Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
from the enjoy-your-new-muzzle dept
We've noted time and time again how numerous websites have been killing news comments because they're too lazy and too cheap to cultivate an on-site community, and/or don't like having story errors pointed out in quite such a transparent, conspicuous location. Of course editors and publishers can never admit this is their real motivation, instead offering a rotating crop of disingenuous prattle about how they're muzzling their readers and shoving them over to Facebook because they're just so very into building relationships and are breathlessly-dedicated to improving conversation.
This week Al Jazeera joined the hottest trend in media, penning a missive over at Medium about how they're banning public news comments as part of their quest to... wait for it... give a voice to the voiceless:
The mission of Al Jazeera is to give a voice to the voiceless, and healthy discussion is an active part of this. When we first opened up comments on our website, we hoped that it would serve as a forum for thoughtful and intelligent debate that would allow our global audience to engage with each other. However, the comments section was hijacked by users hiding behind pseudonyms spewing vitriol, bigotry, racism and sectarianism. The possibility of having any form of debate was virtually non-existent.
Except that's simply not true. Numerous websites, including this one, have shown repeatedly it's possible to discuss complicated, divisive subjects without the metaphorical house burning down. Yes, it's true that when you don't moderate, show up, or give much of a damn about your comment system, it's quick to devolve into a cesspool of trolls and nincompoops. But the reality is that websites can't monetize quality discourse during budget meetings, so it's easier to just outsource all conversation to the homogeneous blather zone of Facebook, where listening to what your own customers are saying becomes somebody else's problem:
`Over time, we found social media to be the preferred platform for our audience to debate the issues that matter the most to them. We encourage our audience to continue to interact with us this way. We realise that this move will come as a disappointment to the members of our audience who did try and engage in thoughtful debate on our site. However, we will be working hard over the coming months to figure out how best to bring back debate to aljazeera.com. To continue the debate on social media, please share your thoughts with us on our Facebook page and get in touch via Twitter.
Again, does anything really give a "voice to the voiceless," foster quality conversation, or cultivate relationships quite like muzzling your customers, then shoving them toward a massive social media site where their thoughts, insights and contributions will get lost in a tsunami of prattle? It's clear that countless publishers really love the idea of reverting back to the era of "letters to the editor," when public feedback to your reporting could be carefully censored and repackaged as a genuine dialogue with your readership. But this line of thinking is a disservice to the quickly-evolving conversation the news has become.
I keep waiting for a news website to ban comments then candidly admit it was because they just didn't give much of a damn. Until then, the best we'll get are missives about how the best way to bring a voice to the voiceless is apparently with a good, swift kick in the ass.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comments, community, voice
Companies: al jazeera
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
…they hired CM Punk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a side note, I'm still not entirely sure why Techdirt finds these stories of news sites closing off comments to be such a big deal. I know we're all big fans of free speech here, but doesn't that include the right to decide whether or not you publish comments on your website? I totally agree that the comment section doesn't have to be overwhelmingly toxic or off-topic if you put the effort in to moderate it and so forth, but opting not to have a comments section at all - while a lazy approach to the problem - just doesn't seem like that big of an issue to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt cares less about the act of closing comments than it does about the “we care about your voice” hypocrisy usually shown by those who close them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These stories fall squarely into the intersection of technology and business models (and how to do or not do them) that is TechDirt's main interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TechDirt isn't reporting on the closing of the comments section (the "Tech") as much as they are reporting on the false narratives accompanying the closing of the comments (the "Dirt").
Here, the website claims:
Why not figure it out before closing the comments, rather than months after (which most certainly will not happen)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a side note, I'm still not entirely sure why Techdirt finds these stories of news sites closing off comments to be such a big deal. I know we're all big fans of free speech here, but doesn't that include the right to decide whether or not you publish comments on your website?
It's not the closing of comments -- it's the claims that they're doing this for the benefit of their readers... And, yes, as others pointed out separately, part of it has to do with how we think about the journalism space and community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some resolve the issue by requiring that you are logged in via Facebook to comment. That seems to resolve part of the issue, as people are perhaps less likely to be obnoxious when their real name, profile, and list of friends isn't far away. Even then I can tell you that Facebook ain't paradise at times.
