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

Dear all,

I had a feeling that this might happen. It's unfortunate. But there are some things that should be said in defence of this decision. It's not a decision about H2G2 in particular, but a decision about all of the BBC websites and discussion boards (except one, obviously).

What are the powers worried about? It seems to be that the policy above expresses a fear of unfounded rumour and propaganda appearing on a BBC website - regardless of the forum, it's still the BBC and has a BBC URL. This gives respectability. These rumours could take the form of lies or slander about particular people that might put them in danger at this time. What if there is a war, and there are casualties on both sides, the tabloids are whipping up hysteria, and someone posts something on a BBC site saying that "X is a terrorist" or "X is pro-Saddam" where X is an identifable person, whether famous or not.

What if people start posting racially inflamatory material? What if someone starts rumours of Muslims cheering US/UK casualties in the streets of Bradford / Oldham / wherever, like similar unfounded rumours that circulated after September 11th. What if someone posts rabid anti-American comments that lead people to go and firebomb McDonalds and kill or injure people?

These things may happen (though God / Allah / whoever forbid) regardless of what is posted on the BBC site, but the BBC does have a kudos and a respectability that other sites lack. Given this, is it not surprising that the BBC may want to protect itself and to protect others.

How likely are these scenarios? Possibly not very, but better safe than sorry. And better for the BBCi to concentrate moderation resources on one site. It's not that we're not trusted as a community (why do you think we are allowed reactive moderation?), it's being very careful.

We can discuss Iraq on the message board if we want to. I sympathise with people who will miss the generally civilized and respectful nature of discussion that are frankly unlikely to exist on the "Great Debate" board. I enjoy the honest and frank debate here and I'll miss it too. But I don't think that it's unreasonable for the BBC to take this step on this occasion, given the possible consequences.

Two final things

1. A792812 - something I wrote on freedom of speech on H2G2 some months ago without reference to Iraq,

2. Yes, I would sell my house and all its contents to help the BBC

Otto

Hi Otto,

Unfortunately we can't discuss this issue with you, because we weren't involved in the decision making. Although thanks for the support.

I don't own a house. I'd sell my computer, but that'd be counter-productive.

"What if someone posts rabid anti-American comments that lead people to go and firebomb McDonalds and kill or injure people?"

No offense, but that is a very stupid thing to say, and because of it i have no respect for the rest of your post.

Tango

I'm sorry you think it's a very stupid thing to say. Perhaps it is. More importantly, why does it automatically invalidate the rest of the post?

Mina - no worries. I didn't expect any italics to respond at all, to be honest.

It is a very stupid thing to say, because if someone reacts like that, it is their fault, not someone just stateing their opinions fault.

I don't respect people who post stupid things, therefore i don't respect you, therefore i don't respect your posts. QED

Tango

otto- do you really think inflammatory postings are less likely over on the message board? True, they'd get whipped away by moderators, but ditto here. I think that debate about the war on this site would, as you said, be more reasonable than on the great debate site. So why close the avenue to the reasonable discussions and throw us into the unreasonable ones?

Once again, you speak for me. Thankyou.

Tango

Tango - I'm sorry to hear you say that, because I've got a lot of respect for you and your contribution to this site. I'm still mystified by your logic, but as you have no respect for me nor anything that I say, there's no point in me saying anything further.

Egon - no, I think inflammatory postings are more likely on the messageboard than here for all kinds of reasons. I do think that reasonable debate will be possible on the other board, though.

I'm not defending the Powers' decision (and from what Mina says it was the decision of the meta-Powers), but I'm putting forward some possible reasons and some very real dangers as to why it might not be so unreasonable as some people think. I've said elsewhere that I thought the ban on political debate at the last general election (which was before my time) seemed to me to be an overreaction, but I think this is a different matter entirely.

I'd like to see discussions here and on the bulletin board as well, but if (and only if) it's true that BBCi don't have the resources to adequately police both sites, then it seems reasonable - though very unfortunate - to keep them off this one, and all of the other UK sites.

Otto

Well in less than 20 minutes this debate was down to personal insults.

Frankly the government is not interested in what we think, as has been abley demonstrated. Therefore what the lunatic fringe think has become what we all have to worry about.

Otto- I think your points are sensibly argued, i just happen to disagree with certain points, and I'm glad you clarified for me.

Ok, i'll make my comment less general. I will not respond to post 1 of this thread until you take back what you said. Other than that, i will respect you and your other posts.

