Participants were also asked to explain their answers in a written elaboration and asked to consider the following prompts: 1) How do you expect social media and digital commentary will evolve in the coming decade? 2) Do you think we will see a widespread demand for technological systems or solutions that encourage more inclusive online interactions? 3) What do you think will happen to free speech? And 4) What might be the consequences for anonymity and privacy?
The majority in this canvassing were sympathetic to those abused or misled in the current online environment while expressing concerns that the most likely solutions will allow governments and big businesses to employ surveillance systems that monitor citizens, suppress free speech and shape discourse via algorithms, allowing those who write the algorithms to sculpt civil debate.
Uncivil Full Movie Online Free
Thank you for starting this thoughtful discussion. What you have put needs to be said and thank you for doing it.I for one have learned a lot from reading comments here. Town Square is read and commented on by some of the most intelligent, well informed, well educated people around. We can all learn from each other if we take the time to read the comments.We can also disagree with the comments. I know I do quite a bit. I try to think through why I disagree and by putting my thoughts into words and hopefully coherent sentences, I find that I am in fact understand where I stand on an issue much better than the random thoughts I would have otherwise. I know people often disagree with me and that's fine, I find the disagreement makes me question myself and perhaps tweak my ideas.What I don't like, is the assumption that because I think a certain way it means I vote a certain way or I get my news from a certain place. In most cases when people say that, they are wrong. They don't know me and it is quite apparent that they assume I can't think for myself. They are wrong about me. I prefer my ideas to be my own and what I say means that those ideas should stand by themselves, not because of voting habits or media habits. Personally, I don't comment on the specifics of big political debate, although I might comment against issues such as the amount of money spent on big elections or similar, without defending any political point of view.When someone says something I disagree with and explain as best I can why I disagree with them, it doesn't mean that I don't like them as a person, that I think they should keep quiet or that they deserve any nasty name in the book. I disagree with their point of view on that particular subject. That's it. I can disagree with them on one point, but who knows, the next time I may agree completely with them on another topic. We are all of different opinions, it is what makes life interesting. It would be a dull world if we all agreed on everything one hundred percent of the time.Yes, keep it respectful. Have good reasons for disagreeing with an opinion. Even if we have a different opinion, we should not be afraid to state it (and by that we can do it anonymously for plenty of good reasons). But we need free speech and open dialog. We need to have those who choose to read from various sources. We need to have more than one side of an argument eloquently explained. We need to look at both sides now. We need to be open to the idea that we might be wrong, but we also need to be open to the idea that we might be right too even if very few of us happen to agree.Respect works two way. And as for that famous video between two doctors, I have never seen it because it was taken away before I had the chance. But I am so interested to hear what they had to say and what they said which was so dangerous for me to hear. In fact, I am very curious and really have more of a desire to see it because it was banned than I would have done if it had been left in place. I just wonder what it was that we are not allowed to hear. Hmm. No smoke without fire obviously.Makes you think.Respect.
Thanks for this thoughtful reflection. I have observations from watching the Embarcadero online comments sections since they started (and public internet discussions more generally, since soon after the newsgroups began in 1980). FYI, about 15 years ago while sending food- and restaurant-news-related info to my local Embarcadero paper, the editor approached me, described a plan to begin regular blogs, and asked if I might undertake one on food topics. I declined (eventually in 2013, Elena Kadavny initiated something similar, and does a far better job than I could have.)I know neighbors who won't read Town Square, calling it "scary" with its sniping and clique of regular troll commenters. A longstanding consensus observation from many online discussion fora is that if most comments are civil and responsible, that sets a norm, and misbehavior is seen as exceptional; while if off-putting posts surpass a certain percentage, that drives away the more constructive commenters and then many people react like those neighbors I just mentioned.A factor I've raised over the years (in comments and in private correspondence to editors) is that a registration requirement for comments is well-established as an effective disincentive to trolls and other problems that you describe above. Some Embarcadero bloggers (such as Chandrama Anderson) routinely elect that requirement, finding it helpful. Registration does NOT conflict with "anonymity" because users are free to choose a screen name, which the site ownership keeps confidential as a demonstration of its ethics. What registration does do is attach a sense of accountability to commenting. It won't stop abrasive personalities from being themselves (which happens even in strictly real-name-only fora); what it does is cut out the extremes of willful trolling and cheap shots. And reduce the required moderation labor. Some newspaper websites use a third-party service for this (such as Disqus), where commenters register once, then can post on any affiliated website. Disqus though is funded by its own ads and may conflict with Embarcadero's business model. I've raised the prospect of a general registration requirement several times with various editors. From the nature of their responses I infer that the ownership opposes the idea, by whatever reasoning. But consequent to that choice come some of the problems you decribe above.
Sherry,Thanks for another thoughtful post. I really enjoy reading your blog and enjoy my subscription and daily review of the local community news stories. I also frequent the comments of many (dare I say, most) of the news stories I read. Over time, I've learned to discern some patterns -- in some cases even figuring out who is behind anonymous posts and handles.But I also find the increased trolling in the comment sections troubling. And I don't believe the current solution employed can scale with the scope of the growing problem, particularly for local community publications such as those published by Embarcadero Media.I believe that the future of Embarcadero Media (and its bloggers) in maintaining healthy community discourse is threatened if the model is one of (1) open platform (i.e., no restrictions on the locale of the commenter), (2) staff/blogger/self-moderation, (3) non-registered comments, and (4) preservation of anonymity. I find insufficiently persuasive the argument that some people behave badly even when they use their names or must register, so why aim for accountability. (That is the equivalent of arguing that some people run stop signs, so let's get rid of them.) Although true (some will behave badly), the normative effect of registration is greater accountability (e.g., chronic offenders of normative discourse can have their rights removed). I also find the general "free speech" argument unpersuasive -- not all speech is protected speech: you can't yell "fire" in the crowded theater, without consequences.As this Pew Research Center survey noted (Web Link"Anonymity, a key affordance of the early internet, is an element that many in this canvassing attributed to enabling bad behavior and facilitating uncivil discourse" in shared online spaces.""Most experts predicted that the builders of open social spaces on global communications networks will find it difficult to support positive change in cleaning up" the real-time exchange of information and sharing of diverse ideologies over the next decade. . ."I wouldn't necessarily push against anonymity, as there are often times when the use of a name will stifle important speech (e.g., the classic whistleblower comes to mind). But registration seems to carry strong advantages for limiting the role of AI bots that are beginning to take over comment threads on high-traffic sites and will, eventually (IMHO) cover most open platforms with comment traffic (as a way to pedal the influence they are built to have).As a subscriber, I firmly believe that local, moderate-traffic sites that maintain openness in the belief that staff/blogger/self-moderation will work, will lose the "civility war" in epic fashion as they cannot devote the resources (staff-FTE time or AI) to handle the moderating necessary to maintain civility and will face one of two effects over time -- either a loss of civil discourse or a loss of subscribing readers, or perhaps, both. Ultimately, I believe this to be an existential threat to online publications and forums such as those published by EM.I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm right, the future of a publication such as this (and of which I am extremely fond), hangs in the balance. Registration of all comments would seem worthy of thoughtful consideration (if it hasn't already been so considered).-- todd 2ff7e9595c
Comments