Removing comments or moving comments to third party systems (like using twitter or Facebook pages to "host" discussions is another option that some take. Mostly, it's to get the junk off the main pages and out of site of the public.
For the vast majority of people who do not comment on stories, there is no real loss. For them it's a benefit.
So I don't think the sites are being dishonest in saying they are doing this to benefit their readers. They cannot (or cannot afford to) properly moderate the comments on the thousands of stories they publish each week. If they cannot do it right,doing it at all may not be in the best interest of their readers.
Now, I accept and understand that it's not the way you see journalism in the digital age. That they don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong or worthy of mocking. Perhaps in some ways your own views need a reality check. It seems they have valid reasons to do what they do, and they explain it correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How does it benefit society to force those who engage in comments to have that ability removed, while neither benefiting or harming those who ignore the comments. Looked at from the benefit and harm perspective, this move is all harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Faced with hundreds (of thousands) of abusive comments, insults, racist attitudes, and the like, it's normal for people to be less interested in the comment sections. If the participation rate is low and the "hatred" rate is high, then removing the comments is perhaps a better thing. Moving those discussions to a level playing field (say like Facebook or using Facebook login for comments on the site) would be preferable to what most news sites turn into.
The ability to comment is not removed. You can still head to facebook, twitter, or what have you and express your opinion. You are not silenced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have seen no evidence that the trolls are put off by having to create an account, so this does little or nothing to deal with that problem, but rather moves it over to social media, for those who have social media accounts. For those people ho do not have such accounts, there is one less place that they can express their opinion, especially when the want to remain anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Circular argument. No reason for a comment section to look like that, with even a modicum of effort. Too many sites have chosen not to make that effort, to their detriment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The benefits (small) versus costs (large) make this sort of a no brainer. Getting into social media instead (say on Facebook) is a way more interesting place to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Comments are an optional (and not required) part of delivering the news. It's an added featuring in the same manner as the free breakfast at the hotel you stayed at last night. It's not a requirement, it's an extra feature, and if it's too expensive to provide, they won't do it.
Sites that benefit from and profit from copyright infringement have a huge financial benefit from turning a blind eye.
if there was as much money to be made with comments as there was with piracy, news sites would line up to do it. Hey, even Techdirt might be profitable at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Techdirt, your flagging system sucks, without a doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Seriously, you have a lot of agenda to rail against a website you consider so insignificant. Enjoy your DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
In each of your examples, I used the term "could". I could do X, I could do Y. I choose not to do so personally (but others clearly do use proxies to multi-vote). I could do so, but it's a gesture that would be lost, especially on people like you.
I have no agenda. I learned a long time ago that hanging around with a bunch of people who always agree with you teaches you nothing except how to get your ass kissed. Standing with people you disagree with teaches you way more.
You should try it some times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
That might also explain why you're here, since you claimed John Steele would win his appeal. Do you hang out with Flat Earthers and people who believe vaccines cause autism, too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Yeah, see, this is why you get flagged. It's because you don't think things through, like Hamilton! But then, you seem attracted to his fantasies about Shiva Ayyadurai and Donald Trump, so it's no surprise you think the system is broken.
Seriously, what are you doing on a site you hate so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Few want name calling, swearing, complaining, and racists attacks
What's needed is a system that filters or ranks comments and commentators by quality - so that trash talkers and those with nothing productive to add get voted into oblivion. And so commenters have an incentive to think before they type.
Stack Exchange and Slashdot are good examples - both have systems where readers votes make the best comments more visible, and the worst ones less visible.
I don't think either has got it 100% right, but further experimentation is needed.
What doesn't work is lazy "post anything you like" with neither moderation nor a reputation based ranking system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Got to disagree with you in this.
I don't usually comment on sites (barely, I'd say), but I do read them when a piece of news interests me. I like to read other people's opinions in a matter.
Comments do have value even for those who don't comment, even if they are full of insults and racism.
At the very least, you get to see people expressing their real thoughts, instead of some hypocritical comments because they are posting with their real names and they don't want to be labelled as racists.
