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

Are you really all completely unaware of how offensive you're being? Ignorance appears to be the only defence you could claim against the fact that you've named yourselves after a group who are genuinely fighting for the most basic of civil rights, against enormous amounts of repression. The idea that you can actually compare their plight to the fact that you have to live without URLs in forums of a community you've joined, and whose rules you've agreed to, is almost sickening. Grow up, the lot of you, or at the very least gain *some* degree of sensitivity to those in real difficulties.

As a newbie who has hung around on site and listened to all the moaning, I am going to make my first post a standing ovation to Ben.

You might think that the BBC are censoring you but for an awful lot of the world's population the BBC World Service is the first point of call for unbiased, fair reporting. Nelson Mandela was absolutely right to say that British people will never understand the importance of the BBC to the South African people during the apartheid era. I don't think many people realise the importance of the BBC to many countries around the globe. You should be proud to be part of this.

While freedom of speech is a human right, for much of the world it is a priviledge that they don't have.

Well done Ben for the most astute posting I have seen in ages.

Ben, how do you feel about a quasi-public, quasi-governmental institution limiting the choice of language to English? There are speakers of Welsh and Gaelic living in the same country, paying for this service, who can now only express themselves in English. I still say if a Cuban or Chinese organization excluded the languages of some of their minority groups on a public/government website, we would rightly call it censorship.

The reason BBC's takeover is a problem is that we were here before they were, had a perfectly civilized community with approximately the same rules as most other online communities. BBC purchases the name, the equipment, hires the staff, then tries to restrict the community. The problem is that they cannot purchase the people who have formed this community.

The comparison between Zapatistas and Zaphodistas is a joke, and if you fail to see the joke, then you would be well qualified to join the moderators. The inability to recognize humor seems a pre-requisite. But just in case this message is not clear enough, I stated the same ideas a week ago in an interview with Afgncaap5, which you can view on http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A530966

"The comparison with the Zapatistas is just a joke. I really don't mean to imply that our little disagreement over BBC restrictions is anywhere near as important as indigenous people in Mexico fighting for their rights and getting massacred. The similarity is that we are a small group, almost a lost cause, fighting against a monolithic force. The Zapatistas believe that their government maintains Neoliberal policies that will lead to the downfall of their nation, helping the rich get richer, the poor poorer and more desperate, until revolution will inevitably erupt (or debatably already has?). I'm certainly not suggesting we h2g2 contributors need an armed uprising against the BBC. But I similarly believe that the Beeb's current policies will lead to the downfall of h2g2, as contributors become increasingly frustrated with the restrictions on their free speech, and turn to the hundreds of other message boards and online communities that don't have these limits on speech, what language we post in, use of external pictures and URLs, and all the specific c*nsorsh*p."

Meanwhile, I'm trying to actively educate people to the reality of the Zapatistas by the on-going comparisons with them. I don't think most Americans know or care about the revolt that has been active for seven years in a country bordering our own. I'm passionate about the Zapatistas too, but I think they would enjoy the joke of our little bourgeois rebellion. Have you read any of the communiques written by Subcommandante Marcos in which he describes the ski-mask-wearing beetle who steals his tobacco? Don't bother, you would be just as unable to process humor there as you are here.

Aw, Smiley Ben....

The loss of liberty can happen in two ways. It can be a catastrophic overthrow of established legal infrastructure, or it can be an erosion of rights in dribbles.

Why should you assume that an imitation of a real-life struggle is a disrespect?

I don't know your nationality, but to a lot of American researchers, the fact of moderation is mind-boggling. It is an unfortunate consequence of some recent legal history in England and could lead to even worse abridgement of the right of self-expression for netizens of Great Britain.

We may sound a bit lightweight to you, but stop and think about what might happen to posts of a more serious tone or more specific content: they might be moderated, that's what.

We simulposted, Subcommandante.

Glorious, not to ignore you, and no disrespect intended. I must politiely point out that, if you are new here, then you are handicapped by an inability to draw a personal comparison.

Nice to meet you, by the way.

Glorious,

"While freedom of speech is a human right, for much of the world it is a priviledge that they don't have."

