Jackson Free Press

The WP has suspended comments on its web blogs due to excessive hate speech and fighting among posters.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to [e-mail missing]

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

This brings up an extremely valid point regarding moderation of forums. At what point is moderation censorship? Or is it just a necessary evil needed on internet sites in order to promote intelligent debate that doesn't degenerate into name calling, hate and attacks?

Thoughts?

Loud gutteral noises?

Previous Commentsshow

I don't think moderating is a necessary evil - I think it's just plain necessary. Have you ever looked at any of the Yahoo! message boards? I wouldn't step back in there with rubber boots up to my derriere.

LatashaWillis

Feb 8 2006

Gotta second Latasha here, even if derriere-high rubber boots are way too kinky for me. I've been moderating online discussion forums since I was 12 years old, and the only way to do it is to have a moderatorial policy that is decisive and unapologetic. My style is very similar to Donna's, except that I'm more inclined to do things privately--private warnings, very quiet suspensions, etc. (Not a criticism of the way she does things; just an acknowledgment that no two people moderate forums in exactly the same way.) There is no such thing as the First Amendment on a privately run web forum. Basic principles of free speech should be voluntarily respected, but ultimately web forums aren't democracies; they're more like game shows. If you have an uninvolved host it'll probably become unwatchable (unless the group is very small and very well-behaved), and if you have a control freak it'll probably become unwatchable. You have to sail somewhere between those two coasts. Proud of the WP for shutting down its web forum when it got unwatchable. Wish the C-L would do the same. The WP will not be able to operate a forum well until it's staffed with an adequate number of adequately competent moderators who have broad executive power. Moderation by committee doesn't work well. I haven't had to do much moderation in the past few years. I still co-moderate several listervs related to various religious communities I'm involved in, but they're all full of well-behaved people and too obscure to get many trollers. But as I'm about to become the new About.com Guide to Civil Liberties, so I'll get back in practice pretty quick. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

I believe expecting constant intelligent discussion over the internet is asking a bit too much. I'd like to quote an old gaming equation, because I think it fits here. Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Dumbass. Einstein's Theory of Counterstrike, I believe. Seriously though, on a message board you can't be a preisdent, you have to be a dictator. Sure, you'll listen to what the people want, but you have the final say. Make the rules clear and if someone breaks them, I suggest one warning then a ban. I might be biased because I'm used to going to gaming boards, where people are so stupid it actually creates a cone of low IQ for miles.

Nick

Feb 12 2006

Well, the way I define "censorship," the government needs to be involved somehow. I take the idea of "censorship" very seriously, as in the right not to be. But any right must co-exist with other people's rights. Thus, an individual and a privately owned company or newspaper must have the "right" to publish (outside legal problems such as libel), or not publish, what they want -- thus, a "free" press. If you tell me I have to publish any trash that someone pukes up, then I don't exactly have the right to runn a "free press," do I? It always amazes me that people think "free press" means the right to insult, lie, libel anybody or anything in any language. So, no, I do not believe that moderation of a privately owned publication can be "censorship," at least of a kind that is horrifying, regardless of what you think of the moderation policy. And it would be kind of naive to assume that every single "publisher" on earth doesn't censor, in the widest definition possible: You do that everytime you decide what to publish and what not to. Just as it is impossible to be "objective." As a moderator and publisher, I feel very strongly that you have to decide what kind of dialogue you want to have because the way you moderate will determine the level of conversation you have. And your right as a moderator and publisher. Right here in Jackson, we've seen a number of examples of shoddy and unknowledgeable (of the law) moderation and the result, revealing rather convincingly that a site that is not moderated at all, or too little, degenerates quickly into a very small group of angry people trying to out insult each other and the people they despise. It's really pathetic and sad, and reveals a lot about the people who do that -- mostly, that they are actually trying to squelch free discussion by running people out of the manure-filled sandbox. I have no desire to publish such a site, and I make my decisions accordingly and without apology. I'm very proud of the way it has worked so far. I think you're hard-pressed to find a site with the diversity of opinion that you see here -- precisely because we apply the rules to the left and the right and trolls in between. I also like that it hasn't devolved into a hard left vs. hard right thing, either. Most of our regular bloggers here do not fit easily into one ideology or another, and it makes for great conversation. As for my public warnings, Tom, I figured out way back that other people need to see/hear you enforce the rules so that you establish a certain tone. And, frankly, I don't have time or desire to write directly to every troll trying to paint the JFP and its bloggers as communists because they don't like the fact that there is actual discussion going on. And Latasha is right on: To kinda twist Woody Allen's famous quote, there are few, if any, moderated discussions out there that I would want to participate in, even if they would have me as a member. Unmoderated discussions quickly devolve into juvenile mudbaths, and run off anyone intelligent and independent-minded, as far as I can tell. And you sure don't learn anything from them. You could argue that an un- or under-moderated blog or forum is a form of "censorship" -- being that it ensures that many people, like Latasha, will never bother trying to add to the conversation because they'll be jumped by morons. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with Nick. You do have to be a tad dictatorial to run a good discussion site. You set the rules, you enforce the rules, and to hell with people who don't like it. OK, that was harsh, but you get my drift. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 12 2006

BTW, Todd told me the Post might have suspended comments because they were getting heavily criticized for a story. I haven't followed it. Anyone know?