You know... racism won't disappear just because you're making it socially unacceptable. It will just go underground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'll see if that holds true once this site achieves a real degree of popularity, the kind that produces comments sections on articles numbering in the 1000s or 10s of 1000s instead of dozens. With scale comes the general public and with the general public comes uncontrollable bile.
Bottom line: This site is in no position to weigh on on the difficulties and problems experienced by more popular outlets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you meant to say is this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
"There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-d o-brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
Moderated down? EVER even admonished? Even after he obstintately repeated it recently? NO, Masnick hires him to re-write here!
By the way: Masnick at least once called Geigner Techdirt's "comment enforcer". What does that mean? Was he given privilege and administration rights way back? Paid at all? If so, then Techdirt is responsible for all Geigner wrote...
An AC already said what first occurred to me about IF the site accumulates a few with MY views. The unmoderated fanboys would simply try to shout them down as have done me over course of years, but with numbers more evenly balanced, it'd be different. You pirates have spewed your vile ad hom only because Techdirt tacitly sides with you -- the censoring, I mean "hiding" is EVIDENCE of that: no fanboy's comments have EVER even been "hidden", while literally THOUSANDS of mine have been! Even though well within common law and common decency.
If there's now some actual consideration given to whether comments are within common law -- instead of the alleged "community" by some unspecified number of clicks without any administrator involved -- then reasonable persons might accumulate here, and in short, you fanboys will be the ones moderated, NOT ME.
OR Masnick's apparent new policy is just trying to tone down you fanboys and exit with grace when the site gets handed over to Ayyadurai. That's my bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Moderated down? EVER even admonished? Even after he obstintately repeated it recently? NO, Masnick hires him to re-write here!
That comment, as was made clear to you multiple times over multiple years, was Tim making a joke. It's a very famous quote from Barack Obama's own memoir. He was not making that statement on his own behalf. In context -- again, as has been explained multiple times to you -- he used it as a clear joke. If he'd used it as a normal ad hom, I have no doubt that the folks here would have moderated it.
But instead, it was him, responding to a known troll (you), and quoting from Obama's memoirs. I don't know why you continue to bring it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
SHOW ME ONE TIME THAT WAS EXPLAINED.
Everyone else go the link and you'll see Geigner trying to make a deal in which he'll stop if I don't pursue it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Well, we never take you seriously, so it all evens out in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Thanks! That's stating you've been lying all along: I'm not really a problem here, just a harmless fool, good for contrast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
That about sums it up for me, but really more along the lines of the creepy old uncle who has overstayed his welcome by four gin & tonics and just won't take the hint that it's time to go home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Yepper, sonny, I didn't fight the Nazis so you could kick people web-sites! You're nothin' but a Nazi!
(Just joking: surely you're not offended by a joke!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You must have fought some weaksauce Nazis if’n the best you can do with your life after that is voluntarily visit a blog you hate and spam it with comments about how much you hate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Not at all. It takes a bit more than some random anonymous fool insulting me online to offend me. But please keep trying, it is mildly amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
SHOW ME ONE TIME THAT WAS EXPLAINED.
Um, like just a few comments down. And you responded to it so you clearly saw it. I mean, come on...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brain s-stop-zero.shtml#c1965
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
To which I replied: "I take that line as directed to me and as racist (especially as confirmed by your post in the Kardashian piece). As I pointed out, it's not in quote marks or attributed. And no, I don't recognize it or others."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
And ALSO, you do not answer the question of when Geigner was ever "moderated" for that.
Again, that's up to the community. It appears that pretty much everyone but you understood the context and chose not to do anything. Actually, FWIW, there is not a single "report" vote on that comment, suggesting that EVEN YOU did not click. So, uh...
You simply state shouldn't be, then go on dodging with an attack.
No, I simply explained why it is I believe that the community chose not to moderate that comment -- because they understand that it's not abusive in context. And there was no "attack" just me giving my opinions.
You NOW seem trying to get me to drop repeating that, but no, so long as useful and on topic as here, I'll use it.
So you're admitting that you'll keep trolling about this even though it's been explained to you that you're trolling by taking it out of context? Fascinating. And you wonder why the community chooses to report your comments as trollish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Good ghandi that comment section... I'm not sure if I should be feeling sympathy for a mind clearly in meltdown or laughing at someone so desperate to 'get in the last word'(and who apparently thought that people getting tired of them meant they 'won') that they were writing gorram novels talking to themself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
A NEW LOW. YOU ARE FLAT LYING.
