Senator Lynn Ruane Wants to Ban Comments on Articles

ThisRegard · 06-01-2017 12:03pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

LOL at all the edgelords on here thinking that a newspaper trying to moderate what is published on their site is an attack on free speech.

Show me where an "edgelord", whatever the hell that is, says such a thing?

ThisRegard · 06-01-2017 12:04pm

Clarebelly wrote: »

Would you like others to miss out on a link to an interesting associated video or article posted by a commentor on a current affairs story?
If there was a vote to ban comments, would you vote to ban them?

I never said anything about banning comments?

Clarebelly · 06-01-2017 12:07pm

Clarebelly wrote: »

Would you like others to miss out on a link to an interesting associated video or article posted by a commentor on a current affairs story?
If there was a vote to ban comments, would you vote to ban them?

ThisRegard wrote: »

I never said anything about banning comments?

I never said you did.

Clarebelly wrote: »

Would you like others to miss out on a link to an interesting associated video or article posted by a commentor on a current affairs story?
If there was a vote to ban comments, would you vote to ban them?

Would you though?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypBGI2_YXeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHoI5Zum2ek

RobertKK · 06-01-2017 12:10pm

super_furry wrote: »

How do you debate with Neo-Nazis? You can't.

There was a good link of Reddit this morning where an Irish holocaust survivor wrote a letter to the Irish Times in 1988 making just that point.

http://imgur.com/a/wy8qM

You are arguing that the Neo-Nazi argument is so strong, one cannot counteract it.

1988, was a time before the internet, different times now compared to them. It would be easy for anyone to find uncensored Neo-Nazi stuf on the internet, and censorship is just avoiding having o counteract it.
It is close to actually facilitating it via avoidance of counter argument.

super_furry · 06-01-2017 12:11pm

RobertKK wrote: »

You are arguing that the Neo-Nazi argument is so strong, one cannot counteract it.

No, I'm arguing that those involved in the Neo-Nazi movement are beyond reasoning with. Much like those that believe in a flat-earth, you won't ever convince them they're wrong, so it's futile to even try.

midnight city · 06-01-2017 12:11pm

mzungu wrote: »

Even Vice have now taken away comment sections from their articles. It will be interesting to see who follow suit in the coming years.

Just as comments were significantly going against their narrative. What a coincidence.

gryfothegreat · 06-01-2017 12:14pm

Can we stop calling them the alt-right? They're Nazis. Neo-Nazis if you want to be particular but Nazis all the same. Calling them the alt-right gives them legitimacy they don't deserve.

ThisRegard · 06-01-2017 12:15pm

Clarebelly wrote: »

Would you though?

My very first post in this thread makes it pretty clear where I stand.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yes, moderation, not a total ban on them.

Trent Houseboat · 06-01-2017 12:17pm

ThisRegard wrote:

Show me where an "edgelord", whatever the hell that is, says such a thing?

OK

TheDavester wrote:

She's taking over Lorraine "4 times not elected" Higgins, censor everything on the web

tritium wrote:

How totalitarian of her.

ThisRegard · 06-01-2017 12:19pm

You haven't shown me anything there you claimed to be?

Maguined · 06-01-2017 12:19pm

gryfothegreat wrote: »

Can we stop calling them the alt-right? They're Nazis. Neo-Nazis if you want to be particular but Nazis all the same. Calling them the alt-right gives them legitimacy they don't deserve.

To be honest I think calling them nazis gives them far more legitimacy than simply trying to point out the flaws in any of their reasoning.

Lux23 · 06-01-2017 12:21pm

I don't think comments should be banned but I do think there should be more moderation or people should be a little bit more aware how their comments can be hurtful. For instance, I was reading comments under a story about that poor, young lad that was stabbed to death in Tallaght and one joker says "Jesus, Dublin is turning into stab central". No RIP, no condolences, just a dig at our capital city and its inhabitants. I think it would be incredibly hurtful to read someone use your loved one's death to score points. Horrible.