Then why are you so willing to go belly up to the BBC, concede your freedom of speech, just because of their positive accomplishments in the past?

In the past on other message boards, I have raved about how much better BBC World Service is than any public radio network in the U.S. BBC seems to give real news affecting everyone around the world, whereas the only "world" news given by U.S. is those events that happen elsewhere with major impact on the U.S.

I would still say the same. But none of this has anything to do with the disproportionate restrictions that BBC has imposed, out of line with all other online communities. The Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it. We can only hope that BBC fixes the damage they have caused before h2g2 becomes a ghost town.

*this is the 5th attempt to post anything at this d****d site!*

I don't think many people realise the importance of the BBC to many countries around the globe. You should be proud to be part of this.

Duhhh... I think we were doing just fine until h2g2 was taken over by BBC, there used to be a lot less moderation and a lot less rules!

And as for the importance of BBC around the globe, I can't say I've noticed it (obviously Sweden is the wrong country to live in for being aware of this 'important' fact)

*sulking*

You never know what you have until it is gone.

I have been lurking around H2G2 for almost two years now. I have seen it pre-BBC, and now post-BBC. There is a difference.

Moderation is not something that I would have thought of as being a good idea. Censorship (and it *IS* censorship) never is.

BBC News is a good, fair, and knowledgable reporting service. As an american, I do watch the world news on BBC America, just to find out what is happening in the world. However, This is not BBC News. Nor is it BBC Radio. It is BBC Online. It is something different.

Sorry, Ben and Glory,... I have to say that what is going on here in the Zaphodista Movement *IS* a good cause.

Contemplation

Okay, could someone *please* explain to me how this is infringing on your so-called 'right to free speech' (which, to those Americans out there, who may not know, is not actually something so simplistically valued here, c.f. the right to bear arms)?

As far as I'm aware, the BBC have not been round to my house ensuring that I don't say certain things, nor have they suggested that they would (if the heavies have been round, I was out at the time). *THAT* is what is 'infringing free speech'. As it is, they are saying that if you want to play in the sand-pit they're paying for, they ask you to follow certain rules. Please explain how it is any different for them to say 'This is a family site, please stick to family-friendly speech' than for you to find that on a topical news site they don't want you to talk about which cheese you like best. That is not restricting freedom of speech. I have a website, on which I have basically whatever I want - and the BBC can't complain about that, nor would they want to. You seem to think it is restricting your freedom of speech that I don't let you write whatever you want on *my* website - because that's exactly what you want to do, write whatever you want on someone elses.

And no, it is not that Glorious or I have not noticed that it was a joke, we've just realised that it really isn't funny, and is not something to be joked about. You are comparing yourselves to a people who *really are* restricted in their speech. It is not just that they can't use a certain forum to air views - they /can't/ just go elsewhere, they actually are prevented, with force at times, from speaking their minds. No such thing is happening to you. Your speech is NOT restricted, only how you use a *particular* forum that someone is (and has been) paying for.

And finally, as to rooting round censorship (gotta love RMS), yes, the Internet does tend to. And no doubt if there were a real threat to people saying what they wanted, they'd go elsewhere (freenet?). As it is, h2g2 doesn't present such a threat, it is just saying 'play in our pool, play by our rules' - in fact very kind, and lax rules at that.

Like I say - we haven't missed the joke, it's just not funny.

Smiley,

Sorry, but not everyone agrees with your point of view.

I live in New Mexico, within spitting distance of the Mexican border. I am well aware of the horrible conditions facing the Zapatistas, and I sympathize with their plight. Actually, I sympathize with the plight of the vast majority of Mexican citizens. I've seen the poverty, the half-starved children, the corrupt police. I give to Mexican charities, and I support international educational efforts.

I am also a "Zaphodista", and proud of it! You may not see humor, and that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. You're entitled to come to the site and rant about it. As a matter of fact, any good Zaphodista would support your right to rant, even if they totally disagreed with you. As I do.

