Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Moderation is not censorship

Sometimes, you have to keep the discussion on track and not bring in distracting items.  In this case, I am referring to PopularScience.com's decision to stop taking comments.
It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.
Some people want to cut short rational discussion.  There is the 50 Cent Party and it's right wing US equivalent that sees the words "Second Amendment" and comes to argue gun rights--even if its a second amendment to a community dog park proposal in Effing Sodbury. 

Anyway, the Popular Science post pointed out that:
But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that even just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.
If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
Reading comment threads on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilised than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterised by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.

Articles about the environment and gun control are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it’s a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard the opposition with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often it has been discredited. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible – which appears to be the point.

The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend be more willing to discuss an issue than these right-wing libertarians, many of whom seek instead to shut down debate.

The problem is that this is a matter of public safety, which now that the science has been unleashed will show that it has been guided by fiction and fantasy.  That is not the proper way to run a public policy debate.

Now, I know that the usual suspects will complain, but it has to be said.

44 comments:

  1. Mike,

    The whole reason most of us come here is to look for a full debate. Can you not remember all of the times we asked Laci to come back and answer questions, to engage us on the actual points we were raising? Granted it's been a long time since we bothered asking, though that's not because we stopped wanting the dialogue but because He made it clear that he wouldn't give it to us because he was too intelligent to be bothered with defending his positions against the likes of us. Since then, he and Jade have done nothing but insult us and try to shame people into silence.

    You get upset if we toss an insult back, but with the exception of Kevin, you don't call out your side when they engage in behaviors aimed solely at shutting down debate. Jim has been a primary offender here, and you hold him up as an example of a reasonable gun owner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for the Popular Mechanics article--there's something desperately wrong within the Scientific Community when it talks about defending "Bedrock Scientific Doctrine" against being questioned. Beyond the incongruity of talking about "scientific doctrine" is the fact that a scientifically proven/provable thing should be able to be defended against all questions, coming out of the experience stronger.

      Delete
    2. You scum are rich. Being new here I came on to being called a sock puppet and a liar multiple times on multiple posts. I said nothing to provoke that, and yes, after a number of times I responded, in kind. I didn't miss the fact that you treated Mike and other authors here, the same. Telling them to fuck off and calling them liars. Mike will do what he wants including moderation. As for me, you guys have proven to my satisfaction that you are scum and use scum tactics to debate, and I will treat you as sum. Serious debaters do not use those kind of scum tactics.

      Delete
    3. Jim, you have never explained yourself or your positions. You refuse to answer questions. You claim to have a carry license, but you won't go into detail about why or how under what circumstances you carry. All of that creates reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    4. BS I've answered your questions and explained what you have asked. What a liar. What about you being a jack ass to me, a stranger to you when I started commenting here. That's the way you treat strangers, like an ass hole.

      Delete
    5. You have never offered an explanation about the things I raised above. Now you've lied about doing so. You're not even interesting anymore.

      Delete
    6. Jim,

      We were skeptical about your claims and said as much. For a short time, you tried to allay that skepticism, but then you decided to take offense at it, without it being expressed again, and started responding with vitriol. Since then, yes, we've continued to express our skepticism--your reaction mirrors that of the type of disingenuous trolls we first thought you might be.

      Now, you add lying about what you have explained and haven't explained on top of the insults, vitriol, and twisting of our words. It's not a good combination

      Delete
    7. Two ass hole liars. Nothing more to say. They can't read, yet they lie about it anyways. What position? You said explain the position you mentioned above. Position on what? You mentioned nothing specific, just your usual twisting crap when I make you look like the stupid ass holes you are.

      Delete
    8. T., You are hopeless. "there's something desperately wrong within the Scientific Community when it talks about defending "Bedrock Scientific Doctrine" against being questioned."

      In Laci's post, it was clear that the Popular Science folks were not talking about "being questioned." They were talking about being overwhelmed by "trolls and spambots."

      Delete
    9. Jim, I'm going to give you a chance:

      1. Why do you have a carry license?

      2. Under what circumstances do you carry?

      3. What regulations do you believe are or would be appropriate with regard to firearms ownership and carry?

      I've asked you these things many times before. Here's your chance again.

      Delete
    10. The "deliverance" boys (NRA Greg and TN) won't answer questions but demand that we do. I guess they will make me squeal like a pig if I don't answer. Their hillbilly intelligence can't understand, but that won't stop them from chasing me down in the woods and making me squeal like a pig. Yes NRA "deliverance" Boy Greg, I am good looking with a nice ass you can play with

      Delete
    11. Mikeb, I want you to observe that I gave Jim a chance. We see the result. Do you continue to call him reasonable?

      Delete
    12. Yes. His views on gun rights vs. gun control are quite reasonable. Yours on the other hand are not.

      Delete
    13. Mike: "In Laci's post, it was clear that the Popular Science folks were not talking about "being questioned." They were talking about being overwhelmed by 'trolls and spambots.'"

      Yes, they were talking about trolls and spam bots being used as an automated system to subvert scientific discussion. However, look at the context:
      "Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science."

