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

Listen, I know that the same team is in place as moderators, but I'm worried that the BBC might be the ruin of the wonderfully free adult forum we have at h2g2. These house rules are ominous. To rule that sexually oriented material is not acceptable, or any other subject that the BBC finds embarrassing, controversial, or offensive, is wrong. What does Wonko the Sane have to say about all of his articles and the LUST forum being under moderation, and doomed for deletion by the House Rules? Also, I have problems with media bias. If I find something on the BBC that I disagree with, and post my dissenting view, will it be cut out? What about those people with views that conflict with BBC policy, lets say in terms of free speech and free thought? Are the political or religious or philosophical views we place in our introductions, journal entries and guide entries subject to deletion because the BBC thinks we are wrong, or that those views are dangerous? I am not homophobic or racist, nor am I a pedophile or a smutmonger. But if I want to air my thoughts on a relevent topic in clean but strong English, I should be free to do so. If that topic is masturbation or Tony Blair's murderous fever to drop bombs on civilians in Iraq, so much the better. Or about the failure of the world's media including the BBC to criticize, or even take notice of such a crime. What kind of forum would this be if all we talked about were safe, mundane subjects? Boring, that's what it would be.

Hi. I'm finding the relationship between moderation and censorship rather intriguing.

There is still room for all the conversations you mentioned. But you cannot libel, slander, or be offensive. That's all - that's the moderation standard.

If you libel someone on this site, the site owners can be sued right along with you. And I would imagine that the BBC has rather deep pockets compared with the average h2 Researcher.

They need to moderate-out those comments to protect themselves and this site from a legal perspective. (We got away with a lot of stuff at the old site because we all operated under the 'be cool and everything will be cool' ethic) Corporate lawyers see that ethic as an operating system and panic - rightly so! You cannot rely on the community to remain cool. And if someone crosses the line, and it is 'published', that's going to mean the end of h2g2 and the BBC's relationship with it - thus the need for the moderators.

It isn't censorship in the popular cultural definition of 'the man is trying to keep our point-of-view repressed'. I believe we still have the freedom to voice our opinions, but we've never had the freedom to slander and libel others. The moderators just enforce the rules that we've all agreed to follow in the first place.

Self-enforcement doesn't always work. Having people there to do the job does.

That's it really!

- X

You're still quite welcome to post your views, provided that, as Jimi said, you don't libel or slander anyone, and that you aren't offensive and you stick to clean language. Other than that, you can say whatever you want, although I believe inciting illegal activity is also a no-no for obvious reasons (one assumes this is judged by UK law). Also out is quoting copyrighted material - but then that's not really bad either, because it's the same everywhere these days and that copyright stuff is just horrible. Don't even want to go near it.

The BBC are not in the business of cutting out content just because it disagrees with their official stance. After all, it does say in the disclaimer on every single page that views expressed are NOT those of the BBC, thus safely covering their backs.

I have been watching, and numerous centerpiece entries covering sexual topics, political dissent, and so forth have been reinstated. In a few cases, the Moderators have flagged the entries for special consideration by the h2g2 team. But the entries have passed this hurdle because they did not include foul language or personal attacks.

I expect that we will continue to see this in the future. But you can bet that I do have my eye out for examples of overactive moderation and/or censorship. I urge you to do the same. For the next little while, it is wise for use to watch the watchers, as it were. It is up to us to help them understand what is and isn't acceptable in our community.

Anyway, I wouldn't cry wolf until you have some actual examples of egregious censorship. If the community starts that up now, we make it more likely that legitimate concerns will be dismissed as baseless reactions to policy later.

At any rate, I intend to speak my piece, and I invite everyone else to do the same. I consider showing people an overlooked or ignored truth my duty. If I point out that a certain government or world leader, or even just a policy advisor has done something wrong or unethical, that cannot be libel. If I made it up it would be. My opinions are valuable to me, but if I consider some person to be an a**h**e, I will keep that to myself. If a horrible wrong is committed and the media glosses over it, puts a positive spin on it, or pretends it did not happen, someone has to enlighten the populus. The media nowadays is not doing its job. It entertains and tows the line. What is needed is a few more forums and a few more children to point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

Nobody's saying you can't do that... as long as you don't do it in an offensive or defamatory manner.

I say, one of my posts was removed about 14 hours ago. No word of explanation. I've read through the house rules and can't find anything about the offending post that contravenes them. I was just having a chat with Metal Chicken about the foot and mouth disease crisis. Most of what I said came from BBC News programmes. It's quite extraordinary and I'm shocked. In fact I'm surprised at how shocked I am. They should at least give you a clue as to what you did wrong if they're going to remove seemingly completely benign posts.

Sal

Sal, your post hasn't been removed, "only" referred to the editors.
If it's removed, you will get an email telling you why. Unfortunately they don't want to give you notice as long as it's pending moderation.
Since it's weekend, and as both Mark and Peta will be on vacation the next week, it could take some time before your post is (hopefully) back. Very irritating indeed!

Ottox! Hop hop hop! How are you? Thanks for that. I expect in that case it'll be reinstated sooner or later but GOOD FLIPPIN' GRIEF! You'd have to read it to believe that it could have been removed. I've posted it with a few comments over at my goooverflow foot and mouth journal. Take a look if you like - I think I can safely guarantee that you'll be surprised that it could've given anyone cause for concern.

Anyway, nice to hear from you!

Sal

The Moderators are still learning the ropes - it is possible that they were unsure about your post and referred it for confirmation. Hopefully Abi will have time to deal with it early next week.

Ok, I've read it. Can't say anything except that the moderator must have had a very bad day, or that my knowledge of English is even worse than I thought.

Nothing wrong with you English Ottox! Mark and Abi should never be allowed to go on holiday again. The forces of chaos only need to get a foothold and you can see the result ...

Sal

It's Mark and Peta who've gone on holiday. They've left Abi and the In-House Editors to mind the shop. At least they're only going for a week - but they deserve the break! I wouldn't be surprised if we see quite a few of the staff taking holidays now the site's open again, and good for them, as long as they don't all go away simultaneously...

Yes, Peta isn't home... The party *has* started!

Couple of points - first can we have a comment from one of the Italics, on this - if they are listening they can d*mn well join in!

And secondly - if anyone wants to buy a few stamps for Amnesty then make your donations here. A quid or two is all it takes... [url removed by moderator]

*sigh*

*sigh*

sorry - I am snowed under. Just let me read the backlog.

Sal I have been reading your postings on F&M - very good. They were referred over to me because of the fact you were quoting Nick Brown. I told the moderators that this was fine and passed them.

They are on a learning curve as has been said.

Please be patient with me this week - it is all a bit much. But if you do find something that you want me to comment on then come and find me or drop me an email. I am not trying to hide, I am just trying to juggle so many balls that I am getting quite dizzy.

*decides against making a dirty comment about juggling too many balls and getting dizzy*