Yes, the Zapatista issue is serious. And although the group name is all in fun, the Zaphodista movement is tackling some serious issues, too. But I feel that you can be serious about issues and retain a sense of humor, too.

Just my opinion...

There have always been Terms and Conditions on h2g2. We have never been free to use obscenities, as my cyber-nephew found out to his great cost. Nor have we ever been free to harass each other or destroy the quality of life for other researchers. The Italics always, always enforced the rules whenver they found out about violations of the Terms and Conditions.

But the Terms and Conditions of yore amounted to a distillation of basic netiquette, the minimum and sufficient conditions for love and peace, man.

What we have now is something completely different and reactive. The issue is a lot larger than beebhootoo, but what's being done is paradigmatic enough to be worthy of protest. BBC Online is pursuing the policy it is on account of judicial and political conditions in England, conditions which are distinctly at variance with the way the net is administered in many free countries China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba are countries which moderate content. Does England belong in that list? If something is not done in the realm of law to specifically protect ISPs and hosts, you may still be free to express yourself on your own website, but the Brits won't be free to read what you said. You still haven't mentioned which nationality you are (and of course you don't have to), so forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know.

The thing is, Smiley Ben, h2g2 is basically a silly place. Our existence is predicated on works of swiftian satire cleverly disguised as comic science fiction, works as savagely anti-bureaucrat in their own way as anything Orwell wrote. In my opinion, we sort of owe it to our heritage to do exactly what we're doing.

I believe that the moderators are actually having a terrible time. They have to read all this {wonderful} stuff and, as far as I can see, they can't participate. Plus, I suspect they are continually getting handbagged by the Powers as well as by those of us, including me, who have had posts mistakenly moderated. Moderation isn't going to go away any time soon, but I believe Mark and Peta when they say it will get better because H2g2 will leave a trail of broken and battered minds, those of moderators who failed to adapt...

But moderation isn't the only problem, Smiley Ben. There is the problem of offsite graphics not being allowed, and the question of including URL's in posts. We have some valid issues.

"Okay, could someone *please* explain to me how this is infringing on your so-called 'right to free speech' (which, to those Americans out there,who may not know, is not actually something so simplistically valued here, c.f. the right to bear arms)?"

"As far as I'm aware, the BBC have not been round to my house ensuring that I don't say certain things, nor have they suggested that they would (if the heavies have been round, I was out at the time). *THAT* is what is 'infringing free speech'."

Let me see. I have been [moderated] more than ten times in one day, and have had posting taken down for referral. Nothing that I had said was obscene. In fact, I had been refering to the name of a thread that just so happened to be a URL.

It is the blind moderation that I myself find to be infringing upon my rights. It is not a fact that I want to be obscene or rude, or post URLs to possibly offensive sites. It is the idea that in one place, someone can post a collection of words (in the afore mentiond thread) and be fine, be censored in your journal for posting the same lines, and then be censored back in the forum for writing the same words that were there to begin with.

Things are being taken out of context by moderators. I support the idea of having dedicated moderators, who can take the individual words and know what the context of them really is. In the end, the URL name was allowed to be used uncensored, however, the damage had been done.

I always really enjoyed H2G2 and the freedom that the people here were allowed to express. With the blind moderation policy, the BBC *IS* entering my home and telling me what I can and cant say. They were not looking for what I mean, just that it had a dot com at the end. At least, that is as far as have been able to figure out.

Telling someone they can not say what they feel or think is censorship. Rubber stamping the posts for words that are taken out of context is sensorship. Restricting our abilities to express ourselves in a forum where we were once allowed to be open is censorship.

After my first few [url removed by moderator] stamps, I found out about the Zaphadistas. I read the List of Demands (Suggestions), and I agreed with what was said, within reason. And I knew that it was a good way to show support for those who are working to try and bring things here back to something of what they used to be.

As far as the play on words for Zaphaditsas, I couldnt care less what the Zapadistas are (no offense, but I honestly have to say it doesnt affect me). What you have to remember is it is just a name. Look past the book cover, and read a few pages. It is the cause that is important. And in this case, many of us feel it is valid.