Trent Houseboat · 06-01-2017 12:26pm

ThisRegard wrote:

You haven't shown me anything there you claimed to be?

Totalitarianism(in this use) and censorship would be attacks on free speech.

These claims were made on this thread.

QED

RobertKK · 06-01-2017 12:28pm

super_furry wrote: »

No, I'm arguing that those involved in the Neo-Nazi movement are beyond reasoning with. Much like those that believe in a flat-earth, you won't ever convince them they're wrong, so it's futile to even try.

You will find everybody alive who has a proper functioning brain will hold opinions that one would find near impossible to shift.

Not counteracting an argument is giving the opinion free reign.
Censorship in 2017 does not really work - it does not kill ideas, it does not stop people who want to look for ideas that one wants censored from being seen.

People who look for censorship in 2017 have mindsets that are pre-internet, and one could argue that censorship did not really work then either.

The irony with Lynne Ruane is she used twitter which is impossible to moderate idea, accounts can be closed/suspended, but as easily new accounts can be made.
We would need to go back to the stone age - before modern communication, before the printing press, before anything that can be used to disseminate information, propaganda or whatever was invented.

Censorship does not kill ideas, it ends up with the ideas being far less likely to be challenged.
Let that be kept hidden, rather than debated...it doesn't work in this day and age.

GavMan · 06-01-2017 12:28pm

gryfothegreat wrote: »

Can we stop calling them the alt-right? They're Nazis. Neo-Nazis if you want to be particular but Nazis all the same. Calling them the alt-right gives them legitimacy they don't deserve.

The point is that its not for your or the Irish Times to decide what is legitimate or not. Its up to free thinking people to do that for themselves.

What the press are obligated to do is to provide a balanced view for everyone to make up for their own mind. They did so with the Mullally piece (however badly, IMO, that was executed)

ThisRegard · 06-01-2017 12:32pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Totalitarianism(in this use) and censorship would be attacks on free speech.

These claims were made on this thread.

QED

You seem to misunderstand your own point and what others have said. Nobody has come out against the moderation of comments. The posts you quote are coming out against the proposed ban on such comments.

tritium · 06-01-2017 12:32pm

super_furry wrote: »

No, I'm arguing that those involved in the Neo-Nazi movement are beyond reasoning with. Much like those that believe in a flat-earth, you won't ever convince them they're wrong, so it's futile to even try.

Thats true if most idealogues on both sides. Youre not trying to convice them to change, youre trying to influence others to reject their position.

The same arguement can also be made btw of many of the ideologies that sit firmly in the IT mainstream for instance. By the yardstick youve set commentators like una mulally should also be denied a platform. I doubt however that theyd be so supportive of the idea when you put it that way

Wibbs · 06-01-2017 12:33pm

Clarebelly wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypBGI2_YXeo

That level of dumb must surely be painful for the sufferer? Jesus. I'd forgotten about that uninformed fool. Worse that living breathing example of a bad Paddy Irishman joke was a TD and senator and wobbled up the corridors of power. Now that's scary.

RobertKK wrote:

Censorship does not kill ideas, it ends up with the ideas being far less likely to be challenged.

+1. Censorship seems like a great idea altogether and every spectrum of the political landscape, religious faiths right down to suburban curtain twitching busybodies has had the horn for it at one time or another, but it just doesn't work. If anything it increases the volume on the things you're aiming to quieten. Far better to shine a light on things, even things we find abhorrent. Indeed I would say especially things we find abhorrent.

Trent Houseboat · 06-01-2017 12:45pm

ThisRegard wrote:

You seem to misunderstand your own point and what others have said. Nobody has come out against the moderation of comments. The posts you quote are coming out against the proposed ban on such comments.

You're right. The tweet was down by the time I read the thread, I thought it was moderation not legislation.

100% in the wrong.

Advbrd · 06-01-2017 12:48pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

You're right. The tweet was down by the time I read the thread, I thought it was moderation not legislation.

100% in the wrong.

