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.

Lousy arguments

I'm not sure what some commenters are trying to prove with their comments, but if it is that they are responsible people who should be allowed a firearm--they are failing miserably.

One person is a case in point, I know he has an arrest, which shouldn't be used against him in court, but he tends to get drunk and leave abusive comments. Is that a person I really think should be allowed to own an object with a purpose to cause serious harm or death when used properly?

Gun control is about making sure that people who shouldn't have such items find it difficult to obtain them, which generally works when given the proper tools to enforce such laws.

In fact, it is truthful to say when someone who has a history of mental illness, antisocial behaviour, addiction, or frequent contacts with the police  says "you want to take our guns", that the answer is indeed "Yes", but that is because you probably are not the sort of person who should have a gun.

That may get all the gun loons in a corner who are already worried that some anonymous government agency is reading their thoughts through microchips to get even more paranoid and say "told ya so" with that paragraph being taken out of context, which is just plain off too bad.

So, I really don't give a shit if you know "who I really am" or where "I really live" because there are at least 5 CCTV cameras on my block and you will pass by many more to get to me.  Those are more useful in preventing your gun violence than more guns are.

Happy nightmares.

If you want to try to persuade us that you're not one of the 10, 20, 30, 40, and so on percenters--try to act normal and responsible.  That starts with not commenting while drunk, and not leaving abusive comments.

There is something about the relative anonymity on blogs which gives people a false sense of security in behaving badly.  Too often there is something about the presumption of empowerment on the part of weak people when they get their hands on a firearm that does the same thing - it turns them into assholes with poor judgment who still fail to impress anyone with their reasoning - OR their gun.

Gunloon non-arguments addressed

Let's see, there are so many ways they can take the argument off track starting out with saying something that is absolutely off topic, which is a good argument for moderation.

But let's start with something like "it's plagiarism", "copyright material", etcetera:

Serious non-argument for not addressing the actual assertion. Ironically used since gunloons tend to repost the same material all over the internet since it usually increases the position on search engine results.

That's probably why they hate it when the other side does it as well.

Saying something is plagiarism without addressing the substance is one of the more intellectually lazy attempts to silence the opposition that I know. This isn't an academic review--it's an effing blog fer chrissake!

The problem is that they are trying to block the dissemination of information while stacking the deck for their own.

Can't forget the old ad hominem, or some other comment about the person, rather than what has been mentioned in the post. Come on, people, address the topic that has been raised--not get personal.

The Gish Gallop, which is where you drown the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time: LegalEagle45 did that.

Basically, we are talking about tricks to keep from really addressing the issue and try to silence the opposition.

Yeah, yeah, you're gonna get all pouty on me and say, "but you're moderating our comments!"

Yep, we started doing it because you couldn't act like adults and try to have a real conversation.

See:

• Recognizing Propaganda Techniques and Errors of Faulty Logic

P.S. the comment approval system is stupid.

Then don't bloody comment.

We did this because some anonymous posters were just not following the rules (Seriously, if I'm supposed to be nice...).

Besides, the First Amendment does not apply to private individuals, only governmental action--and the governmental action of the United States and its territories at that!

We are under no obligation to publish your comments, or even to read them. And this includes responding to your idiotic comments.

Although, we will let most of them through, even just for pure amusement purposes!

Despite what you may think, moderation is not censorship--especially if it keeps the dialogue on topic and civilised.

I might even be polite to you if you can behave.

Although, I do have to admit that things are pretty quiet now without the sock puppet chorus!