A war is not won in one day, yet it can be lost in that time. If people roll over for a little loss of freedom, what is to stop more from being taken away?

Contemplation

"Okay, could someone *please* explain to me how this is infringing on your so-called 'right to free speech' (which, to those Americans out there,who may not know, is not actually something so simplistically valued here, c.f. the right to bear arms)?"

"As far as I'm aware, the BBC have not been round to my house ensuring that I don't say certain things, nor have they suggested that they would (if the heavies have been round, I was out at the time). *THAT* is what is 'infringing free speech'."

Let me see. I have been [moderated] more than ten times in one day, and have had posting taken down for referral. Nothing that I had said was obscene. In fact, I had been refering to the name of a thread that just so happened to be a URL.

It is the blind moderation that I myself find to be infringing upon my rights. It is not a fact that I want to be obscene or rude, or post URLs to possibly offensive sites. It is the idea that in one place, someone can post a collection of words (in the afore mentiond thread) and be fine, be censored in your journal for posting the same lines, and then be censored back in the forum for writing the same words that were there to begin with.

Things are being taken out of context by moderators. I support the idea of having dedicated moderators, who can take the individual words and know what the context of them really is. In the end, the URL name was allowed to be used uncensored, however, the damage had been done.

I always really enjoyed H2G2 and the freedom that the people here were allowed to express. With the blind moderation policy, the BBC *IS* entering my home and telling me what I can and cant say. They were not looking for what I mean, just that it had a dot com at the end. At least, that is as far as have been able to figure out.

Telling someone they can not say what they feel or think is censorship. Rubber stamping the posts for words that are taken out of context is sensorship. Restricting our abilities to express ourselves in a forum where we were once allowed to be open is censorship.

After my first few [url removed by moderator] stamps, I found out about the Zaphadistas. I read the List of Demands (Suggestions), and I agreed with what was said, within reason. And I knew that it was a good way to show support for those who are working to try and bring things here back to something of what they used to be.

As far as the play on words for Zaphaditsas, I couldnt care less what the Zapadistas are (no offense, but I honestly have to say it doesnt affect me). What you have to remember is it is just a name. Look past the book cover, and read a few pages. It is the cause that is important. And in this case, many of us feel it is valid.

A war is not won in one day, yet it can be lost in that time. If people roll over for a little loss of freedom, what is to stop more from being taken away?

Contemplation

Ben,

Freedom of speech includes the right to dissent, the right to give voice to concerns, the right to record those concerns, and the right to disseminate those records. Thankfully for most of us this right does not end at the tip of our tongue, in our spouse's ear, at our front door, at the sidewalk, or at the courthouse steps. If it did, we would not be able to have meaningful news, political discussions, or anything remotely resembling an informed democracy.

When the Zapatistas rode into Mexico City a few weeks ago at the invitation of President Fox, why do you think their procession became a parade? They were celebrating because of their newfound freedom to voice their concerns. The new government of Mexico was finally giving the Zapatistas a voice, guaranteeing *all* citizens the right we already enjoy. As you so emotionally reminded us, they had to fight with their lives for that right.

In most English-speaking Western countries we have become so spoiled by stability that we have the luxury of pondering which rights we'd like to curtail out of convenience. These luxury fretters desire a new perceived freedom -- freedom from offense. It used to be people were secure enough within themselves that when they saw or heard something they did not agree with they would give voice to their concerns, walk away, turn the channel, put down the book, and it troubled them not.

Now some people expect to have the government or some other organization protect them from ever encountering the questionable content. How placid. How free from difficult decisions. How mindless. This is not freedom from offense, this is freedom from thought. This is the freedom of sheep. Like sheep, a populace with no free source of news can be lead about by their government -- ask the Germans.

You're right, we're not like the Zapatistas -- we're not in Mexico, and right now I'd really enjoy a nice plate of sliced jícama in lime juice.

But I digress, in free countries like ours rights are eroded a little at a time, not by the government taking them, but by citizens giving them up. How easy is it now in England to get a shot gun to do skeet shooting, or to go hunting, or even to keep an old gun as a family heirloom? Didn't that start with hand guns? I realize there are benefits to restricted access to weapons, but not all English people are happy with current restrictions.

