Forums and Censorship

[TimG]

Hello all,

I just ran into an interesting ethical issue as I've been trying to gather support in my quest to get Sony to allow a trade-in program for PDW-700 owners. One guy who contacted me suggested I post to www.dvinfo.net. Well I did - in their XDCam HD forum and the post was pulled for the following reason:

You've got that post up on at least two other major message
boards. We're not looking for the same material that all of the
other sites already have -- we're looking for unique content
that can't be found anywhere else.

Also, at the end of your post you're saying that you want to be
contacted privately so that you can carry on the conversation
by mass email. That's not what we're about. We're looking
for people who want to be regular contributing participants
on our site. We don't exist for the purpose of first-time
posters culling our members for private mailing lists.

You're already everywhere else on the web, so you won't
miss being on our site. Hope this helps,

​

Polite enough and his description of my actions is very accurate. I have never posted to his site before so my intention was strictly to disseminate my post as widely as possible. I then did a little digging on this site and found a thread titled "California JVC GY-HD100A Dealers" that was "closed" for the following reason:

In addition to the two mentioned by J. Ames (EVS and Abel), I wanted to point out that Birns & Sawyer is also an HD100 dealer. All three are DV Info Net site sponsors, and as such, they are the only dealers we discuss here. Thanks,

​

Although I can see a webmaster taking exception to my post, a part of me still thinks that this is wrong. If a post is relevant to the forum, isn't abusive and isn't blatant advertising for personal gain, information and opinions should be allowed to be posted without hindrance. The idea that people can't discuss specific vendors because they are not site sponsors seems outrageous to me. Yet another part of me feels that although these sites contain public forums they are private websites so if a guy wants to censor the content . . . well that's his right.

For what it's worth, I have always thought that B-Roll.net has done a great job
moderating their forums. The restraint Kevin showed with the whole Lake4 debacle is proof of that.

Tim

 

[Chicago Dog]

While it's his right to use his site as he sees fit, I would have to agree with you. The point of a forum is information.

I think he may be misinterpreiting your intention, though. It almost sounds as if he thinks you're trying to "steal" members away from his site.

And, as far as the vendors go, that's his call. All they have to do is pull their ads off his site and it becomes unprofitable. Some administrators use those profits to "break even" on hosting and domain costs, among other things.

In a nutshell: it sucks, but it's his site after all.

 

[Canonman]

They don't tolerate rants, tirades, or crusades over there. As to site sponsorship, how would you feel if I walked into your restaurant and told your customers to go eat down the street cause the prices were a few dollars less?

cm

 

[A/B roll]

In a nutshell: it sucks, but it's his site after all.

His house, his rules

 

[TimG]

They don't tolerate rants, tirades, or crusades over there. As to site sponsorship, how would you feel if I walked into your restaurant and told your customers to go eat down the street cause the prices were a few dollars less?

cm

Well a forum isn't a restaurant Canonman. Here's Webster's defintion:


a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

By your logic no newspaper, TV station or "Forum" in the world should report anything that their advertisers would frown upon. What would be the worth of b-roll.net if you couldn't tell about how a certain piece of equipment or retailer failed you or how another excelled simply because they were or weren't a "sponsor"? It would turn the whole friggin' thing into one giant infomercial and that is exactly what is happening over there. (and it's not just me saying it by the way. I know of one very active b-roller that's been unjustly censored over there).

I guess the whole point to opening this thread was to ask the question:

As newspapers no longer become the dominant form of news gathering should journalistic ethics still be imposed or expected?

I mean, even today, unbiased reporting is still the norm, the goal or at least it's given lip service. But with all the "New Media" today the ethical lines are certainly being blurred. Hell, tomorrow I'm editing a VNR. Talk about an Infomercial in News Story clothing. . .

Tim

 

[SimonW]

His house, his rules

That as maybe. But he has lost quite a few highly knowledgeable people from his forums over the years for the most petty of reasons.

