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

This is just the weirdest thing and I don't understand why it is necessary. And yes I have read the backlog on restrictions on discussing Afghanastan and Iraq in the past. I still don't understand. Why do these things have to be "post-moderated"? What does that mean? What will happen to us if such a discussion were to start in h2g2? Or if an existing thread drifts to the UK election. Does the UK have a different take on what we call "Freedom of Speech" in the US? You've said that there is no restriction on discussing the US election but will that change when the US election gets closer or do you really not care about discussions of the US elections? Sorry to be so dense about this. What am I missing here?

right.. guidelines for electrons : doesn't really make much difference. If we apply the uncertainty principle to this then either you know what you're talking about but you're not sure where to discuss it or you know exactly where to post but you haven't a clue what you're trying to say..


Now *I* know where I posted this so.. that means ..

right.. thank you

Here in Canuckistan we have a restriction because the polls all start at the same time. Because of having 6 time zones that makes a 5 1/2 hour difference between starting in one end and starting at the other. As a result there is a ban on publishing results (which gets harder and harder due to the internet) so as not to affect the later voting. Is it something like that?

btw, Newfoundland is the one with the half hour timezone difference.

Whereas it was claimed in the US that voting in the 2000 election out west was influenced by coverage--it was reported that Gore won so westerners didn't bother to vote for him.

Hellbound - there are a whole bunch of rules and regulations that the BBC and all broadcast media must adhere to during the period of an election in the UK to ensure impartiality. As h2g2 is a BBC site, it comes under those rules.

A general description of the media rules as applied to the last election can be found here --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/voting_system/newsid_1194000/1194869.stm

The specific Producer guidelines for this current election are here --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/producer_guides/text/eu.shtml


I for one am delighted that we've got a space within the DNA sites where polictical debate can be exercised. This is a major step forward from what we've been allowed to do in the past. (Now lets go test the boundaries )

I am pleased that there is a DNA-specific place for discussion of the elections. One of the problems I and many others had with the Iraq guidelines was that it meant that we had to leave the established area we know and that the messageboard system wasn't as practical a location as the DNA sites, and it's nice to know we were listened to.

Hi Hellbound,

A792812 is something I wrote about freedom of speech on H2G2 that might be relevent here. Put briefly, I think that sometimes people get confused between a *political* right to freedom of speech, and a general right to say whatever you like, whenever you like, however you like. The first is an important part of freedom of speech, the second is actually counterproductive and can even reduce the level of freedom in a society.

Otto

Otto from your treatise:
"What's decided here will have absolutely no bearing on any of the key political issues that are important to you in your country."

That's right so why do they care enough about what we say here to restrict it?

Speech is not being restricted (subject to the usual site rules), it's being channelled onto one specific DNA site. "Post-moderated" means (I think) that all posts will be checked and taken down if they break the rules. H2G2 used to be like this until quite recently.

The BBC is politically neutral by law, so no-one at the BBC does 'care' about anyone's political views. What they do care about is the BBC's role as a public service broadcaster with strict charter commitments. The first post of this thread makes clear that the BBC has a charter commitment to remain impartial, and that involves making sure that any comment made about the elections is fair comment, and not libellous or abusive. Although it might seem to most reasonable people that only the author of a posting is responsible for its content, the very fact that it appears under the BBC banner gives it kudos that it wouldn't otherwise have.

As others have said, it's a big improvement on previous occasions where either no discussion was allowed at all, or when it was transferred to creaky message boards.

[Oh hey, You're the badgerbadger guy!]

Okaaay. I guess I understand, sort of. Just like those "free speech zones" which have been used to contain protesters at the WTO meetings. So when is the election?

The BBC has to be seen to be politically neutral, however history may tell us different and whatever recent run-ins with Whitehall may suggest, the raison d'etre of Auntie Beeb was to provide an independant source of information to the UK, the Empire and the English speaking world.