YOU set the tone here, kid. You've now okayed fanboys to definitely target me.
Geigner was/is Techdirt's "comment enforcer", trying to be nasty enough to run people off site.
I bring it up because important for reasonable folk to know just how nasty the site is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
Hey!
That’s Mr. Geigner if you’re nasty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
>>> That’s Mr. Geigner if you’re nasty.
But I'm NOT nasty. I'm just an ordinary person stating personal beliefs. And yet you clearly don't want me here.
By the way, I've yet to HOOT and WHOOP at the alleged new change, waiting to see if lasts. But if so, I've leisure and a $300 internet connection with 300GB per day "cap", so I think you'd do well to just let me say what I want ON TOPIC, and you say what you want ON TOPIC, and the site won't be cluttered with childish back and forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
It’s a matter of perspective, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
>>> It’s a matter of perspective, really.
Yes! Thank you for saying you find me equal, instead of disputing. All I ever wanted.
You're not going to win this, except I weary of STUPID one-liners back and forth.
Try to stay ON-TOPIC, best for the site too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, really?
Your version of “winning” looks awful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
I DO check before each attempt. But I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER IT being okayed simultaneously with my later efforts.
You'll note from time stamps that over 20 minutes elapsed.
And you still don't see the (alleged) four or five other attempts in between.
SO. If Techdirt will state maximum latency, I'll try to be patient. But it's difficult given the history -- as I see it, to forestall the gainsaying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Persist in your relentless spamming, and attempts to call attention to it, and that decision might change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vote with mouse button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vote with mouse button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So where was the moderation with Geigner:
"There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherf*****s like you...."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-d o-brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
Moderated down? EVER even admonished? Even after he obstintately repeated it recently? NO, Masnick hires him to re-write here!
By the way: Masnick at least once called Geigner Techdirt's "comment enforcer". What does that mean? Was he given privilege and administration rights way back? Paid at all? If so, then Techdirt is responsible for all Geigner wrote...
An AC already said what first occurred to me about IF the site accumulates a few with MY views. The unmoderated fanboys would simply try to shout them down as have done me over course of years, but with numbers more evenly balanced, it'd be different. You pirates have spewed your vile ad hom only because Techdirt tacitly sides with you -- the censoring, I mean "hiding" is EVIDENCE of that: no fanboy's comments have EVER even been "hidden", while literally THOUSANDS of mine have been! Even though well within common law and common decency.
If there's now some actual consideration given to whether comments are within common law -- instead of the alleged "community" by some unspecified number of clicks without any administrator involved -- then reasonable persons might accumulate here, and in short, you fanboys will be the ones moderated, NOT ME.
OR Masnick's apparent new policy is just trying to tone down you fanboys and exit with grace when the site gets handed over to Ayyadurai. That's my bet.
Trying again with asterisks just to see if certain words are NOW in the "filter"...
And sixth or so attempt! Are we back to the status quo ante already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
Effectively so. I tried first with a browser session that had made a dozen, and I dared hope a change was on... But back to it for this topic, and only to the "Held For Moderation" page; none came in several minutes...
I'll keep noting this so long as your system is broken, IF that's the line you're taking. My view is necessarily that it's viewpoint discrimination.
You might start on transparency by stating how many clicks out of how many reads it takes to censor, I mean "hide" a comment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
As idiotic and nonsensical as your posts are, we always let them through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
I responded to an in(s)ane comment on an article earlier this week with a single-word reply: “what”. I tried making that exact same comment on another in(s)ane comment on a wholly different article and the spamfilter caught me. (Not that I mind; not only did that comment deserve to get filtered, it wasn’t even all that funny the first time.)
You can express dissent without having to spam it. If anything, not spamming it will make your argument stronger than your trying to shove it down everyone’s throats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
That's not what I see this end. Evidently you're picking up on blaming Cloudflare, even though I reached the "Held For Moderation" stage and my comments often NEVER appear.
But I'll see how goes.