 

[Canonman]

Well a forum isn't a restaurant Canonman. Here's Webster's defintion:


a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

By your logic no newspaper, TV station or "Forum" in the world should report anything that their advertisers would frown upon. What would be the worth of b-roll.net if you couldn't tell about how a certain piece of equipment or retailer failed you or how another excelled simply because they were or weren't a "sponsor"? It would turn the whole friggin' thing into one giant infomercial and that is exactly what is happening over there. (and it's not just me saying it by the way. I know of one very active b-roller that's been unjustly censored over there).

I guess the whole point to opening this thread was to ask the question:

As newspapers no longer become the dominant form of news gathering should journalistic ethics still be imposed or expected?

I mean, even today, unbiased reporting is still the norm, the goal or at least it's given lip service. But with all the "New Media" today the ethical lines are certainly being blurred. Hell, tomorrow I'm editing a VNR. Talk about an Infomercial in News Story clothing. . .

Tim

These forums are not my idea of journalistic news reporting. The site owners are the ones who say what goes and doesn't go. I guess if you see a no smoking sign, and decide to light up a smoke anyway, you shouldn't be surprised if you're told to extinguish it or leave.

The problem with some folks is that they think when they join a forum (or the internet in general), they are somehow protected by free speech. Unfortunately, you are, in reality a guest among other guests at someone's house. Their house... their rules.

cm

 

[Tom Servo]

Forums are having a hard enough time keeping the postcounts high with competition from places like Facebook, Twitter, and the various IM programs. As someone who has (and still does) run forums, I can understand the op's annoyance when someone comes in asking a question, but wants people to email him privately. That squelches discussion, which is the lifeblood of the forum. Sure, he could let you do it just to be nice, but then others would do it and pretty soon he'd end up with a bunch of one-post threads that all went to private email afterward. I do the same thing on the forum I run. The forum is set up for you to discuss things there, not to troll for private replies, and people who won't bother to come back to see what people have said in response to their post, get their posts deleted.

 

[TimG]

The forum is set up for you to discuss things there, not to troll for private replies, and people who won't bother to come back to see what people have said in response to their post, get their posts deleted.

All very good points Tom. But I'd ask you. If you were in my place - trying to gather support to create a policy change within Sony sales - I don't see how I could have done it through the forum dialogues. I guess I could have asked people to PM me but it was much easier to ask people to just email me directly if they were interested.

Still, I can completely understand why someone would see my action as "poaching". My complaint though is more about how subjectively these forums can be ruled. B-Roll has a benevolent ruler so it works to the benefit of all but there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future. There's no system set-up to prevent abuse. It seems to me that some variation on "The Forum" will be the model for future primary information gathering and that's what worries me. I'm not sure what exactly it will be but it doesn't seem like the traditional business models for "The Media" are going to be viable for much longer. Things are changing and I just worry that if there's no accountability, no ethical firewall, then the danger for abuse is enormous.

I really believe that Thomas Jefferson had it right. A free "Press" is vitally important to the health of any free society. Oppression and thought control can take the obvious form a la George Orwell or the much more subtle and much more plausible "Brave New World" scenario. Both of these potential futures start with a corrupted distribution of information. I just hope that in this time of transition someone figures out a way to safeguard against that. Free information is a right not a privilege. It's the only way a Democracy can function effectively.

Tim

 

[Chicago Dog]

I agreed with you earlier, but now you're starting to sound ridiculous.

As A/B roll said before: his house, his rules. If you don't like it, you've got a right to leave and start your own forum.

 

[TimG]

I agreed with you earlier, but now you're starting to sound ridiculous.

As A/B roll said before: his house, his rules. If you don't like it, you've got a right to leave and start your own forum.

I know what I'm suggesting could be perceived as ridiculous but realize I'm not talking about any one Forum. This isn't a vendetta on my part. I'm just thinking about how if you impose the whole "his house, his rules" practice to our present day Media what that would do to how the public gathers information. At the infancy of the printing press, newspapers were about as objective as Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh. Just watch the HBO series "John Adams". These newspapers attacked Washington, Jefferson and Adams on a personal level. People had agendas and if they were rich enough or connected enough, they could propagate their ideas in the guise of a "newspaper". They accused our founding fathers of all manner of illegal acts and even physical inadequacies. It was slander and it was perceived as the daily news. Information was manipulated for the gain of individuals. Today, a level of professionalism has developed where a code of journalistic ethics is expected. Sure it's abused but there are safeguards in place. What if that all goes away? With "Forums" it's all about; "his house, his rules". We're back to the 1700s.

