Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:24:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3597 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
Yes... mainly because many members refused to acknowledge that the people
trying to instigate change had the authority to do so.
|
From my observations that wasn’t the only reason nor even the main reason.
From my solo, lurking position (as in unconnected to any of the parties
involved) there appeared to be too much abuse of power.
|
Agree. From my standpoint, people involved at the heart of the debate didn’t so
much object to the existance of that power, they mostly objected to the
perceived misuse of that power. Certainly, the possibility of moderation was
objectionable to some, but I don’t think that in particular was why the massive
outbreak occured.
For history’s sake-- the reason Lugnet is the way it is is because it was built
as an NNTP model. From what I’ve been told, back in 1997/1998, Todd saw the NNTP
model as the “way it should/will always work”, and the web interface was more or
less fluff. That is to say, Todd foresaw NNTP more as the future of internet
discussions, or at least the type he wanted to foster going forward. And (as you
may know) NNTP doesn’t really support the ideas of censorship or moderation,
because messages can propogate to the client-side, without going back to refresh
from the central server. Essentially, the technology makes censorship and
moderation more difficult and/or unreliable.
Also, Todd was very much concerned with things like data persistance and
completeness. The idea that information would “disappear” or “change” was very
UNappealing to him, so Lugnet was built with that idea in mind. Things like post
editing, etc, were contrary (I think) to Todd’s opinion about how it “ought” to
work.
| |
I think it’s a reasonable solution too but I also think that it is a form of
censorship and that giving it a different name doesn’t change its main
function.
|
While technically I could see an argument for calling it censorship, I don’t
really think the label applies. Censorship (to me) implies that information is
made unavailable. In some cases, I could agree that obscuring data represents
censorship, like (for example) you had to fill out a form to view murfled posts,
and then had a 24-hour waiting period before being able to see the message. But
making people take an extra click hardly feels like censorship.
I DO agree that murfling makes clear the administrative opinion of the content
of the message, and that certainly bespeaks information that wouldn’t otherwise
be available. But I don’t think that’s *censorship*. It’s the difference between
DISALLOWING content and simply ALLOWING administrative commentary.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I'd stress the word "appearance" since I continue to believe there was no power abuse at that time. But the notion certainly had a lot to do with the ensuing chaos. To me, it comes down to, "I don't believe that person X should have power over (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| --snip-- (...) OK (...) OK. I was pretty much a lurker at that time so I really didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. (...) From my observations that wasn't the only reason nor even the main reason. From my solo, lurking position (as in (...) (18 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
|
|
|
|
