First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Should Threads About News Stories/Studies Be Closed If They Link To, Say Stormfront Or PrisonPlanet?
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16
This is a thread about sites known by everyone across the political spectrum for being untrustworthy when it comes to news. Should thread like these be closed, when they're based not on sound science, or reputable news sources, but on bigotry and conspiracy?

What are CR's rules on that?

One of the reason why I do fear this is because a great deal of trustworthy is subjective. That is all.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/16
99% of the posts on here are nothing more than opinions and those don't get deleted/closed usually. I don't see why a link to a news source (regardless of whether or not it's trustworthy) should be closed if people are simply discussing it. As long as doesn't devolve into a personal attacks thread then who the hell cares?

It's not like people don't post enough stupid shit on here as it is...
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

dotsforlife wrote:

99% of the posts on here are nothing more than opinions and those don't get deleted/closed usually. I don't see why a link to a news source (regardless of whether or not it's trustworthy) should be closed if people are simply discussing it. As long as doesn't devolve into a personal attacks thread then who the hell cares?

It's not like people don't post enough stupid shit on here as it is...


Because opinions don't have to be trustworthy to get a thread about them, and usually threads are comprised of more than just opinions because this isn't some blog post. They have to offer discussion value of some sort or any other function, depending on the nature of the sub forum, to be considered of value to topic posting and discussion. But when the discussion is based on nothing more than lies or bigotry, when the nature of the source is revealed to be specious, or otherwise inflammatory in nature, than what kind of discussion can we get from that? It is entirely possible to have a civilized discussion with an inflammatory post, but this doesn't make the opening any less off putting or without the proclivities of descending into madness.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

99% of the posts on here are nothing more than opinions and those don't get deleted/closed usually. I don't see why a link to a news source (regardless of whether or not it's trustworthy) should be closed if people are simply discussing it. As long as doesn't devolve into a personal attacks thread then who the hell cares?

It's not like people don't post enough stupid shit on here as it is...


Because then it's just flamebaiting. If someone posted a serious topic on say, an article from an Onion, it would probably be considered A. Trolling and this would greatly diminish the return value in discussion. Not to mention certain opinions have been edited, I.E. Dante's post on Jew Supremacy and whatnot. And when you spam an entire forum, with these links JUST to prove your point, it gets really, REALLY annoying.


Why single out those 2 sites then? There's plenty of baiting that goes on here. Seems odd to want to limit content a user can reference whilst turning a blind eye to the rest.
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

dotsforlife wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

99% of the posts on here are nothing more than opinions and those don't get deleted/closed usually. I don't see why a link to a news source (regardless of whether or not it's trustworthy) should be closed if people are simply discussing it. As long as doesn't devolve into a personal attacks thread then who the hell cares?

It's not like people don't post enough stupid shit on here as it is...


Because then it's just flamebaiting. If someone posted a serious topic on say, an article from an Onion, it would probably be considered A. Trolling and this would greatly diminish the return value in discussion. Not to mention certain opinions have been edited, I.E. Dante's post on Jew Supremacy and whatnot. And when you spam an entire forum, with these links JUST to prove your point, it gets really, REALLY annoying.


Why single out those 2 sites then? There's plenty of baiting that goes on here. Seems odd to want to limit content a user can reference whilst turning a blind eye to the rest.


Flamebaiting in any form is really not allowed, and the mods are already pretty loose about what they considered flamebaiting. And you do realize I included two extreme examples because they're notorious for being racist and or being untrustworthy. Have you even heard of Stormfront? It's a forum for racists. I can't say Fox News, because that would alienate a great deal of people, and I don't want to do that, I want to single it out to the most egregious example, which it isn't limited too.

Also, reread the post you quote, I redone it to sound better, but you were quick on the trigger.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16


And this is a forum for discussion on an anime site. Yet topics that are considered taboo or even "flamebaiting" are often discussed amongst the users in a level manner even when they come from questionable sources. So again, why are you singling out those 2 sites? As long as the user isn't using the topic to attack someone here it's perfectly fine (as has been proven time and time again on CR already).
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

dotsforlife wrote:



And this is a forum for discussion on an anime site. Yet topics that are considered taboo or even "flamebaiting" are often discussed amongst the users in a level manner even when they come from questionable sources. So again, why are you singling out those 2 sites?

It seems you haven't heard of Stormfront, but it is quite literally a forum for racists, frequented by the likes of David Duke and friends, and prisonplanet is a conspiracy theory website.

Here's the wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)


Again, I choose to fringe examples that are consistently not trustworthy and that no one in the right mind would even choose to cite as a reputable source.

Another point I want to add is that it is not about topics that are taboo, but posts which lean towards being inflammatory due to language used, and various other factors. I admit, some topics naturally lean toward inflammatory, but could still gain traction as a true blue discussion, but when threads with posts with harsh wording that may or may not demonize a great deal of people on the opposing side, I believe it would be closed down. If a post accused all blacks of contributing to crime, it would surely be closed down, would it not? Versus a post saying that a great deal of blacks do contribute to crime. So why not close down threads that link to consistently hateful, consistently untrustworthy sites?


In essence, what your philosophy on forum posting seems to be that we shouldn't close a great deal or possibly any threads, no matter how inflammatory the opening post was, because we can in fact derive decent discussion despite the opening post, if we do in fact derive healthy discussion from the post. Wait, worded that wrong. Oh well, you get my point.

Time and time again CR has demonstrated that flaming topics do in fact lead to unhealthy attacks on users. Otherwise why close them down?
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

This is a thread about sites known by everyone across the political spectrum for being untrustworthy when it comes to news. Should thread like these be closed, when they're based not on sound science, or reputable news sources, but on bigotry and conspiracy?