Sure maybe journalism as we know it will survive the transition - that the safeguards that cracked Watergate will hold but what if newspapers and broadcast news are replaced by Forums and Blogs. Replaced with "His house. His rules." If that seems "ridiculous", like a conspiracy theory, think about how Rupert Murdoch called the Dalai Lama an irrelevant religious figure who should be ignored on the global political realm. . . then how he signs a deal with the Chinese Government to build a dozen TV Stations. What kind of "news" do you think they're reporting there? Now think about Murdoch's interest in buying the New York Times. Think about how Google developed a search engine for mainland China. A search engine where you type in "Tienanmen Square" and the only hits you get are tourist pictures.

"His house. His Rules." Is it such a stretch to be worried about this?

Tim

 

[Chicago Dog]

It's an internet forum. You might as well be comparing a peanut to a hollow-point bullet.

 

[Tom Servo]

But I'd ask you. If you were in my place - trying to gather support to create a policy change within Sony sales - I don't see how I could have done it through the forum dialogues. I guess I could have asked people to PM me but it was much easier to ask people to just email me directly if they were interested.

Why not get a lively discussion going in which everyone, rather than just the people on your private email list, can see the discussion of Sony's issues?

My complaint though is more about how subjectively these forums can be ruled.

A forum is the forum admin's property. Of course it can be ruled subjectively. If a user doesn't like how the forum admin runs it, he is under no obligation to stay.

B-Roll has a benevolent ruler so it works to the benefit of all but there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future. There's no system set-up to prevent abuse. It seems to me that some variation on "The Forum" will be the model for future primary information gathering and that's what worries me.

I disagree there - Forums are a dying breed. If you look at an internet activity chart, there's more happening on Twitter and Facebook and even Second Life than the average forum. Take B-roll. It doesn't get anywhere near 30,000 people logged in and typing at once. Second Life does, and it's not even considered all that big of a deal compared to high-traffic internet portals.

I'm not sure what exactly it will be but it doesn't seem like the traditional business models for "The Media" are going to be viable for much longer. Things are changing and I just worry that if there's no accountability, no ethical firewall, then the danger for abuse is enormous.

Where is the accountability and ethical firewall now? We have almost all of the mainstream media in the country owned by megacorporations. Individual voices are silenced in favor of the corporate hive voice. Work for NBC and royally piss off GE and see how long you stay there. Add to the corporate ownership problem the issues we are all familiar with where our bosses tell us to chase BS stories because they're entertaining or visual rather than the ones that matter. Remember Monica Lewinsky? Do you remember the other big story at the time? That would be the first bombing of the World Trade Center by bin Laden, for which Clinton responded by lobbing a couple of cruise missiles over and calling it a day. But the media was too worried about a stained dress to hold his feet to the fire over his non response. Imagine how much could have been prevented had we gotten bin Laden then. The idea that the current media is some shining example of ethics, moral high ground, and accountability, is absurd.


What you seem to be suggesting is that if I start a forum I automatically lose the ability to dictate what happens on that forum. That's somewhat like suggesting that if I invite you over to my house, you should be allowed to smear paint on the walls. The forum is the forum admin's internet "house," and if you want to come inside, you play by his rules. Don't like it? There's lots of free forum software out there. Start your own. It's very easy to do.

 

[SimonW]

It doesn't get anywhere near 30,000 people logged in and typing at once. Second Life does

Just an OT aside, is it just me or is Second Life one of the most pointless things ever developed? 30,000 people who don't have a proper real life of their own. I tried it once to see what the fuss was about and I cn honestly say that I have never met such a sad, geeky community in my entire life. If that is the future of the internet then I'm staying well away!