      They are talking about the trolls and spambots being used to undermine scientific doctrine in their comments section, but it is clear from the context that their offense at this is that it is happening in the wider culture--they just take it more personally since the trolls and spambots are doing it on their own turf.

      I was talking about the broader issue they talked about--the one they expressed disapproval of and said was being grotesquely reflected in their comments.

      My point is that science is supposed to be seeking truth and always looking for holes in its own theories and how to properly explain them. The article takes specific offense at the presence of any debate regarding evolution and anthropogenic global warming.

      Regarding evolution, the Big Bang is the currently favored theory, but it is not established fact. It has holes in it, foremost among them is that we have all of this matter around us and no equivalent amount of antimatter. So far there is no mechanism to explain this. Maybe they'll find something, or maybe there will be a new model that replaces the Big Bang just as relativistic physics replaced Newtonian physics.

      Regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, we have a large camp supporting it, and a small camp supporting other theories. Some of the opposing theories have good points to offer--e.g. sunspots DO affect our climate, unquestionably; the point of contention is which factor is causing the most influence.

      An unbiased scientific position would look at the interplay of all factors, but the current orthodoxy that--the bedrock doctrine--must be accepted according to the folks at PM, and the debate is put in quotation marks to imply that there can be none. And so, we miss potentially valuable insights that could be gained from the work of the scientists working on the interplay of sunspots.

      For example, what if we cut all carbon emissions, damaging the economy, but reducing the greenhouse effect--and yet this isn't enough because the existing CO2, plus the increasing solar activity, keep warming us. If that's a real possibility--or if it's mostly the sun--we might be better off cutting emissions more gradually and working on ways to deal with a warmer planet--with the good and bad effects.

      We need rigorous debate and challenging of assumptions all through science--on the frontiers of it and on the bedrock assumptions--or we will stagnate as so many past cultures have.

      Delete
    14. Mike,

      Regarding the exchange with Jim, you say his positions are reasonable, but he has not stated what they are, only agreed with a lot of what you say. Greg's questions were quite clear and reasonable. We have answered far more detailed questions when asked.

      Meanwhile, Jim responded with lies, vitriol, and slander. It's Ironic that you would defend him when he's such an obvious troll--especially on a post that complains about how trollish behavior only polarizes debates.

      Delete
    15. Mikeb, I've tried to engage Jim in reasonable discussions. He won't do it. He goes off ranting about one bit of nonsense or another. His latest obsession with Deliverance is an example. But it's good to see you acknowledge that you consider someone who rants and raves and froths at the mouth to be reasonable.

      Delete
    16. Since you have refused to answer my questions. I see no reason to answer yours. Since you call me names and do not converse seriously, I see no reason to do anything but that with you. So I will address you as you have addressed me. Now go brush your missing teeth hillbilly "deliverance" boy.

      Delete
    17. Right, it's so reasonable of you "deliverance" boys to call people liars, then expect some reasonable reply. Must be that hillbilly, no tooth, perverted reasoning.

      Delete
    18. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions to you, from weeks ago. Shove your lies up your hillbilly ass, then have your hillbilly buddy fudge pack it for you.

      Delete
    19. Well, now that Jim has descended to the same level Kevin did, I'm wondering if you'll distance yourself from him, Mike?

      Delete
    20. Jim,

      What questions are you waiting for answers about? I know you kept saying that about your question about carry restrictions in the Old West, even after Texas and I responded (though you chewed Texas out since you apparently just wanted Greg to reply).

      Eventually, I think Greg did go back and give an answer, but I can't remember since I don't remember what post that was on.


      If you want responses to your questions, re-ask them or link to the threads where you asked them originally.

      Delete
    21. Take the games you play, the lies you spew, and the insults you fling and bring them back to the woods where you and you "deliverance" buddy can try and entice young boys to to believe sucking you dicks is "the right thing to do."

      Delete
    22. Any comment, Mikeb? Are you getting the point yet?

      Delete
    23. Greg, your lies come so fast I can't keep up.

      "But it's good to see you acknowledge that you consider someone who rants and raves and froths at the mouth to be reasonable."

      I've made it very clear I feel Jim's position on gun rights vs. gun control is reasonable, not his exaggerated remarks which push your buttons. Now, I know you knew that because I've said it a couple times recently. But, for you telling the truth is optional.

      Delete
    24. Jim, it's time for you to lighten up just a wee bit.

      Delete
    25. Mikeb, Jim doesn't give his position on things, other than to mock others. So neither of us know what he believes. But if you feel that someone with as much obvious rage as he has is a responsible gun owner and a reasonable person, then why do you want gun control?

      Delete
    26. Ah, time for him to lighten up a wee bit, eh.

      I guess the homophobic remarks were a bit much, but as long as he avoids that he's welcome to continue intentionally misconstruing or misrepresenting our words, and sometimes even lying about what we say, all without being called out since he's, ostensibly, on your side.

      Delete
    27. As I remember it, Jim gave us several posts in which he explained his beliefs. But, apparently he grew frustrated with your mocking responses. It didn't take long for you and T. to begin calling him a troll and a liar about the very fact of being a gun owner. Now you're crying about his undisguised antagonism towards you?