Tango

Oh and BTW, i havn't made any personal insults. Everything i have said has been about the arguements made, and direct inferences (is that a word? ) from them, and not unconnected personal comments.

Tango

Three things that are difficult to reconcile.

"You can create your own Guide Entries containing anything you want, from your opinions of world events to a description of your home town, and it all goes to make up the h2g2 Guide, the sort of guide which was not possible before we had the means of live, shared information resources."

from "A Welcome and Thank-You Message from Douglas Adams" 8 Sept 1999.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/welcome-dna

Then I compare this with the policy during Iraq Conflict. Then I read the bottom of every page of h2g2 where it says, "Most of the content on h2g2 is created 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. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced."

I don't understand how the Iraq Policy can be reconciled with either of those. Even in the worst case scenario that you painted, Otto, that someone was inspired to violence based on discussions from h2g2 (which could happen anytime even when wars aren't happening), or inspired to believe lies about a person based on discussions from h2g2, no reasonable person would blame the BBC or h2g2. We would blame the people naively accepting unsupported rumors or blame people who actually torched McDonalds, whatever violence they might be inspired to.

I have full respect for the Editors and staff of h2g2, and even the person who made this decision. But it doesn't make any more sense this time than when they did it for the Afghanistan Conflict.

Perhaps I should have left a new message... But as you all seemed to be talking ove rthe guidelines here, I thought I'd ask it here...

Initially the guidelines appear to say quite resolutely that no posts in relation to the issue can be discussed on any area of the BBCI other than that of'the great debat' or whatever it is called.
The later on it indicates how moderation issues on H2T2 will be used more extensivily to remove/hide posts, to be on the safe side-'air on the side of caution'.
So, can we, or can we not, mention anything to do with this issue anywhere on the BBCI sites, other than that especially set aside for that purpose.

Second.
Why don't the 'normal' guidelines cover this, as most of it appears to be covered by them...

In wartime, sorry, conflict time then most of these rules become obsolete under a general banner of national security - true in all countries

Hi Subcom,

Thanks for your reply.

I've nothing particular to say about conflicts between DNA and particular policies - it's been argued elsewhere that the BBC takeover changed things, but I never met DNA on here or in real life, so I don't want to speculate.

"Even in the worst case scenario that you painted, Otto, that someone was inspired to violence based on discussions from h2g2 (which could happen anytime even when wars aren't happening), or inspired to believe lies about a person based on discussions from h2g2, no reasonable person would blame the BBC or h2g2. We would blame the people naively accepting unsupported rumors or blame people who actually torched McDonalds, whatever violence they might be inspired to."

I agree with much of what you say. People who commit violence on the basis of unsupported rumours are generally the kind of people who are just looking for an excuse or pretext, and should not be allowed to deflect blame onto others.

But I don't think that it's true that the messenger won't be blamed. There was a huge fuss recently about someone posting rumours about a footballer on the (fantastic) BBC Celebdaq website, when a judge had imposed a gagging order about the particular case. The media said that the BBC had "published" the player's name, when they'd done no such thing - someone had posted it and it wasn't moderated in time.

Since then it seems that the BBC are very nervous about this kind of thing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the meta-powers were imposing pressure to move towards a more restrictive moderation environment across the whole BBC. The media as a whole still don't understand message boards, and I don't think that disclaimers are going to affect that (though I know that Subcom's point about the disclaimer is a different one).

Even if the worst case scenario doesn't come to pass, imagine the headlines if some really unsuitable content gets in under the radar.

"BBC publishes race hate rant"
"Traitor BBC publishes attack on our boys"
"Mina ate my hamster"
and so on.

This *will* push the whole of BBCi towards a more restrictive environment. There's plenty of media organisations that would be very happy to grab any excuse to attack the BBC, don't forget.

If none of this is convincing, then there's not much more I can say. If others thing that everything I've said is completely improbable, or is outweighed by freedom of speech issues, then I've probably not got many more arguments that I can produce.

My purpose here is to raise some of the factors that I think might have been behind this decision, in order to inform debate, and my thanks to all of you who have taken my comments in the spirit in which they're intended.

Otto

I agree Mort. It is sad but true.
It was posted a month ago that this would be coming.

There is no point in slamming each other or anyone in hootoo land over it.

This IS WAR. Its UGLY from start to finish.
We can Hope it's not a war that future generations pay for.