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

Okay, this is were we left off on Ivan's thread:

"If PC thought this was illegal then yikesing was the right thing to do and then leave it to the mods to decide, mods afterall aren't all seeing watching everyones move.

This was not yikesing for yikesing sake and PC clearly stated that if it was a matter of 'offence' then debate was the prefable way forward.

Your final comment, Pierce, is excatly the sort of little comment that makes me wrinkle up nose. Did you want to move on and refocus on to Ivans comments, in which case, I would have said 'now I'm going to move onto Ivan's comments', but really I wouldn't have said it at all, I just would have just done that

As I read it that comment comes across as dismissive, my initial reaction was one of irritation, especially as you have asked a stack of questions and I think mis-interpreted what PC said.

However this is Ivan's space, perhaps you would accept an invite to mine to to talk it though?"

Why was yikesing the right thing to do? Why not just leave it? A posting may encourage me to do something illegal - and posting it may be illegal in itself in some places - but I don't need other adults to hide it from me. I am not a puppet, I can make up my own mind and decide what to do and what not, criminal or not

Many are the times that people have advocated the use of marihuana in various threads. The use is a criminal offence in most countries. Are you telling me we are all obliged to yikes postings like that?

As for my comment "Now let's discuss what Ivan said" it was meant as a request to end the dbate instead of starting (or rather continue) another debate within the debate in Ivan's thread

But you are probably right, I should have invited Psychocandy to discuss with me in another thread instead

Now that you have done it for me I hope Psychocandy joins us here

I am here!

And I of course took "now let's discuss what Ivan said" as a request to keep on topic instead of continuing with a back-and-forth on another topic- and am grateful to Pierce for steering me back on track in that conversation. I didn't think Pierce was being dismissive at all- no harm, no foul. But I do appreciate Peanut for "sticking up for me", so to speak. And both of you for affording the opportunity to discuss here.

"Why was yikesing the right thing to do? Why not just leave it? A posting may encourage me to do something illegal - and posting it may be illegal in itself in some places - but I don't need other adults to hide it from me. I am not a puppet, I can make up my own mind and decide what to do and what not, criminal or not

Many are the times that people have advocated the use of marihuana in various threads. The use is a criminal offence in most countries. Are you telling me we are all obliged to yikes postings like that?"

You know, I agree with you.

Maybe I have misunderstood the "rules" or what have you. But we used to have a reactive moderation policy in place, where the community at large was responsible for alerting the eds/mods to posts which violate the HRs. One of the HRs prohibits postings which "advocate illegal activities". So when I've seen posting that advocate illegal activity, yes, I *have* felt obliged to yikes. (Note- not posts that might, for example, say "should marijuana be legal" or even "have you ever smoked dope".)

I am totally prepared to be corrected. It'd be a lot less work, really.

Drat. I should have posted here not in Ivan's thread.

I am very interested by this debate. As Peanut said, it's not about protecting other researchers from Big Bad Things, it's about protecting the site.

Or is that not worth doing?

Ben

Would I yikes a post that said, I had a spliff and a cider up Glastonbury tor the other day, no, or I found that a joint relieved my arthritis/MS symptoms, no again, what's the best fertilser to make my indoor potplants grow, tricky. You could at least talk about your raspberry plants and I'd know that you really weren't and it would depend where you asked the question, front page Ask or in your PS. So it would depend

If I thought the discussion was 'actively encouraging' a activity that was illegal whatever the context, even if in this case I think the law is wrong I would yikes. A re-phasing of a statement would be all it takes to have the post reinstated.

I'm not really up for a free speech debate, I don't think it gets us anywhere practical and practical is where Ivans thread needs to be heading. Making it about issues like free speech or what constitutes offence just derails a thread where we should be discussing practically how we want moderation to work for us as a community rather than on principles on which it should be founded.

As far as I can see PC yikesed because she/he thought the post contained something illegal, doesn't have a problem with the issue being discussed and seemed to be requesting for more information on the legal aspects of the site. I can't see a problem wih that approach to yikesing.

leaves and some , in the spirit of piratey goodness

Peanut

ooh, sorry it seems it took me half an hour to write that post

Oh my word I have just realised we are at my place, you'll be thinking I have forgotton my manners

help yourself to drinks and if gingercake doesn't suit put in a request

Gingercake.

Rum.

I posted a long post in the other thread that's gone. Not a surprise, because it included some totally illegal stuff (the worst being my uncensored opinion about what should happen to Tony Blair, with reasons).

The interesting thing, though, is that the things it advocated are not illegal everywhere.

Equality for gay men - male homosexuality is illegal in parts of Africa and in parts of the middle east

Sex with minors - but the age of consent varies from 13 to 21

Possession and smoking cannabis - legal in the Netherlands, not in the UK

Ultimately I'm selfish - I want to protect the site. We're not a public service, we aren't OBLIGATED to provide a platform.

