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

I am not in favour of restrictions on freedom of speech, as my extensive record on site amply demonstrates. I have been there, done that, and got the scars to show for it.

However, in this case, I think that the BBC is acting within its remit, and it is certainly within its legal rights. It is concentrating its limited resources in one place to ensure that the conversations *do* happen, and happen in a moderated environment. The alternative is not 'business as usual' but 'moderation as before'. Moderation as before is expensive, and it is perfectly possible that the extra costs would jeapordise the existance of the site. In fact the alternative is not 'moderation as before' but 'silence as before' since we were prevented from discussing the general election before the general election.

It is also possible that the alternative is actually 'silence' if the BBC decides that h2g2 is more trouble than it is worth. Be careful - you do not know how high the stakes may actually be here.

It IS acceptable to debate these issues, but it is also acceptable for the BBC to say 'not in this sandpit'. It IS possible to discuss these issues else where - less comfortably, with people you don't 'know' in the way you know people here, and with clunkier systems. No-one is saying 'you cannot discuss it', merely 'you cannot discuss it here'.

We are all used to the freedoms that we have here, and it is shocking to discover that we have been playing within boundaries all along. Now the boundaries have been clearly defined, but they were there all the time.

The BBC has said 'you cannot do x while we are at war' - this appears to be new, but then we weren't at war before.

So while I do not endorse the BBC in this action, (and in particular I am saddened that so many ACEs and Gurus have been asked to do something which they find offensive), I am not prepared to criticise the BBC for it.

If I get more information, or if someone persuades me otherwise by graceful argument, I may change my mind of course.

But how much better to apply ones efforts to things that can be changed, instead of undermining the Editors, and straining the already tightly stretched resources for this and other BBCi sites.

Ben

Ben-good points.

I personally consider this petition to be rather pointless- it won't change anything, and claiming that it's an infringement of freedom of speech is something I realy don't agree with.

I dislike the policy, but this kind of petulance isn't going to change it. I didlike the policy because I believe that it weakens the DNA community, and that if the debate has to be outside h2g2 I would like it to still be on DNA as the structure of the message boards precludes the kind of debate we would have had on here. Fortunately this is being looked into.

The most sensible thing to do is make your feelings felt, make formal complaints if you wish (I am- although i am complaining that it weakens the product the Beeb is offering, and that message boards are not an adequate substitute), but I don't think petitions such as this serve any real purpose.

I agree. I don't think that they are censoring material: just insisting on converging conversations. It also offers a better opportunity to talk to people from other communities.

I also think that a lot of people would not now be discussing the...situation if there was no policy, but people are enjoying playing Devil's Advocate, or being deliberately obstreperous (sp?)

In my case it is just a form of protest. I can understand why, but I don't agree.

I see your point FwT, and if they had a converged area of DNA for them (which I believe is being discussed) then I, for one, wouldn't be bitching as much.

It's the fact that people have to adjust to a completely fdifferent system,a dded to the fact that the message boards are a) more hostile b) only open certain hours and c) it is incredibly hard to find your previous conversations that count against the message boards.

To be brutally frank, I wouldn't post an awful lot about the war anyway. I just think that if I have a thought on it that i wish to share with other hootooers, i'd like to be able to, and the fact that we can't means, in my opinion, that the service isn't as good as it could be.

Like the Voltaire quote

I think that the BBC has acted as best they could. As I understand it DNA is more a complex piece of software than a messageboard. Therefore, it is probably more difficult to develop a quick skin and bugless etc.

I'm quite enjoying the peer moderation policy: and I would rather relinquish my right to talk about the current political climate on h2g2 [note: not not talking about it at all: just here, it is not a denial of liberties, just a redirection] rather than become a moderated site again.

If the italics had crept this policy via the backdoor: i.e. not told people about it, just yikesed the various posts, it would have caused them a hell of a lot less agro for them.

But they didn't, they were straight up, aces on the table. They haven't insisted that any of the volunteers yikes the posts: just asked.

Perhaps it could have been a little better prepared, but isn't that the nature of the beast that is politics? It's a fast moving thing.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the BBC has reacted the ebst it could, but I think we'll agree to differ on that one, eh Gnashers? and in relation to the possibility of a DNA site hosting a discussion, this thread may interest you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F94020?thread=258677

..and I would just like to clarify that none of my negative points regarding the policy are aimed at the italics, who I believe are doing a magnificent job, and have proved incredibly helpful over the last couple of days as I grumble into my beard about things...

in response to agcb:

no i'm not collection votes against the petition, as it wouldn't make sense as the people for the policy have what they are happy with basically, if that makes sense. if you really want me to i could, i simply don't see the point in it really.

>"It is concentrating its limited resources in one place to ensure that the conversations *do* happen, and happen in a moderated environment. The alternative is not 'business as usual' but 'moderation as before'. Moderation as before is expensive, and it is perfectly possible that the extra costs would jeapordise the existance of the site."

i disagree with this comment. h2g2 is the only dna site that is not moderated. all other dna sites are moderated, and the announcement in the hub specified talk on any dna sites, so h2g2 being in peer moderation doesn't have anything to do with it. it is a BBC policy denying us to talk about the situation here, in our community, and sending us to a worse location, and although i myself have not spent the time looking into the great debate message board, a number of people have complained about how it is not good enough, messages come out in wrong order, complex registration, posts moderated without reason etc.

i can understand that the BBC may want to focus their moderation on on place, but on a site like h2g2, they could simple have done what they id for the Afghan crisis, and set out a set of rules for the crisis, notify the commuity and then posts that broke those special temporary rules could be moderated by the community, just have they have been moderating things on the site for the last few months.

