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.
The same Guardian that has "quality journalism" on the top of the site,
yet makes quality articles of mental psychosis such as manspreading,
and even supported the bullying and defamation of a Rosetta scientist because of a shirt he wore?
Why is such a site even posted on slashdot? Might as well post GAWKER articles.
What they failed to do was publish articles written by one gender/race under the alias of the opposing gender/race, serving it to part of the internet and seeing if there is a difference in the number of negative responses. They also didn't track the geographic region of the originating blocked posts. No conclusions can be taken from these numbers besides, "some people on the internet are assholes" which we already knew for a certainty thanks to the youtube comment sections.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What's with the "community"? There are no "community" standards — the removed messages were deemed offensive by a handful of moderators. Moderators prone to keeping some posts more equal than others and susceptible to manipulation by evil regimes.
Calling them "community" is redefining terms...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Or at least... a Slashcode-like commenting, moderation, and meta-moderation system.
For all we complain about it here, and for all the trolling that occurs, the Slashdot moderation system seems to have passed the test of time reasonably enough.
Perhaps it's a little like that infamous definition of Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Leftists do not tolerate challenging questions, legitimate or otherwise. There is epithet for all forms of dissent; in this case you committed racism and you're a xenophobe. Hope you didn't use your RL name.
Because attacking anyone who raises issues of equality as an "SJW" is such an extraordinary sign of tolerance.
There's nothing I love better than a partisan of one side of the political spectrum attacking members of the other side in a way that makes it clear they're just as guilty of the same illogic and sheer stupidity. Or, to put it more simply for someone like you; POT... KETTLE... BLACK
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Since you can turn off all moderation filtering (which I do, the site is quite boring if you read at higher mod levels), it's up to you as the reader. That seems to me to be the best approach. In other words, short of a few rather abusive posters (like APK when he goes off his meds), moderation only exists if you, the reader, decides it does.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
RASCIST!!!!!
So, for example, they cite that 8 or their 10 most "abused" contributors were women (4 white, 4 not). But since the newspaper has a great deal of coverage of "women's" issues including a lot of highly opinionated articles about feminism -- but no corresponding articles, or sections, concerning men's issues their coverage is neither balanced, nor able to show how much abuse their "men's" writers would get, since they don't have any.
They also counted all "moderated" comments (ones that do not meet their community standards) as being abusive and they assume that the abuse is directed against the author. However, they remove comments that are off-topic and ones that make personal comments about other commentators. So a comment that was removed because it insulted a commentator who was attacking the article (i.e. the insulter was supporting the author), would be counted as abuse against that author. They do not give reasons for removing comments and only have the single classification.
Finally, The Guardian admits that it does not moderate either consistently: applying different levels of rigor depending on the topic, nor does it moderate all articles to the same extent. It also does not open all it's articles up to comments.
In all, while their analysis does point to there being online abuse - they reckon they delete 2% of articles, from the 70 million submitted so far, the results are patchy, inconsistent and cherry-picked. It would never pass a peer review and seems to have been published more to push the newspaper's own agenda, rather than as an authoritative work to highlight a problem (they don't say if the level of "abuse" is rising or falling since they started in 1999).
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Your comment was nuked because you made a baseless claim that they don't want to integrate. That is degrading. If you can't see why, you should get a refund on your education, as it failed you massively. If you could post the verbatim full text of your comment we could get to the bottom of this. As it is it sounds like your lack of critical thinking and desire to leap to the inaccurate led to the nuking, which is fair enough. I guess the Guardian doesn't want their comments section filled with idiots making stupid generalisations about people they don't know anything about.
Maybe if you didn't put labels on people to such a staggering degree, and thinking that all wearers of a label you've given them think entirely the same, you'd have fewer problems with people calling out your lazy thought processes. In a single post your argument hinges on all "SJWs" thinking exactly the same, and all "leftists" too. You appear to be terrible at critical thinking. No wonder you are so confused and angry.
Get real. Comments that go against the agenda are nuked for any or no reason beyond that they go against the agenda. The standard you're applying is only applied to one side of a position. One thing you can say about Slashdot, your comment may be moderated to the basement by groupthink, but at least it's there for people looking.
It's not about the gender of the author, it's about the agenda of the author.
How do you figure that? It sounds like you are saying female authors troll their readers more.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
People who spout "SJW" all over the show rarely demonstrate nuanced thought.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Maybe if you didn't put labels on people to such a staggering degree, and thinking that all wearers of a label you've given them think entirely the same, you'd have fewer problems with people calling out your lazy thought processes. In a single post your argument hinges on all "SJWs" thinking exactly the same, and all "leftists" too. You appear to be terrible at critical thinking. No wonder you are so confused and angry.