You don't belong in AH, backing down like that.

Tabnabs · 06-01-2017 12:59pm

Worth reading the exchange with Cllr Keith Redmond who is very much in favour of free speech.

https://twitter.com/CllrKRedmond/status/817276925924298752?lang=en

Hint, click the link and keep scrolling down to follow comments (ironically).

Yourself isit · 06-01-2017 1:48pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

This just seems like a group of random words put together, it has no relationship to my post you're replying to.

This discussion is about a law banning all comments. Please get off the fence.

midnight city · 06-01-2017 1:50pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

You're right. The tweet was down by the time I read the thread, I thought it was moderation not legislation.

100% in the wrong.

Good man, we should have more of this in online discussion. Normally nobody will budge an inch. Like a million Ian Paisleys arguing with each other..

Yourself isit · 06-01-2017 1:55pm

GavMan wrote: »

The point is that its not for your or the Irish Times to decide what is legitimate or not. Its up to free thinking people to do that for themselves.

What the press are obligated to do is to provide a balanced view for everyone to make up for their own mind. They did so with the Mullally piece (however badly, IMO, that was executed)

It is up to the Irish times. It shouldn't be up to a senator to ban all comments.

Yourself isit · 06-01-2017 2:05pm

Because the tweet is deleted I don't think that people realise that the senator was asking for a ban on all online comments.

Legislation to remove comments section on online articles is on the list of 2017 things to do

Was the tweet.

Grayson · 06-01-2017 2:28pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

Worth reading the exchange with Cllr Keith Redmond who is very much in favour of free speech.

https://twitter.com/CllrKRedmond/status/817276925924298752?lang=en

Hint, click the link and keep scrolling down to follow comments (ironically).

Took a look at the rest of that guys tweets. He's a twat. Further down he retweeted a story about how Israel is tabling a bill to remove hate speech from Facebook. It appears he dislikes censorship unless it's something he wants to censor.

He's also a bit of a climate sceptic, compared the EU to the soviet union, wants to open up australian style detention centres for migrants and called someone who wants to pedestrianise part of Dublin city centre a fanatic.

Arghus · 06-01-2017 2:38pm

We better all be as outraged, racist, bile-filled and hurtful in comment sections while we still can.

Arghus · 06-01-2017 2:45pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

Worth reading the exchange with Cllr Keith Redmond who is very much in favour of free speech.

https://twitter.com/CllrKRedmond/status/817276925924298752?lang=en

Hint, click the link and keep scrolling down to follow comments (ironically).

Obviously this fellow - in his fondness for free speech, no doubt - failed to check the reality of the situation before commentating on it himself.

No law is to be passed - nice bit of scaremongering and outrage on tap from him. It was a case of one Senator shooting their mouth off online about how they'd maybe like to propose something: it takes a bit more than that for legislation to come into existence.

A Little Pony · 06-01-2017 2:54pm

seamus wrote: »

There is a certain point to it - not necessarily removal, but some level of obligation on the content provider to properly moderate the comments section.

The articles posted are required to have even the tiniest smidgin of fact-checking, rigour and honesty in them. The paper will get in trouble with the press council if they fail to meet some basic standards.

Yet the comments below the same article are not subject to the same rules and can contain any old false nonsense and hysterical trolling.

It would make sense that if a paper is going to allow comments to their articles, the comments should be reviewed by a competent person for some of these basic standards before they get published with it.

One persons nonsense is another persons truth. You can't police free speech like that, everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express ideas. This idea is stupid and I see she has deleted the Tweet?

Yourself isit · 06-01-2017 3:01pm

Arghus wrote: »

Obviously this fellow - in his fondness for free speech, no doubt - failed to check the reality of the situation before commentating on it himself.

No law is to be passed - nice bit of scaremongering and outrage on tap from him. It was a case of one Senator shooting their mouth off online about how they'd maybe like to propose something: it takes a bit more than that for legislation to come into existence.

She was proposing passing a law. He was commenting on that proposal.