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

He-he-he,
All three of you.

C.T.C.
You (and possibly I if I reply) may be tempting "moderation".

what are you talking about?

As a friend used to say:
"To the pure, all things are pure."
If appropriate, I apologise for inferring an innuendo.

I think I get it. I was referring to the word, capitalist.

I think... that :X is my new biggest hero.

Ben, you consistently make the argument that BBC has the right to censor anything contributed to h2g2 because they own the servers which host the site. The basic idea being that it's their party, and they'll moderate if they want to. I can see how you would think of this as reasonable. It certainly makes sense on the surface.

The problem, however, is that not just anyone can provide for the kind of bandwidth and storage it takes to maintain a site like h2g2. Most sites of that scale are firmly in corporate hands. No big deal from the start, but what if ALL of those sites decided to pursue BBC-style moderation policies? They own the servers, so they have the right, correct? But where does that leave free speech? If only corporate entities can afford to run large sites and they all pursue moderation, there is no truly global forum for discussion -- which is what the Internet is supposed to be.

Furthermore, we must deal with the fact that h2g2 is not presented as BBC's Guide to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Oh, sure, we're constantly reminded that the service is provided by BBC. However, the entire concept of h2g2, as it has been embraced by the BBC, is of a forum in which content is provided entirely by those not affiliated with the BBC. The BBC provides h2g2 as a public service and the site explicitly states that all views expressed are those of the Researchers and not of BBC. To quote the disclaimer: "The majority of content on h2g2 is generated by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC." (Whoops, I hope I haven't violated any of BBC's copyrights!)

We all know that sentence is just a bit of legalese to divert the lawyers... But it also means that we are responsible for what we post, not the BBC. As such, what right do they have to censor what we say if they explicitly disassociate themselves from Researcher-provided content.

It should also be noted that the disclaimer is apparently different under the Alabaster skin, if I recall correctly. Does this mean that I can say what I want, provided that I use to Goo skin rather than Alabaster?

Please note that the Disclaimers are exactly the same in both skins.

Thanks for that clarification. It must have been my imagination, then.

Also, I'm a tad embarrassed to notice that I replied to one of the first 20 posts in a 300+ post thread. Oops.

Don't worry - it happens....

Don't worry - it happens....

As does double posting when your Proxy server goes wonky!

I tend to have a problem with double posting also. I like the word someone came up with a duplipost. Be careful argon0 if you are sailing h2g2 waters. I here there is a pirate ship in these waters.

I know - Pete and I get on pretty well... So far..... He don't board me I don't sink under the weight of his boarders...

From what I hear he has a lot of boarders on his pirate ship.

zigackly....

Smiley, If I'm not mistaken, people under 18 are EVEN NOW, with the new proactively moderated site, restricted in access. Parental permission is required. I get your point about the sandpit, but we're not trying to dirty it. We're just trying to play, within the rules, the way we want to and apparently BBC is telling us that this is now offensive.

Erm, yes, I can see that some people don't like the new rules, I never debated that. I don't even debate that these views might have reasons to support them. What I said was that it's far more offensive than anything the BBC has done that people should consider themselves even approaching the plight of the people this groups name alludes to, and also that those moaning about free speech don't appear to have a clue as to what that is.

Ok, then I fall back on the earlier argument. It's a joke, and a clever little bit (as I understand) to get people to notice us, and as I see it, a very good ploy, especially since this site is based upon a very satiric book in the first place (thanx DNA), and some people should not take offense at a joke. I am not comparing myself to the Zapatistas, I am simply stating that the BBC needs to lighten up.

Now that would be a glorious revelation, were it not for the post directly beneath.

Oh no!! New rules What in bloody hell has the beeb found to gasp and sputter about now? What new rules? Who have they chosen this week to persecute?

This group's name refers to Zaphod Beeblebrox as well as the Zapatistas. If that doesn't clue you in to the fact that it's ironic, not meant to be taken seriously, then you are among those people who are truly to be pitied: those born without a funny bone.