Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:56:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3213 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
... because murfling was
never meant to be the same as cancelling or deleting a post. The idea is
that questionable posts are visibly separated but still accessible - in
essence, a compromise between the ideal of totally free speech and the
practical need for no cursing on a family site. Somehow murfling got
equated with censorship, which it was never supposed to be (nor is it now).
-Lenny
|
While murfling may not equate to cancelling or deleting a post, I find it
hard to comprehend that anyone would not consider it a form of censorship.
Though it has not been used widely on LUGNET, and as a result there are few
examples of actual murfling to examine, I feel that it is distinctly a form
of censorship, albeit a superficially subtle one.
While murfling does not remove posts, it sets them apart, makes them
‘special’ in some way and highlights their unacceptability to some prevailing
(or assumed) standard. To claim that this is not censorship, but mere
cautioning, or setting aside, is, I find, patronising at best.
To my mind, murfling is an insidious Orwellian alternative to ‘cancel’ or
‘delete’ button of the traditional censor. Deleting or cancelling removes the
evidence (or most of it) of the offending post, murfling labels it forever
with something like this post is bad, nice people wouldn’t read it.
But then, I guess euphemisms often help people feel better about things.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that cries of censorship continue to
crop up on Lugnet, which is one of the most unmoderated and self-policing
communities on the web (at least that I’ve frequented). The complaints about
censorship imply (to me) a deeper problem - that for some, anyone else imposing
their judgment on someone else is not acceptable. The attitude that there
should be no moderators or administrators who can levy punishment or single out
a post that the admins felt violated the ToS. The attitude that somebody would
have (gasp) power over someone else. The feeling that nobody else should
appear better than the rest of us. This attitude was instilled - apparently by
design - at the beginning of Lugnet and appears integral to at least some
long-time members.
Lenny described the history and intent of murfling very well. You can choose to
interpret a murfled post as censorship, but that doesn’t mean it is
censorship. And more to the point, I don’t really see why it matters.
Kelly
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) As I'm sure you remember the internet used to be a great bastion of free speech and self-policing. In some ways that attitude has lived on in Lugnet and I'm glad it has. I'd like to know why you think Lugnet should be changed? If it was still (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) While murfling may not equate to cancelling or deleting a post, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone would not consider it a form of censorship. Though it has not been used widely on LUGNET, and as a result there are few examples of actual (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