What are CR's rules on that?

One of the reason why I do fear this is because a great deal of trustworthy is subjective. That is all.[/quotete are you against free speech?
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

biscuitnote wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

This is a thread about sites known by everyone across the political spectrum for being untrustworthy when it comes to news. Should thread like these be closed, when they're based not on sound science, or reputable news sources, but on bigotry and conspiracy?

What are CR's rules on that?

One of the reason why I do fear this is because a great deal of trustworthy is subjective. That is all.


Stormfront is a legit site are you against free speech?


The forum doesn't have free speech though. It's what I believe to be a privately owned forum where a great deal of liberty is given to its user to discuss a great deal of subjects, but make no mistake, the mods can close anything at their own discretion, and the actions one can take against the abuses of the mods are few throughout. Now I think a healthy dose of freedom are needed to stimulate discussion, but when one takes discussion topic and makes something upsetting to a great deal of users, and unnecessarily upsetting to a great deals of users, I can't help but wonder if it crossed a line.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

It seems you haven't heard of Stormfront, but it is quite literally a forum for racists, frequented by the likes of David Duke and friends, and prisonplanet is a conspiracy theory website.

Here's the wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)


Again, I choose to fringe examples that are consistently not trustworthy and that no one in the right mind would even choose to cite as a reputable source.

Another point I want to add is that it is not about topics that are taboo, but posts which lean towards being inflammatory due to language used, and various other factors. I admit, some topics naturally lean toward inflammatory, but could still gain traction as a true blue discussion, but when threads with posts with harsh wording that may or may not demonize a great deal of people on the opposing side, I believe it would be closed down. If a post accused all blacks of contributing to crime, it would surely be closed down, would it not? Versus a post saying that a great deal of blacks do contribute to crime. So why not close down threads that link to consistently hateful, consistently untrustworthy sites?


No, I haven't heard of it. That's entirely irrelevant though. The point is, you're basically asking the site to censor what is and isn't ok to use as the source for discussion because you feel nothing can come from it. That's what it boils down to. I think it's fine as it is now, where mods look at each thread as an individual situation. If the thread or posts within it turn out to be against the rules of the site then they get closed and/or deleted.

There's always the option to simply report the topic, leave a reason and move along. Or ignore it...

I do get what you're saying, and that shit can certainly be annoying, but the problems that would come with it would outweight it.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16
No.

It leads to a slippery slope where the moderator determines which political/social opinions are appropriate for everyone to read.
2390 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16
To be fair, there is still some merit to debating and pointing out faults of news sources, even ones that are outrageously wrong.

If anything just to serve as a way to hopefully educate some people on whatever fallacy might arise into public consciousness.

I do see your point in a way, that some will take no head to other points presented to them, and take whatever is written in print as fact. That is a quandary. But that's human nature itself. I don't know what to tell you, man.
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16

dotsforlife wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

It seems you haven't heard of Stormfront, but it is quite literally a forum for racists, frequented by the likes of David Duke and friends, and prisonplanet is a conspiracy theory website.

Here's the wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)


Again, I choose to fringe examples that are consistently not trustworthy and that no one in the right mind would even choose to cite as a reputable source.

Another point I want to add is that it is not about topics that are taboo, but posts which lean towards being inflammatory due to language used, and various other factors. I admit, some topics naturally lean toward inflammatory, but could still gain traction as a true blue discussion, but when threads with posts with harsh wording that may or may not demonize a great deal of people on the opposing side, I believe it would be closed down. If a post accused all blacks of contributing to crime, it would surely be closed down, would it not? Versus a post saying that a great deal of blacks do contribute to crime. So why not close down threads that link to consistently hateful, consistently untrustworthy sites?


No, I haven't heard of it. That's entirely irrelevant though. The point is, you're basically asking the site to censor what is and isn't ok to use as the source for discussion because you feel nothing can come from it. That's what it boils down to. I think it's fine as it is now, where mods look at each thread as an individual situation. If the thread or posts within it turn out to be against the rules of the site then they get closed and/or deleted.

There's always the option to simply report the topic, leave a reason and move along. Or ignore it...


This beside the point, as nearly anyone can extrude discussion, no matter how inflammatory the opening is, because there is likely to be some discussion value. However, inflammatory, or "fighting" words, can bring down a discussion to a standstill because it influences users to focus on the transgressions of the opening post, which are almost a separate topic itself. Examples? I could make a post about abortion. I could politely state I think all feminists are nutjobs. But when I use terms like baby murderer and what not in the opening post, is that not name calling itself?

And here's the real brunt of the issue. Is citing racist or untrustworthy sites inflammatory? I believe it is. Let me write down the reason in a separate post.
74616 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / F / U
Offline
Posted 2/26/16 , edited 2/26/16
If you take "news" you read on CR forums as gospel... the problem lies with the reader.

A quick Google News search of any story usually gives you a good idea of whether it's completely bunk or there's a kernel of truth at the heart of it. I don't think it's the moderators' job to do people's brain-work. Their time to step in is if said content breaks CR's rules.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 2/26/16
Personally I think its just a bad idea to ban certain sites (18+ the exception).
Its up to the reader if they care enough about said subjects to read several sources and come to their own conclusions. So I guess my vote will be no leave things the way they are and if the threads get heated then the mods do a good job of closing them and the users could move on to the next hot button issue. Forums are meant for discussions and if a topics out there that I think is flamebaiting then I simply don't click.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.