Any statement on how many clicks out of how many readers to "hide" posts?
By the way, I've NO intention of losing interest here for foreseeable future, so expect me nearly every day, interest in topic prevailing. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
That's not what I see this end.
Well, then you might need to get your eyes checked. The only stuff by you we haven't let through would be when you do that idiotic thing of spamming the same thing over a bunch of times. Then we just clear one, and dump the rest. But if your comments get caught in the spam filter, we clear them when we have a chance. It's always been that way.
Evidently you're picking up on blaming Cloudflare, even though I reached the "Held For Moderation" stage and my comments often NEVER appear.
Who said anything about Cloudflare? And, again, you're simply wrong if you claim they never appear. We don't let through spam comments, but we always let through critical comments, no matter how inane -- as yours tend to be.
By the way, I've NO intention of losing interest here for foreseeable future, so expect me nearly every day, interest in topic prevailing. Thanks.
Sure. Given how long you've been around the site, that doesn't surprise me. It does amaze me that someone would want to spend so much of their time trolling a site with inane comments, but, it's your life to waste as you choose. And it's our community's call as to whether or not your comments remain visible. So far, they don't seem to appreciate you much.
Perhaps try not making completely clueless statements that just reveal a staggering level of ignorance. Or is educating yourself not worth it in your ample free time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
Yup. And in twenty years, you've not accomplished anything visible except managed to insult people enough to get sued for fifteen million. I think I'm ahead.
Your reply here is just to insult, so seems you're in a rut.
Now, I'm DONE with ad hom and this topic. We're just not going to agree. I hope you'll actually Moderate, though: that'd be enough to fix the fanboys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoo boy.
If you believe Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit has any merit, you are more foolish as the rest of your comments prove you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hoo boy.
The problem is that unless they can agree to a menage a trois with MyNameHere, there's going to be drama...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hoo boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
Now, I'm DONE with ad hom and this topic. We're just not going to agree. I hope you'll actually Moderate, though: that'd be enough to fix the fanboys.
I can't help but find it funny that you think any theorettical moderation would go in your favor(you know, a hypocrite and admitted spammer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
But since you choose not to do without, it appears that you're fine with the status quo.
Be careful for what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
Of all the stupid things he always says all the time, I think that one may be the stupidest.
Like, does he really think you guys intentionally block his posts just so you can let them through later? The hell kind of sense does that make? If someone was blocking his posts, why wouldn't they just delete them all?
I often wonder, "Is this guy seriously that stupid, or is he just fucking with us?"
On the one hand, Hanlon's Razor favors the "seriously that stupid" explanation. On the other, I feel like if he really were as stupid as he appears, he would have long since met his end, by ingesting things he finds on the ground, or trying to pet oncoming traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
That Jaguar was purring so nicely!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
I don't think that conclusion is correct, but the logic at least appers internally self-consistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
That's roughly the answer I got when I brought it up one time, that those running the site have such massive... vendettas... Grudges... whatever, against them that they are constantly delaying certain comments to make it so people don't interact with them.
Three big problems with something like this is that it would require the TD staff to be constantly monitoring comments in order to catch them, care about the poor 'martyred' people, and it ignores the vastly easier and more sensible explanation like getting caught by a spam filter, and I don't see either of those first two nearly as likely as the third.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
Today's "This Week In Techdirt History" discussion is off to a good start. Your first post there was excellent. The discussion in last week's Prenda/hillary connection story remained downright civil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
In other words, he doesn't actually know what censorship is and doesn't understand that there's no contradiction between moderating posts in a private forum and simultaneously opposing government intervention in public ones? You don't say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except the ones we wish to make voiceless...
"However, the comments section was hijacked by users hiding behind pseudonyms spewing vitriol, bigotry, racism and sectarianism."
When they said things we did not like...
~comments closed~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except the ones we wish to make voiceless...
When Israel wants to boot them out of the country, you know they must be doing something right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except the ones we wish to make voiceless...
It is not good to assume that anyone is doing the right or wrong thing just because another you do or do not like is for or against them.
I have seen enemies become friends and friends enemies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong industry for that excuse
"We're gagging you because that's how we show we care" really only works as an excuse in a BDSM relationship, and I would certainly hope the various sites implementing such a change don't see their relationship with those that visit their sites that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong industry for that excuse
And yet that's exactly what Masnick tries on me above.