So using their own label that they've defined theselves is a "lazy thought process." Why do I bet that if this was 1989, you'd be right there screaming about the regressive right, and whining that people too stupid and unable to engage in critical thinking to be able to take care of their nutjobs.
But hey, if you want to learn something then go back and re-read my post. If however you want those people who are the regressive left to continue turning around and pissing all over your values while saying "people are confused and angry" and "simply don't get it." By all means continue, it's not like there aren't some of us who are old enough to have seen the writing on the walls with this type of stuff and are saving you some humiliation. By the by, you're either projecting or a mind reader. Since we know the latter can't exist, you must be the first.
Om, nomnomnom...
(I'm in Belgium)
When governments and societies take foreigners and group them together geographically, you end up with small enclaves where there's ca no reason or need to learn the national language.
I can show you places in here in Belgium, where Arabic will help you more than French or Flemish, there are sections in Frankfurt where you might as well speak Turkish, large area in northern Mexico where half the population only speaks german and sections of Spain where no-one speaks anything but UK English.
Yes, some people have no interest in integrating, but when there's no way to even use the national language, at lot of foreigners end up giving up trying to learn it.
>"Muslims are 'not like us' and we should just accept they will never integrate, says former racial equalities chief Trevor Phillips"
Replace "Muslims" with "Black people" and you have an exact quote from Hendrik Verwoerd. He was wrong, so is this "authority" you are appealing to now.
Ironically -even if it was true, why is it an issue ? Why does emigrating have to mean giving up your culture ? As long as you abide by the local laws, why can't you keep your culture ? Why would "not integrating" scare anybody ? I don't recall British folk showing up all over the world ever making any effort to integrate in the countries they showed up in (dominate and steal all the resources yes, integrate - nope). Compared to that, some people living there who have another culture and leaves you alone is frankly not even an inconvenience, let alone a reason to be concerned.
There are quite a lot of my fellow Afrikaners living in Britain and Australia now. They all still speak Afrikaans. Still have their weekend braais the way *we* do them (which is nothing like a barbeque), hell the import large swaths of our cultural delicacies like Biltong into those countries and are even starting to produce them locally. They sure as hell didn't fully integrate into those societies, in fact, they mostly live together in neighbourhoods where their neighbours speak their home language.
I don't recall ever seeing anybody post a panicked response about the influx of hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners into those countries - and considering the vast majority of the Afrikaners who left genuinely *are* the worst of the worst our culture has to offer, the hardcore racist fucks who couldn't stand the idea of a black government (and those who left for other reasons - career related and such really are a tiny minority) - they actually deserved scrutiny, far more than some people fleeing for their lives from countries torn apart by wars which the UK helped start.
So where was your comment then ? The vast majority of all emigrants *ever* has chosen not to integrate and even where some integration happens hardly any has ever FULLY integrated. You know what ? That's okay.
You don't NEED to push integration, in a generation or two it happens all by itself. You have kids growing up in a culture thats different from the one at home, speaking a language in school other than the one their parents speak - they grow up a lot more integrated, and their kids even more so. The internal culture-clash of imigrant children does the integration for you - no need to force it, no need to even ask for it. Just sit back, relax, have a beer and let it happen automatically like it always has.
And maybe you'll end up with a few of those rare enclaves where it really doesn't happen - like the small town in Argentina where Afrikaners settled who fled British rule after the war a century ago, or the towns in Southern Brazil that mostly speak German and Italian... and if that happens ? So what ? None of those groups are harming anybody. None of them are affecting the rest of the population in any negative way. Not a single one is intruding on anybody else's right to live by whatever culture THEY prefer... why should you demand the right to dictate the muslim emigrants MUST adopt western culture to live in western countries ?
You wouldn't give up YOUR heritage so easily, and white folk living in the middle east make no effort to integrate generally, they don't abandon their heritage - why do you think you have a right to demand it of these folk ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Integration isn't a binary thing. I doubt anyone doesn't integrate at all, not eating any local food, knowing any of the local language, watching any local TV, importing all goods and possessions from their original country etc. Between that and integrating so much they couldn't be distinguished from a native there is a whole spectrum.
Anyway, is there any evidence that significant numbers don't want to integrate to any significant degree? And what do you consider significantly integrated? Being fluent in the local language, giving up their religion for the local one, finding a job?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Quit blaming us for your own clear inability to get along with each other. You are barbarians stuck in a highly sectarian backwater. If you don't have some brutal tyrant keeping you in line, you start killing each other. Even if you manage something resembling modern democracy, you will immediately start to abuse each other.
You can't blame the West for the fact that you hate and kill each other. You also can't blame the West for the fact that the only kind of government that works for you is subjugation by a brutal warlord.
Your humanitarian crisis is all on you.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.