My point is that the same process that stripped free England of many firearms is the same process that can erode any other freedom we currently enjoy.

Feel free to volunteer giving up your freedom of speech, but know that if you lived here I would fight to the death protecting it for both of us, and in this online struggle I will indeed proudly display a symbol that allies me with others who feel as I do.

And please look up the word "irony" in the dictionary ... Although we spell things differently, I think you'll see it has a similar meaning on both sides of the pond.

Respectfully,




-THDoM

THDoM-

BRAVO!!!

Contemplation

My bad re: the title of my previous comment, it is supposed to read DOES NOT EQUAL. I think it reads DOES NOT APPROXIMATE. Whatever.

One other question that I meant to ask, that I should have asked, that I didn't:

How easy do you think it would be to get the right to bear arms back, now that it's gone?

That's a tuffy.

That's the kind of question the Zapatistas know the answer to.





-THDoM

With all due respect, none of you seem to understand what freedom of speech is.

As I said above, the BBC is not restricting your freedom of speech. To do that, the BBC would have to come into your home and threaten you. Nobody on h2g2, or anywhere on the BBC is saying what you can or cannot say. What they are saying is what you can or cannot say IN THEIR FORUM. This is the point. Freedom of speech is not threatened by this in any way. You CAN say what you like, you can express whatever opinion you like, all that the BBC is saying is that if you want to say certain things, go elsewhere to do it. This is very very very very very simple. And this does not restrict free speech.

Sorry, you probably can tell I'm struggling to say this some other way, because I don't think people in this thread have understood the point I'm making.

1) If I threaten to come round and kill you if you utter the words 'h2g2 cheese magic-marker', I am restricting your free speech.
2) If you go to my guestbook on my website (which is linked from my space), and write 'h2g2 cheese magic-marker' and I remove this guestbook entry, I have not restricted your free speech.

I really don't know how to put it simpler than that.

As to the right to bear arms, I think you misunderstood the point I was making. In my opinion, restricting arms is very good. The comparison I was making was the Americans seem to have a cultural difference to the British in that they hold certain things to be 'inalienable rights' - a concept we don't really hold (I'm British). This seems to result in children shooting each other in schools, because they haven't (sanely in my opinion) outlawed hand-guns, and in the Nuremberg Files being declared protected speech, even because people are being killed. I don't think personal freedom should be simplistically protected, when it ends up infringing on others' freedoms.

The BBC is trying to make a greater number of people free to use their site, by making sure the sand-pit children might play in is clean, and I don't think we should cut out that whole demographic, just so that some people can post material inappropriate to that forum - there are other places they can do it.

Smiley Ben, I think, in respect of free speech, we are indeed working from different definitions. And this might indeed be cultural. And I think I already said that we are not talking about obscenity, which was proscribed in the original terms and conditions.

To say that I have complete freedom of speech, but that there are certain things I'm not allowed to say or speak about (stipulating obscenities or threats), is contradictory to the American understanding of what constitutes free speech. It's not just the Beeb, Ben, that is under threat of litigation, but the whole net in YOUR COUNTRY. Doesn't that bother you?

I repeat, this is not a matter of obscenity. I recently had a post moderated (but reinstated later) because I was perceived as giving particulars about someone's occupation and location without their permission. At the time I had no idea how I had fallen foul of any rule and I was quite upset. On another occasion I was posting in a hurry and used some creative shorthand mode of speech to refer to something; my shorthand turned out to be the name of a company and the sentence was deleted from the post, on the off chance that someone from that company might read my post and somehow think I was referring to them, and furthermore decide that my reference was a contravention of copyright.

If you are trying to conduct a conversation but you always have to keep an eye on what words you use, how you use them, or whether you might inadvertently refer to someone without permission, then you are being censored. That's what censorship is, however benign its application.

Now about graphics and URLs in threads.....

But nothing has changed with respect to what you are allowed to say. You can still say whatever you said before. The only thing that has changed is what you can say HERE, on a website someone else is paying for. Therefore there is no infringement on any right to free speech.