I'm grateful for the TOR Browser, else you pirates wouldn't even know anyone differed! What a walled garden this is! -- I didn't believe that way back, but now know it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong industry for that excuse
“Tries” being the operative word, since you typically do have your comments let through the spam filter—even after you spam them over and over and over. If they really did want to gag you, they would just, y’know, refuse to let any of your comments go through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
2) go on to claim the complainer is lying
3) never answer any questions
4) "it's been explained to you"
5) belittle and marginalize the complainer
6) while in process, use administrator control to hide responses
7) identify the complainer as a "troll" so your supporters will target
8) the old reliable "it's a joke, can't you take a joke?"
9) "don't know why you waste your time..."
10) "any human would ... why don't you?"
11) get in the triumphant last word -- which is easy when control the web-site
12) And most important is the overall: NEVER in least concede that a reasonable person might be offended, it's ALL the complainer's fault!
Masnick went right through checking off the list.
And icing on icing: in a topic about sites closing down comments!
---
Then there's this admission:
"He [Geigner] was not making that statement on his own behalf." -- Really? You know Geigner isn't a cat's-paw and STILL defend him? SO I'm right that was done at behest of you and Techdirt. You stated it. Don't try to walk it back now.
Man, would I LOVE to get you on the witness stand! You're going to slip like that, if go to trial, just like in the Gawker case: "well, how young before you would protect their privacy? ... Uh... Four." and BAM, the jury will DECIDE you have LOST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey wait a minute.
What happened to “I'm DONE with ad hom and this topic”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait a minute.
I'm done with both! This is just fun facts in summary, and certainly you clowns aren't done. -- Some only moved in when thought I was done, I guess. Bawk, bawk! -- OMG! Now I'm typing chicken noises! -- See what you clowns cause! If I had any brains, I would... okay, I'm stuck. This site is an addictive vice, I've always said. It's free-form foolishness.
(A bit later: two comments in and then there's that darn "Held For Moderation" again! And yet it doesn't happen!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey wait a minute.
You know, for all your whining about how badly Techdirt treats you, you are the one person capable of ending that treatment. All you have to do is stop the battered wife routine and leave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey wait a minute.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201411/excessive-attention-seeki ng-and-drama-addiction
http://www.psychforums.com/histrionic-personality/topic32539.html
His reaction to this comment will be interesting, but also expected and unavoidable.
I would think the best treatment (from us) would be to flag and ignore. He need in person professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
That's not what I said and you know it. I said that he was quoting President Obama, not saying it himself. I didn't state, nor imply, that he said it on behalf of me or Techdirt.
I mean, come on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
You can wiggle it's not what you meant, but THERE IT IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
I mean, this is fun for a late afternoon, pre-long weekend to kill some time, debunking trolls, but really, why do you bother? I'm curious. You've been on the site for so long. Most trolls grow out of it at some point. Yet you remain, and you go through various personas, pretending to be different people, but each more stupid and clueless than the next. Is it just the fun of trolling? Or is there something else there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
Pretty sure you mean "each more stupid and clueless than the last." If each were more stupid and clueless than the next, that would mean he was getting less stupid and clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How To Clean Up Your Comments Section In Twelve Easy Steps
Must be a RIAA thing for idiots to complain about numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who assists in publicizing the 'statements' of these ethnocidal psychopaths is, well, not thinking too clearly. The only action I can take is to tell you that, and that I won't be back to TD for a long, long time. Bookmark deleted; making space at the top of my list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my experience, people who announce their “leaving” a site will inevitably return—and with greater obnoxiousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't read the article and I'm offended that you even posted the headline.
You didn't read the article? And yet you're so offended by it.
Anyone who assists in publicizing the 'statements' of these ethnocidal psychopaths is, well, not thinking too clearly. The only action I can take is to tell you that, and that I won't be back to TD for a long, long time. Bookmark deleted; making space at the top of my list.
You created a brand new account (and, yes, I see you just created this account) just to post that you'll never be back? Fascinating.
