Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian Publishes Comment Abuse Stats, Invites Debate On Moderation (theguardian.com)
AmiMoJo writes: British newspaper The Guardian has published some stats on its popular comment sections attached to each story. So far the Guardian's site has received 70 million comments, of which around 2% were removed for violation of community standards. Articles written by women tended to get the most blocked comments, especially if they were in male-writer dominated sections like sports and technology, while fashion was one of the few areas where men got more abuse. Further down the article the reader is invited to moderate some sample comments and see how their actions compared to those of the paper's staff. You can leave suggestions for improvement here.
I have given up on commenting there because I know how they rate their 'community standards'
It was an article on the flood of millions of migrants into Europe and I was asking if it is wise to allow so many of those who have no intention of integrate into the European culture ... and my comment was nuked
There was no cussing
There was no degrading of any specific race
There was not even any mention of religion
I was only commenting on the wisdom of allowing so many of those who had shown to not interested of integration --- and for that, I somehow has violated their 'community standard'
As I said, I've given up commenting there --- them European liberals simply cannot tolerate anyone questioning what they do
Totally useless !
Captcha: despair
I went through their list of would you allow or block thing, and wow. Most of the comments I looked at and said, "well, I disagree with your opinion, but you're free to it and it's not overly trolly so allow", and they blocked almost all of those. It sort of felt like censorship of anything that didn't fit their view point. If that's how they run their news site, I actually kind of get your statement on credibility.
People who hold views that are contrary to the majority are targets for abuse. Moderation promotes groupthink. Take Slashdot for example.
You don't understand Slashdot's moderation method? And no one is blocked - ever. browse at a lower mod level, and accept that not everyone will agree with you.
You might even be exhibiting a little bit of Guardianesque ideas, in that you don't seem to want anyone to disagree with you.
We've had a number of posters here lately that are pissed that someone replies, and disagrees with them. Life just doesn't work that way, and Slashdot has come up with the best way to exist with the tragedy of the commons ever.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
[...] but there is a fair amount of groupthink here, [...]
It's less of a problem than many people who are part of the groupthink clusters seem to think. My observation is that with a few exceptions, any comment which falls into groupthink territory tends to have its "+1, Agree" upvotes and "-1, Disagree" downvotes balanced out. Such comments never get to either -1 or +5.
It's rare that all groupthink clusters align on Slashdot to the point where a non-troll comment gets moderated to -1. I think the only time it's ever happened to me was when I advocated Deep Space 9.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Here in Brazil, usually when a site has a comment section based on Facebook is guaranteed that you will find the dumbest people you can imagine posting the most absurd/hatefull/shitty things. To avoid getting sick I usually block Facebook in its entirety using adblock and noscript.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time