Please *do* explain to me why it would be better if children were not allowed on here by parents because it was unregulated - and no, I don't just mean obscenities, I mean off-site images and links. I think it wouldn't, and there are /plenty/ of other places you can go if you do want to discuss stuff without kids around.

You suggest that it is not good that you were moderated for talking about someone's occupation and location - yet to blanketly say this is wrong is to assert that people should be allowed to publish the name and address of, for example, abortion doctors, and if that's the case then I (for one) think you're wrong. So I guess, no, it doesn't bother me that we don't give people free reigh to say whatever they want, and have libel laws, and don't allow people to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

But all this is pretty much beside the point since, as I've said, the beeb isn't restricting what you can say, just what you can say on their turf.

Do you think that freedom of speech ends at your door? So if someone went through and ***'d all of your comments in here because they did not like people with the name Ben, which would be perfectly acceptable under your definition, that would be it?

Do you think all of the pages under moderation right now are due to smut? Some of the pages under moderation talk about concepts that are difficult for people to face.

Where do you get your news? Where do you go online? Who writes your newspaper? If it weren't for freedom of speech chances are your newspaper would look like the old English editions of Pravda.

Again, ask the Germans where it starts.

It all boils down to who you trust to set "standards" on what is acceptable. How far do you trust them?

Is it a stretch for the following illustration, but please keep in mind that Singapore and the Peoples' Republic of China are now going in this direction:

In mid 2002 the BBC begins offering a "family-friendly" Internet filtering service for download from their web sites.

In mid 2003 BT begins incorporating this client into their installation software as an option.

In 2005 this software is installed as default. Other UK providers follow suit.

In the 2006 elections a person leading a new family-friendly movement in Parliament becomes Prime Minister.

In 2007, after the usual debate, new legislation is enacted by the new Prime Minister's government mandating Internet filtering in the "upstanding fashion of the BBC's fine example."

In late 2007 laws with prison terms are enacted to "clean up" British television and cinema. Nudity and cursing are forbidden.



In early 2008 the Prime Minister undergoes a "religious experience".

That same year, crimes against non-[PM's religion] increase tenfold.

In 2010 "exclusion zones" are created to "safeguard upstanding [PM's religion] values." Entire regions of England become [PM's religion] only. Persons espousing other religions or beliefs are rejected from work, housing, medical care, and schools.

Non-[PM's religion] newspapers are shut down.

Persons of color become candidates for a new wave of discimination, as they are seen by the general population as "more likely to belong to one of the non-[PM's religion] religions".

Do you see where this is going? Mind you something similar took place in Germany. It was a while ago, but talk with an older person about how it started. Just because it happened once does not mean it cannot happen again.

Whether you like it or not, whether you see these tendencies in yourself or not, be aware that when larger groups of people give up liberties someone or something is there to take them.

We all like the idea of a benevolent dictator shepherding us through our daily lives, protecting us from bad things, encouraging us to do good things, and dying and leaving us lots of money (maybe that's just me .) The reality however is that dictators always have their own agenda.

Anyone with dictatorial powers will use them, by their very nature. If they have a gentle hand, it is OK, but if they have a heavy hand, it is very difficult to take something back that is given away.

Human institutions change. What is reality today will be changed slightly tomorrow. Given enough tomorrows (and there are an endles supply) we end up with something that is nothing like the original.

As for the BBC playing parent to children, where are the parents? Why are they not being a part of their childrens' lives? Responsibility starts with me, not with the BBC. I do not want a company, or a government filling in as parent for me. When we do that we end up with something like the Columbine High School shootings (a national disgrace) here in America.

Again, this happens when we start giving away liberties.

You may not see this right now, and I respect your right to disagree. As others in this thread have pointed out, there may indeed be cultural differences in our views. Thank God for our differences, they make the world so much more interesting.

In its most fundamental form it is the current policies of the BBC which we fear may erode our ability to share in those differences, to challenge eachother and the world around us, and to celebrate the diversity of humanity.

Which I thought was one of the original ideas behind the Guide.

Peace,


-THDoM