DonnaLadd

Feb 12 2006

Gods, yes. I was playing Yahtzee on an online games site the other day, and it's one of those where if you quit mid-game, the game is cancelled and nobody wins. So the two cheating strategies people use--on a friggin' YAHTZEE site, I kid you not--are "quitting" (duh) and "sitting" (idling out so the other person has to quit). I hover between green, which is the lowest possible rank, and blue, which is the second lowest possible rank, as all I ever do on the site is play a couple of games while waiting for my tea to steep or something. So I get an orange (highest rank) player join my open game. Three rolls in, I get a Yahtzee. All caps from the other player: "STOP THAT SH!T OUT [sic] OR I'LL LEAVE." I repeat: It's friggin YAHTZEE. But the absolute most profane, brutal, nasty online gaming site I ever visited was Yahoo! Games' Go Fish site. As in Go Fish. I went twice and never went back. Those are some mighty ill-behaved middle schoolers. Moral of the story? Not much of one, really. Except that the Internet never sleeps. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

I would also add here that a site -- especially a media site -- should moderate out personal attacks and the like from the very beginning, not barely pay attention as the Ledger does and then suddenly get upset about it. Just get everyone of them off of there and warn people so others know what not to do. How hard is that? And don't let it bother you when someone accuses you of only "censoring" THEIR ideas right after they left a big pile of attacks about other people. It's not the moderator's problem if people can't friggin' tell the difference between respectful disagreement and personal attacks. Let 'em go back to school, or go scream on talk radio. But don't let that crap muck up your site. Again, how hard can it be?

DonnaLadd

Feb 12 2006

Oh yes: and have a TrollBlog. Nobody wants to be moved to the TrollBlog. Since we instituted it (Todd's idea), our troll traffic has dropped to nearly nil. Works like a charm.

DonnaLadd

Feb 12 2006

Donna writes: And, frankly, I don't have time or desire to write directly to every troll trying to paint the JFP and its bloggers as communists because they don't like the fact that there is actual discussion going on. Oh, goodness, no. When I get an obvious troller on my own forums, I instantly and quietly lock out the account, then delete any of the troller's recent posts. I'm much less fair to these people than you are, and as you probably know from the private notes I fire over occasionally, there are many instances where I wouldn't have let people--occasionally people who later shaped up--stick around as long. The public/private thing doesn't reflect a fundamental difference in our moderation styles; it's more a reflection of our willingness to get into "meta" discussions, I think, rooted mainly in the fact that I've been doing this for 15 years and just don't have that much patience anymore, and perhaps partly in the fact that you're a semi-public figure running a commercial paper and have to make yourself more accountable than I've traditionally had to on my own forums. Will I have to change my style with the About.com site? Quite possibly. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

LOVE the TrollBlog idea, by the way, and agreed that it's very effective... Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 12 2006

Donna: It always amazes me that people think "free press" means the right to insult, lie, libel anybody or anything in any language. Philip: As far as I know "fighting words" (e.g., "You Inbred Moron", "You are a stankin' w-h-o-r-e", etc.) are NOT protected free speech. Incitement of riots isn't protected free speech either (i.e. "a clear and present danger" of causing public disorder). Libel, slander, and "Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater" obviously are not protected either, so I won't add anythign to this one. Donna:Right here in Jackson, we've seen a number of examples of shoddy and unknowledgeable (of the law) moderation and the result, revealing rather convincingly that a site that is not moderated at all, or too little, degenerates quickly into a very small group of angry people trying to out insult each other and the people they despise. Philip: Oh yes, Donna. It seems the dictum of Gresham's Law "Bad money drives out good money" applies to message boards as well (not surprising, because it often applies to common everyday group conversations as well). Without moderation of some sort, message boards degenerate into anarchic speech. If I want to see that, I'll watch the wrestlers trash talk each other on the WWE.

Philip

Feb 12 2006

Not that screech blogs don't serve a useful purpose (a) It provides an outlet for angry people to rant and rave without interfering with other posters (though moderators are necessary for a sane free speech board) (b) It reminds you that there are still a lot of angry hateful people wherever you are in the world (c) It provides concrete evidence backing up a claim that sane posters can justly make "As horrid and dissatisfying as my life may be, at least I can say I'm not THEM!!!!!" (GRINS)

Philip

Feb 12 2006

Donna, I must hear more about this troll blog. LOL!

Heather

Feb 23 2006

It's the little time-out room we send the naughty, pouty little boys and girls (usually boys) into who do not know how to have civil conversations with people they disagree with. It's one of my favorite parts of the site. Maybe we'll publish a little "Best of the JFP Trolls" booklet someday and sell copies to benefit the ACLU or something. ;-D The TrollBlog, btw, appears on the right, bottom side of the front page. Have fun.

DonnaLadd

Feb 23 2006