B

It took me some time to realise that HR means House Rules (it does, doesn't it?), at first I didn't pay the abbreviation enough attention it seems

Are those *our* rules or those of the BBC? (I'm sorry, but I don't know them all by heart, nor do I remember the differences between them)

In case they are the BBC's I shall of course refrain from suggesting you break them

If they are ours I ask you: What is more harmfull to our site: Censorship or open debate?

Is that rum I smell? And ginger? Both are good for my arthritis

Thank you for being so kind and forgiving by the way. Much appreciated

They are currently the BBCs. The new owners will have to create their own.

>> What is more harmful, censorship or open debate?

False dichotomy. No-one is suggesting that open debate is censored.

What we ARE saying is that things that could get h2g2 into legal trouble should be removed. These would include anything that is in itself illegal such as breaches of copyright, child pornography, advocating terrorism, incitement to commit a crime, etc, etc.

There are also things that are not criminal in their own right, but which are inappropriate, such as pornography.

Ben

Yikesing and removing posts is censoring

We haven't had many posts about the topics you mention and most likely never will (and if those very few are censored you won't hear me complain) - except for breaches of copyright, which is a complex matter, and inciting the use of marihuana to ease certain conditions.

And let us not forget that one persons terrorism is another persons strugggle for liberty. The same can be said for certain "crimes".

Maybe we should consult Amnesty International and - maybe - adopt their definitions of crime and terrorism?

>> Yikesing and removing posts is censoring

Agreed. And h2g2 needs censorship. I am sorry, but we do. If you want an uncensored space, create your own site.

h2g2 is all sorts of things; it's a platform for other people's content, it's a publisher of content, and it hosts a social space. If it were only a platform, then the argument for censorship would be weaker. But h2g2 has legal and moral responsibilities as a publisher and a host, and those responsibilities play out in what can and cannot be posted here. If someone posts something that can't be posted here for legal reasons then, sorry, it has to go.


>> Maybe we should consult Amnesty International and - maybe - adopt their definitions of crime and terrorism?

Maybe we should consult a lawyer?




Where do you want this debate to go?

You can say "Censorship is evil" and I can say "But we need it" and we can go round in circles failing to change each others' minds.

We can talk in a fairly theoretical way about the wierd things that happen when laws are different in different countries.

We can talk - a bit more usefully perhaps - about what happens when you frame a sentence in different ways. Let's say that eating cheese is incredibly dangerous and therefore illegal.

Each of these sentences has different weight.

"Then there are cheese-eaters, of course. "

"Here's a recipe for making your own cheese."

"I used to eat a lot of cheese, but it's been years now"

"I like cheese"

"The thing about cheese is how stringy mozzarella goes on pizza"

"In any sensible society, eating cheese would be entirely legal"

"I went to France, where they have almost 400 different kinds "

"I've never liked the thought of cheese; my brother got banged up for dealing Dorset Blue".

Many of these, if they were about taking drugs or acts of terrorism, would be fine in a debate. And many wouldn't.

Ben

Ben is a notorious cheese-eater. Her fridge is full of Hallomi.

- Defamation.. libel, or may be true

">> Yikesing and removing posts is censoring

Agreed. And h2g2 needs censorship. I am sorry, but we do. If you want an uncensored space, create your own site."

Then we are on the same page


"Where do you want this debate to go?"

I want to raise more awareness of the fact that yikesing and removing posts is more than just editing. It is censorship. Editing is often just a euphemism for the real thing - and people/Hootoo should exercise restraint and think twice before they yikes and remove

I have w*rked in the media business for nigh on 40 years, the last 25 as a sub-editor and I have done my fair share of - necessary - censoring for the same reasons you mention.

I have never liked it, but as my different editors-in-chief put it: "The paper is open for *almost* any kind of letters to the editor, but when it comes to blatant racism for example we ask people to take their business somewhere else. People have the right to think, say, write and publish whatever they like - but they have no legal claim to do it in our paper. Start your own!"



Ps: I am very fond of

Hello Pierce and PC

Thanks for coming over here to talk to me

Pierce I obviously read your comment wrong, you didn't mean it in the way I thought you might and PC didn't take it that way, so I'm sorry for that.

I think hootoo in general has a strong stance on free speech, a core community value I would say but as Ben said we are not obliged to provide a platform where anything goes and nor should we for the reasons she has given.

It's a hard call where to draw the line in the sand but certainly 'promoting' a illegal activity seems a necessary and reasonable one.

On terrorism, I can understand where acts of terrorism come from, that doesn't make them justifiable, so I could participate in a discussion that looked at causes, that seeks to understand causes and looks for a political solution but if a post condones an act of terrorism, I would yikes and ague why I drew that line in the sand on that persons PS. I'm not sure what action I would like the mods to take in this instance it would depend on context

If I thought it was an incitement to commit violence then I would be sprinting of the community/mod team with more than a yikes because thats'of serious, serious concern and might require a responce that goes way furthur than a yikes or an onsite sanction.

So in short I think it's striking a compromise, not totally free speech but 'light' on censorship.

Peanut