Whatever your own personal opinion on this, there is a link to the BBC from Michael Moore's website in the zone pointing to news reporting organisations where you can find some semblence of the truth from

Personally, for a balanced view of the news in the UK I prefer to amalgamate information from New Scientist, Motorcycle News and Private Eye.

With a healthy dose of Punch thrown in?

Hard hitting investigations into modern morality and unabashed reporting of current social issues. It has to be Viz.

Anyway its not about all that.

In the run up to an election all reporting must be fair with no hint of bias blah blah, give equal recognition to all candidates blah bleedin blah.

What about the backlog

What I came here to say is that the time scale that things are on offer for makes a nonsense of corrolling these discussions so that they can be monitored.

We've taken this step as a direct result of the many constructive discussions held during the Iraq crisis

We werent allowed to discuss Iraq on H2G2 "during the Iraq crisis" and we can now because presumably there is no longer any sort of crisis in Iraq

one love

Well, it's all been said, really, but here's the way I see it:

- The BBC is a well-respected provider of public service content.
- To ensure this, hot issues have to be handled carefully (and if they're not, resignations follow at the very top...)
- Everything we write (or "say") on h2g2 looks to the uninitiated to be part of the BBC's website, and therefore their content.
- Therefore, they have to monitor us just like they'd monitor the presenters of their TV and radio programs: to rein us in if we go too far, so to speak.
- This only applies when there is likely to be intense attention to a particular issue, and large volumes of discussion i.e. when the event is critical headline news day after day.
- The same events may well start off quiet, become critical, and then fade into the background. The Iraq "crisis", for instance, is an on-going event, to be sure, but it's not the attention-grabber it once was, and so content from before or after its peak isn't going to be read in the same way as what was said during the "critical period".
- "They" *have* listened to the suggestions of users dissatisfied with previous arrangements, and in general have gradually increased their trust in h2g2 (and, it seems, their other "online communities"). For that, I thank "them"
and

[IMSoP]

Hi,

I and others made the case during the Iraq war that there should be a DNA-based forum for discussing the issues (as the messageboards are so different and flaky).

This has now been given to us, with the indication that in future, it may be possible to have set up specific forums on the individual DNA sites, rather than having to use DNA Hub (<./>F94024?thread=416602&post=5268663#p5268663</.> + <./>F128714?thread=416639&post=5273053#p5273053</.&gt.

So let's make use of the forum given to us (F1804798) and show that there IS a demand for these kind of discussions on our community sites...

Frankie

Wasn't there an add recently with two animated guys, one saying he didn't want to discuss policts, but t'was proven to him that polics is everywhere in modern life, so how can we avoid it ???

**Looks foward to making many highly infulencial comments during the US election campign, then realises that money speaks louder in US elections, and won't make a blind bit of difference, and it'll be a fix over there again**

"money speaks louder in US elections"

That sounds very familiar!... Oh yes! Make a film critisising the US Government and get it censored because someone's scared of loosing the tax breaks given to them by another one of the Bush clan!

F135418?thread=417068

When good democracies go bad huh? What I wish I'd known a great deal younger was that you do not have to be clever to get somewhere in life,neither do you have to be righteous.

Sounds like a tiny step in the right direction, although it's still hard to believe that critics or the public would be naive enough to hold BBC accountable for such an obviously public forum. Still trying to figure how this kind of policy could be reconciled with the 8 Sep 1999 Welcome and Thank-you Message from Douglas Adams: "You can create your own Guide Entries containing anything you want, from your opinions of world events to a description of your home town, and it all goes to make up the h2g2 Guide...."

Hi Deidzoeb,

Yes, I know, but unfortunately we can be held very publicly accountable, because we're paid for by a public license fee.

The main risk isn't individual messages posted from community members, it's from political campaigning groups potentially taking over a message board and/or community on the BBC. Certain newspapers in the UK are keen to disparage the internet and the BBC - they'd just *love* the opportunity to splash a front page up discrediting both.

As you say this is just a small step; hopefully next year we'll have a better solution. We'll always have to monitor this kind of political conversations though, that just comes with being part of the BBC.