Forum censorship - The Issue

[olf]

@Steve_Everett, thanks a lot for writing this up!
While I first wondered why you separated this post assessing the issue(s) from the follow up post “Forum Censorship - Some Proposals”, I concur that this split does make sense.

Although I may have phrased the first paragraph a little softer, I absolutely concur with every assessment made in that post, which starts this thread.

But I am rather shocked about the some of the content in the replies. The paragraph which struck me most is:

Personally I absolutely appreciate if over-emotionalised posts get flagged. I prefer a rational discourse without too much SHOUTING and OVER-DRAMATIZATION. It’s not healthy.

• This is the first statement in this thread and the thread which triggered all this, which utilises shouting (i.e., phrases wholly written in capital letters).
• All the statements in that reply are obviously highly emotional and mostly transport a strong opinion (which is fine), often even explicitly marked as such by its author (“personally”, “I prefer”, “I didn’t like it”, “flagging is fine for me” etc.), which absolutely contradicts the content of the paragraph quoted above (which is part of that reply).

But the underlying issues I perceive, is that the three core statements in that reply, which are not phrased as opinion, are simply untrue:

• “It’s not censorship, […].”
  It clearly is censoring to anonymously switch somebody else’s post invisible, without providing a reason, plus implicitly threatening that person to be permanently muted.
• “[…] flagging […] gives the poster a feedback […].”
  No, simply flagging a post does not provide any proper feedback beyond “somebody did not like that post”, when done without providing a reason.
• “It’s not healthy.”
  Well, for whom and why? I just do not comprehend, what this is supposed to mean. Without any rationale provided, it just appears to be intended as a bold, derogatory statement.

What I do gather from these statements and also attah’s post much more clearly than from the original, anonymous suppression of the visibility of posts is that some believe that

1. it is fine to suppress statements and opinions of others, just because one does not like them.
2. that either their opinion is of higher value than that of others (so they are in the position to decide which statements / opinions shall be suppressed),
   or the really do not see the logical consequences, if everyone behaves like that: “Post suppression wars” and ultimately a dysfunctional forum

From Jolla’s FAQ for this forum:

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Always provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

Flagging and thereby suppressing posts anonymously without providing a reason is exactly the opposite of this first rule of this forum’s FAQ.
But also “I do not like the words used”, “I do not like the statement” and “I do not like that opinion” are not “reasoned counter-arguments”!

The other relevant sections of the FAQ and Jolla’s terms of Service for this forum were already quoted by Steve Everett:

Foster freedom
We do not believe in walled gardens, we prefer the open sea. We want our products and services to free you to express yourself as you see fit, not lock you down to a view of the world imposed on you by us.

Improve the Discussion
… Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

If You See a Problem, Flag It
… With your help, moderators can be community facilitators, not just janitors or police.

The crucial point of the last statement is that one must perceive “a Problem”, i.e., something severely going wrong, not “I have an issue with that {wording / statement / opinion / author / etc.}”!

Unfortunately the way the flagging process and its consequences are currently implemented, they enable and even foster abusing them in a manner, which strongly contradicts these goals, as it has been demonstrated multiple times in a row.
What strikes me, is that no sailor has yet stepped up to defend the reasonable and clearly stated goals of Jolla’s forum FAQ and TOS.

This is the reason, why I took the effort to supplement @Steve_Everett’s initial analysis of the “FSO censorship issue” with some additional rationale, background and perspective.
Ultimately the main efforts shall be put into improving the flawed mechanisms of the flagging process.

And please mind that any wording, phrases, even foul language shall be tolerated as long as it is not ad hominem, while the suppression of statements and opinions clearly marks a totalitarian mindset (as derived by Hannah Arendt in her 1951 essay).