      In other words you're full of shit again, Greg. We've already been given a very clear picture of where Jim's coming from and what he stands for.

      Delete
    28. Mike,

      In those posts, he kept saying that he was a gun owner and had a carry permit, but all he kept saying was that we needed gun control and all the places that he would never carry a gun. He never fleshed things out with a more clear statement of "we need gun control, but it needs to go this far and no further" or "this is why and where I carry."

      As for our responses, I suggested he might not be for real on his first post. He took offense and then started writing rationally, and I apologized and started thinking he was for real. Then, when we didn't agree with him, he became vitriolic and started showing definite internet troll tendencies, so I went back to considering him such.

      Since then, Jim has become nothing more than the troll living under the bridge. All he comes here to do is post inane comments aimed at polarizing things and derailing discussion by making accusations of rape, homosexuality, pedophilia, inbreeding, etc. etc. etc.

      Your constant defense of him actively sucks away your credibility and taints you with the stain of his behavior.

      Delete
    29. Quit whining. Jim has been quite clear on what he stands for and the names he calls you are not much worse than my own "gun rights fanatics" and Greg's "gun control freaks."

      You're the one who's trying to divert the argument onto an examination of Jim's behavior. Stick with the gun debate and stop complaining.

      Delete
    30. Umm, this was a post about troll and how their behavior degrades debates--not a gun debate post. I was just discussing the topic Laci brought up.

      As for Jim's comments, you have called him out yourself for his explicit remarks and accusations of rape and pedophilia. Guess you're taking that back now--he's just a good gun controller. Don't worry, I won't be returning to this thread to belabor this point anymore, but thanks for making it clear that you support Jim completely, regardless of what filth spews from his mouth. So much for the reasonable gun control blogger you once were--the company you keep and defend has descended to a new nadir.

      Delete
    31. You won't be returning to the thread as long as you can get the last lying, bullshit comment in there first.

      1. I didn't "call Jim out." I asked him to lighten up, which he did.
      2. It is NOT clear that "I support Jim completely." I tolerate his excesses, up to a point, and agree with his gun control opinions.

      You exaggerate, twist and spin every fucking thing you get ahold of. And all the while you keep pointing fingers at others.

      Delete
  2. Laci,

    Before you talk about trolls insulting others and trying to shut down debate, remove the log from thine own eye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find nothing insulting about this post. Laci is making the obvious connection between what the Popular Science comment threads experienced and what we on the gun control blogs experience. A day doesn't go by that I don't point out your lies and distortions, yours and Greg's, mainly. And the repetition with which you offer this nonsense certainly rises to the level of what most people find intolerable. Fortunately, I'm the exception being an extremely patient and persistent man.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, you have yet to catch me in a lie. You make a lot of claims, but when it comes down to actual evidence, you come up short.

      Delete
    3. Mike,

      You keep calling me a liar, but you keep intentionally misconstruing what I say in order to do so rather than meeting me point for point in debate the way I try to meet you and Laci. The most you have caught me in was unintentional errors which I admitted and thanked you for pointing out.

      As for this post, no, it was not insulting. I didn't SAY that it was. I said that Laci has a problem with trollish behavior and that he should correct that before preaching to others. Look at his other posts--Ignorance is Greg, the recent video that insulted us as not being able to string together a coherent argument, the history of insults about how we, and anyone on our side or the issue, are too stupid to deserve talking to, etc.

      That is the log I was referring to, not this particular post.

      Delete
  3. Laci, you're quoting an article that describes moderation to remove irrelevant or purposely disruptive comments. But what you want is to eliminate anything that disagrees with you. As Tennessean pointed out, you refuse to participate. This doesn't put you in a position of superiority. It just means that you have nothing useful to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, Greg. Laci has had lots of useful things to say. Your personal attacks notwithstanding, there's been many a lengthy discussion based on Laci's posts.

      Delete
    2. Can you people not pay attention? I didn't ask about the discussion that many of us have on Laci's posts. I asked why Laci himself never addresses specific questions or objections asked of him.

      Delete
    3. What you said was he has "nothing useful to say." You didn't say he "never addresses specific questions or objections asked of him."

      Can't you tell the fucking truth within two comments just one day apart?

      Delete
    4. Can't you tell the truth about comments you're responding to, Mike?

      Greg said that Laci refuses to participate in these discussions. The next sentence said that THIS--the refusal to participate--showed that he didn't have anything useful to say.

      You're continuing to take quotes out of context, twist what we say, and then call us liars.

      Delete
    5. Exactly, Tennessean. I'd be pleased to address Laci's posts if he'd participate in the discussion. Of course, by participate, I mean answer objections, treat others as worthy of civility, and so forth. But his style is to repeat things he's said many times before and never respond to any criticisms, then insult anyone who disagrees with him.

      Delete
  4. I took this to be Laci revealing his blog strategy playbook. "if you don't see the benefits for using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot". Was that a direct quote from LTD himself?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The true test of a moderation policy's fairness is whether obnoxious or trolling comments from all sides are removed or only just those that come from one side.

    ReplyDelete