Anyway, if you're so offended by Al Jazeera that you'd be so upset with us as to never read us again for criticizing Al Jazeera -- well, good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: theme birthday party planners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: theme birthday party planners
Only out_of_the_blue can deliver such a poignantly dismal level of failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downgrading commentary
As Karl correctly notes, “join the conversation on Twitter” is basically an invitation to have your thoughts lost in a sheer mass of noise. While this may be a poor way to give a voice to anyone, it does allow Al Jazeera to brag about their growing number of followers and to cherry-pick some inane praise out of the heap.
Placing a comment section on the same page with your content is a commitment to take your reader’s commentary seriously. Relegating it to social media, at this point, demonstrates nothing but contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Downgrading commentary
Well, unless it's Kinja.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Downgrading commentary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Downgrading commentary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Downgrading commentary
(You know something? I do say "well" a lot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al-Jazeera's extremist history
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-finds-havens-abroad/2013/1 1/05/438f2dfe-463a-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/208592/morsi-zaw ahiri-connection-raymond-ibrahim
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Egyptian-reports-highlight-alleged- Morsi-al-Qaida-cooperation-340556
https://www.globalmbwatch.com/wadah-khanfar/
Khanfar is now part of the International Crisis Group with George Soros. Have you noticed the recent proliferation of self-proclaimed communists, feminists, and gays who refuse to denounce Islam as these groups historically have? There might be a reason for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Al-Jazeera's extremist history
I sure haven't, but I'm sure Glenn Beck has a very complicated diagram on a blackboard to explain it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Al-Jazeera's extremist history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation ain't free
I don't blame them for deciding their efforts and money are better spent elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderation ain't free
If they had just said that instead of "we are giving a voice to the voiceless", then there would not be an article about it on Techdirt.
As has been noted several times already (hey, I guess people really don't read comments sections!), the issue isn't shutting down comments, it's the absurd double-talk that sites have taken to where they claim that they are shutting down comments to facilitate more conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moderation ain't free
But can I ask a question? Is there any set of facts that Al-Jazeera or other news organization could put forth where you would say, "yes, that makes sense, with those facts being true, there is more useful engagement on Facebook or Twitter than on your native commenting platform"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moderation ain't free
I don't have comments on my blog, because it's my blog and moderating comments is a pain in the ass. If anyone wants to talk to me, there's an e-mail form and a link to a messageboard where I'm a regular.
Same goes for any other individual or organization, no matter how big or how small; if you aren't interested in dealing with comments yourself and want to shunt them off to a third party, that's entirely up to you. Nobody's entitled to a comments section.
If they'd said "A site of our scale would require multiple full-time moderators to keep the comments section constructive, and we feel that our budget should be used for reporting instead," that would be a completely justifiable explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason why is (due to following trends with computers since Commodore 64 as a kid doing educational stuff) it's now harder and harder to find/build a computer. The people that knew how were old when computers were at their peak in the late 90s/00s (Bush era). These same people are retired thinking about kicking the bucket or dead.
This generation is sadly the ones that grew up playing video games on the original Xbox that only know FPS games or casual Candy Crush style.
There has been (at least) two generations born since the 80s computer and video game era who don't even know you could do things offline.
I have a caretaker who's little 10 year old brother was shocked you could play an older Starcraft RTS game offline on his 32 bit Windows XP. He (The brother) was totally amazed at the gameplay despite older graphics the game was actually better then modern FPS games with brainless AI since the focus is more in online chat where people ask "R U REDDY?" type chat speak.
*Actually I admit I don't know how to do chat speak very well*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of them will make a big deal but if you look at the power supply it will often say something like (350 watts) which is barely enough to power the machine on) You want AT LEAST 500 watts or more to run some basic 3D software and not have any components burn out a month later.
It's a way to scam you.
Most reviews you will see people buy computers generally for business only and don't even mention gaming or they ask "Can this Dell play Battlefield 4 if I swap in a graphics board"?" on the old dog that can barely turn on.
You will see A LOT of optiplex machines now which used to be buried in the results in 2009. These optiplexes are the dumb business machines that aren't geared towards gaming/graphics.etc. They have parts non configurable.
Been burned twice on them. Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice.............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]