, I noticed that the whole tone of this page seems to indicate that, when pressed into a tight spot, the default position for BBC (or h2g2 staff reacting to BBC's corporate culture) is to drop our freedom of speech first. If our freedom of speech comes in conflict with any worries over copyright or offensive content or some idiot mistaking h2g2 researchers as representing official BBC election coverage, then the first thing to fall will be our freedom of speech. Find yourself in a bit of a sticky wicket? Just go ahead and censor the entire topic, save yourself some trouble, it's not like anyone would think this behavior out of the ordinary for the current incarnation of h2g2.

First reason we are given for the censorship of election discussions:
"We're still developing the moderation system on h2g2, and the thought of generating lots of debate about whether material is politically balanced on top of the current debates about URLs and profanities... well, it's not a welcome thought..., so a blanket 'no General Election material' for the duration of the Election is the best bet."

My guess is that "blanket" decisions against anything problematic will be default action, at least for the near future.

Here's another really frightening bit in the list of "reasons" for censorship of election discussions:
"Virtual elections are loads more fun anyway."

I know it's just said in fun, and I have been accusing others of having no sense of humor lately. Sorry, Mark, I know this was meant as a joke, but it comes off as sounding like, "You people in the h2g2 community all love a good joke, you love humor as much as you love books by your savior Douglas Adams, but stick to humor and don't worry your pretty little heads about troubles in the real world."

This joke is way condescending. Virtual elections are fun. Virtual censorship is unaccept*ble.

Very well said, Subcom. - I couldn't agree more.
I really want to believe our old friends from the Towers when they tell us that they're basically on our side, and agree with us about the absurdity of the moderation system.
It would be so much easier to believe that if they didn't defend the indefensible, as Mark has so depressingly done here.

We've got a right to freely exchange ideas too, thanks, along with the rest of the EU: check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A471250 - Article Ten is the one for Freedom of Expression.

deidzoeb> "perhaps BBC would someday decide that no discussion of Holocaust revisionism, maybe no discussion of the Holocaust at all, could be allowed on h2g2"

Be serious: the Holocaust is discussable throughout Europe, and Schindler's List was on BBC 2 very recently indeed - there's no way that the subject as a whole will be banned. If you're going to invoke the slippery slope argument, at least keep it plausible.

For those who are criticising Mark's stance...

From the BBC Policy at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/genelection/section3.shtml#online

> "All moderators and hosts should know how to use BBC Online’s escalation strategy where appropriate, to protect a postmoderated message board from e.g. nuisance or abuse. For example, they should know how to switch a board from postmoderation into premoderation,
at short notice. This will ensure that if necessary an organised campaign can be blocked."

Let me re-emphasise that word for those who missed it: **PREMODERATION**. I'm sure none of us here want the entire site to be switched to premoderation just because some party gets "shrills" to sit in the fora spouting propoganda.

Shrill (n) - A denizen of discussion groups and chat rooms, usually paid by a company or political party, but may be a volunteer, who's job is to shriek loudly in favour of their employers, and to flame all those with dissenting opinions.
Shrill (vb) - the act of shrieking loudly in order to drown out any reasoned debate on a particular subject.
--
On a more constructive note, how would it be if instead of deleting messages and entries, the moderators just inserted "For more opinions on the UK Election, see..." at the top of the post?

Another alternative: instead of deleting the messages, just stick them in pending moderation until the UK Election is over, and then reactivate them all?

And Lo, h2g2 was fragmented. And the Fragments were scattered across the floodplanes of the bbc.
Few fragments flourished and were plentiful but many fragments were lost in URLs convoluted and became linked to by pages lost. The fragments, through lack of nourishmant, became weak.
Those seeking to help could not find the needy. And the needy could not find those giving help.
People entered into the kingdom of h2g2 by roots indirect. The Great Debate grew as the remaining fragments were strangled by the rules of the new kings.
And the fragments died. Those who sort to post found places to post with believers to post too. The spirit was alive, though the Goo was missing.

And so Endeth the Second Lesson.

Ah, that explains what I saw when I went over to the Great Debate. The moderator was there and there was a definite sense that the participants were revolving around the moderator. And I spotted a few remarks about posts being pulled.

The Great Debate is as structured as it gets. There are half a dozen compartments, each with one huge monofilament of a thread. The general one that I looked at seemed to consist mostly of comments about tv shows.

I would not read condescension in Mark's announcement, Subcommandante, and remind you what it might feel like to have to convey such an announcement. What would you do in his place? Resign in protest and make it possible for some more corporate-minded entity to pick up the reins? Think of Mark as our MP in a House run by the other party (the Moderates ). Laws enacted by the Moderates have to be obeyed by everyone, but that doesn't excuse sniping at the messenger. Rather, we should be grateful for the buffer, and for his stamina at attending meetings...

That being said, I don't think I could survive another virtual election. All the other candidates kept trying to kill the Celery, and it was most exhausting.