>"The BBC has said 'you cannot do x while we are at war' - this appears to be new, but then we weren't at war before."

once again, the Afghan crisis. that was war. it was a war on terror, and Alqaeda in Afghanistan, yet all comments about that were not banned.

>"But how much better to apply ones efforts to things that can be changed, instead of undermining the Editors, and straining the already tightly stretched resources for this and other BBCi sites."

the whole petition is to show the views of the community on this issue. it may not have a great effect, but maybe it wil effect another decision in the future, and since we do not know how long the war will be, it may convnce the BBC PTB to change their policy. this does not in any way undermine the editors or stretch their resources, as this does not in any way encourage people to break the policy and talk about iraq. it is a petition against the policy, and although i disagree with it, while it stands i will voice my views against it but will not break it.

spook

I have to say that I agree with Ben, here!

"The alternative is not 'business as usual' but 'moderation as before'. Moderation as before is expensive, and it is perfectly possible that the extra costs would jeapordise the existance of the site. In fact the alternative is not 'moderation as before' but 'silence as before' since we were prevented from discussing the general election before the general election."

Ben, that's only true if you accept the BBC's premise that the public or the law would demand discussions on certain topics be moderated. I don't see how BBC could be held legally responsible for allowing members of the public to post their opinions here, especially with disclaimers at the bottom of every page. I don't know if the UK public would go wild against the BBC for allowing members of the public to present their opinions openly. It's difficult to compare this forum to others, but if everyone is free to post messages of any opinion, then how could the BBC be accused of presenting an unbalanced view? Why would anyone hold the BBC responsible for balancing the views of the public?

I think the steps that the BBC has taken are based on unreasonable premises. Threats of removing the website entirely do not make their premises any more reasonable.

Re: censorship or "free speech." Try posting your messages on that Great Debate forum when it's "closed" for the night. Your post is queued for moderation until the next morning. Of course, anyone so devoted to BBC message boards will be able to wait until the next day, but there's no reason they should when thousands of other websites will let them continue without silly restrictions.

It doesn't matter that the BBC is not intending to limit our discussion on this topic. It matters that the BBC knows this policy will limit our discussion, and goes ahead with it anyway.

Damn you, Subcom, I think you may be right...

B

I disagree with Subcom. There are always limitations on people's free speech. In Germany, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust, in the UK a Muslim cleric was jailed recently for inciting racial hatred and incitement to commit murder. People are always free to say what they want, but you have to realise that society has rules about what it is acceptable to say. I think you would all complain if I added a link to the Ku Klux Klan

The BBC is legally responsible for what is published on its website, and whilst peer moderation might be acceptable for normal situations, we are effectively at war. Supposing someone posts to a conversation saying "tonight lets go burn down the mosque on the high street". You would expect that to get Yikesed immediately, but you are berating the BBC for putting in place a process to make sure that it does. The BBC is not just protecting itself from criminal prosecution, but also protecting that mosque. Yes the situation is far from ideal, but maybe its the least worst option.

A point few people seem willing to accept, on the subject of free speech, is that no-one has at any time prevented anyone from buying their own servers, setting up their own website and conducting a conversation about this subject. That is what free speech is about. Conversely, if I went to church and started singing 'Anarchy in the UK' in the middle of the sermon, that wouldn't be an exercise in free speech, it'd just be downright rude.

It might seem censorious to some, but if something is posted that causes someone to complain to the British Standards Commission, it won't be an h2g2 who is called to publish an apology, as the hosts, or 'broadcasters' of the comment, it'll be the BBC. Therefore, the BBC has the right to protect itself against such an occurrence.

Actually Jimster I know of a number of Churches where if you were to start singing Anarchy in the UK people would actually get alongside you and far from condemning you for being would be interesting in just what view you actually have. I have been in services where everyone sits quits stoically silent and let it all wash. But also have been in services where things have changed due to the unexpected happening. Indeed the bible actually endorses you to question what you hear in churhc if it dubious. Shame the same isn't true everywhere.

As for buying our own servers we are not made of money you know. Wel at least some of us aren't. And my freedom of speech has been exercised in other placed regarding this subject and once I did get a little bit of editing (moderating) done by a national paper.

>"A point few people seem willing to accept, on the subject of free speech, is that no-one has at any time prevented anyone from buying their own servers, setting up their own website and conducting a conversation about this subject."

this is something i posted to another thread in reply to the same sort of post:

i would do that, however, i have a few problems:

1. no cash to do it
2. no staff to run it
3. no time to run it
4. no technical skill to make it
5. no community to talk on it

spook

F76412?thread=266926

I joined the petition, not because the BBC has no right to restrict what we say and where we say it, but because it has persued an unpopular sledgehammer-policy that goes much further than it needs to. That and the fact that it is causing some of the greatest disharmony I can remember between the researchers and the Powers that Be.