 

[Tom Servo]

Just an OT aside, is it just me or is Second Life one of the most pointless things ever developed?

Yes.

Well, right now anyway. Remember that the web, modems, and computers themselves were seen as pointless when they were first developed. I think the Second Life idea of a visual, virtual "world" which has 3d representations of data rather than the flat data you get on the web will eventually be the replacement for the web. Imagine if you had VR goggles and (for want of a better analogy) something like the old Nintendo Power Glove. Instead of clicking links to find stuff, you'd open a file cabinet. The data would surround you and be represented visually rather than in tables. Right now it's pointless because no one's really figured out what to do with it yet, and because no one who does figure out what to do with it can afford to do it ("property rental" on second life can easily be upwards of $300 a month after a $1,000 down payment). So all you really have on Second Life is porn, fetishists (the "furries" apparently love Second Life), and a scattering of online roleplayers who can't afford the monthly fee for an MMO like World of Warcraft.

But it was the same when the Web first came out, you'll remember. It was nothing but porn and Geocities pages with a bunch of useless "about me" crap that no one cared about. Useful stuff like b-roll.net took awhile to get started.

(I'll step off the nerd soapbox now)

 

[b-roll]

If forums are on the way out, what should we "phase-in" here at b-roll.net to replace the b-roll.net FORUM?

I agree that facebook and twitter are gaining ground, but how to you get the same concentration of information found here in 140 character "chunks?"

Thanks for all of the support of b-roll.net!

kev

 

[TimG]

Why not get a lively discussion going in which everyone, rather than just the people on your private email list, can see the discussion of Sony's issues?

Thanks for taking the bait Tom. This topic is fascinating to me. In response to the above, I have a very specific agenda with the whole Sony thing: I want them to create an upgrade path to turn the 700 effectively into an 800. In my mind, the best chance I have to get Sony to agree to this is to gather as many 700 owners as possible and have us contact Sony as a group. To this end, I'm not interested in any general discussion on one Forum. Yes, that's self-serving but it also benefits a group of individuals that frequent these Forums so I was hoping that the moderators could see the benefit.

A forum is the forum admin's property. Of course it can be ruled subjectively. If a user doesn't like how the forum admin runs it, he is under no obligation to stay.

<break>

What you seem to be suggesting is that if I start a forum I automatically lose the ability to dictate what happens on that forum. That's somewhat like suggesting that if I invite you over to my house, you should be allowed to smear paint on the walls. The forum is the forum admin's internet "house," and if you want to come inside, you play by his rules. Don't like it? There's lots of free forum software out there. Start your own. It's very easy to do.

Fair enough. All of you have made it clear that you think Forums are more like people's houses, personal property or a privately run business. I agree - to a point. I would suggest that Forums are more accurately like a coffee shop. They are virtual places where people can sit down, relax and talk to friends and acquaintances. Starbucks makes money off the drinks it's patrons buy and in turn, Starbucks grants them access to the common areas so they can socialize. In Forums, the socialization, the interaction IS the commodity. Through the traffic produced by our conversations Forum Admins are able to court advertisers who pay to gain access to us and peddle their wares. That's how Admins strive to be profitable - by attracting users to participate on their site. Now say a guy buys a coffee at Starbucks and sits down and starts talking to his friend about how he prefers Seattle's Best, would it be right for a Starbucks employee to kick him out because his conversation was inappropriate? What if he talked about how he liked Obama or Bush, but the owner of the coffee shop was a Nader supporter? Does he have the right to kick the guy out because his politics don't jive with his own? What if the coffee shop owner were White and he kicked a guy out because he was Black . . . Does "His house, his rules." still apply?

See where this can go?

I'm no Constitutional Law expert but somewhere, the First Amendment kicks in - as do a lot of other rights that this country is based upon. Yes, it's Starbucks' property, it's a private Forum but they both are set it up for people to gather and communicate. That makes it, to some degree a public space. Sure I'll give that if the guy walks into a Starbucks wearing a sign that says; "Starbucks Sucks. Drink Seattle's Best" he deserves to be kicked out but there are shades of grey here and it's in those differences where the laws of this country are perpetually being challenged and fine tuned. It's what makes this country great (and the UK too Simon ;-))- the give and take between the rights of the collective and the rights of the individual.

Tim

 

[John M.]

Today, a level of professionalism has developed where a code of journalistic ethics is expected. Sure it's abused but there are safeguards in place. What if that all goes away? With "Forums" it's all about; "his house, his rules". We're back to the 1700s.

That code of ethics was developed so that the public would trust the content of newspapers. The only reason that was important was so that the public would buy newspapers. There has never been any wavering of the idea that freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses. Whatever safeguards to which you refer do not affect that.

(Libel and defamation laws do not apply specifically to newspapers or any mass medium. They apply just as much to a guy printing out flyers and pinning them up on utility poles.)

Publishers have a wide berth in what they're allowed to publish -- and what they may decline to publish. The same is true for owners of Internet message boards. A board owner has no more obligation to let you write what you want on his board than a newspaper publisher has to print your letter to the editor.

In other words, whether it's newspapers or message boards we're talking, it's "his house, his rules."

I have no problem with that. Neither should anyone who believes in a free society.

I disagree with the assertion that message boards are dying, especially based on a comparison between B-Roll.net and Second Life. That's apples to Edsels. Totally different audiences in scale and scope. That's like saying that my website has outlived its usefulness because it has existed longer than Google yet gets only a tiny fraction of the hits that Google does.

Facebook and Twitter might replace some of the networking functions that message boards once served but if there's a better way to pick people's brains about television photography than this board right here, I'd like to see it.

 

[John M.]

I'm no Constitutional Law expert but somewhere, the First Amendment kicks in - as do a lot of other rights that this country is based upon. Yes, it's Starbucks' property, it's a private Forum but they both are set it up for people to gather and communicate. That makes it, to some degree a public space.

The coffee shop analogy fails because the Starbucks is a public business. The public does have some rights, such as not being discriminated against based on race while inside. Even there, you have far fewer rights -- First Amendment and otherwise -- than you do on the sidewalk outside.

You seem to confuse things that may be bad for business (i.e. a Nader supporter tossing Obama supporters out of his establishment) with things that are outlawed.

For message boards, there are no public rights of access. Its owner may grant you permission to post messages. You may get comfortable posting messages. That doesn't turn into a right to do so. It's not a public space.

You're correct: The First Amendment does kick in. It is the message board owner's First Amendment right not to have to publish things on his board that he doesn't want to publish. Understand that even though you type out the words and hit "Submit Reply" it is the message board, owned by someone else, that is publishing the message. If the owner takes issue with what you've written -- for good reason or not -- it is his First Amendment right to delete it.

The most fitting analogy really is the one already mentioned numerous times here -- that of someone's house. The owner may invite you to a party. In no way does that mean that you're allowed to come back any time you want. Or that the owner can't ask you to leave at any time -- for any reason.

Your rights to disseminate a message using someone else's message board go no further than the permission the board's owner grants you to do so.

 

[TimG]

The coffee shop analogy fails because the Starbucks is a public business.

<break>
For message boards, there are no public rights of access. Its owner may grant you permission to post messages. You may get comfortable posting messages. That doesn't turn into a right to do so. It's not a public space.

And this is where we disagree. I just don't see why a Message Board would not fall into the same category of "Public Business" as a coffee shop. Anyone can post to a message board. You aren't invited in as you would be to a person's home and just because it doesn't have a physical store front doesn't mean it isn't as accessible to the general public as a coffee shop. I also don't see Message Boards in the same light as your newspaper editor analogy. Newspapers choose what to publish. Forum Admins choose what not to publish. By default a post is published unless something is a problem. That's a big difference.

Still, your points and those made previously are valid John. I just think it could go either way.

Oh. And Kevin! Please don't change a thing. BRoll.net is one of my most valuable internet resources. Thanks Kevin . . . and everyone else too!

Tim