Moderation of upcoming elections

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

dudara wrote: »

TBC, I raised a concern during the 8th referendum debate, not because of Trump. I saw a long of long-term accounts come back to life (some dormant since before the Boards hack) and it made me suspicious that there could be some concerted effort at play.

The only place where I've seen an obvious concerted effort at play is with the Shinnerbot accounts on Boards. Sinn Fein openly recruits people to become Sinn Fein Online Supporters, so as to "reshape politics in Ireland," and I've seen many posters over the years relentlessly pushing pro-SF propaganda in an obviously orchestrated way -- and yet, to my knowledge, there's never been an investigation into this. Some of these accounts were given free rein to carry on for years. (Some may still be active. I lost interest a while back in arguing with these "bot" accounts.)

In general, what do you want from this discussion? I think it’s fair to say that Boards wants to allow an open atmosphere for discussion, with the exception of illegal discussion or discussion that contravenes the terms of use. So while a discussion may not be palatable to you or others, it doesn’t automatically mean that it should be closed.

I fully support open discussion. The issue I raised is that when the progressive left is pushing an issue, such as same-sex marriage, nobody blinks an eye when the level of support on Boards far exceeds that in the general population. But when support emerges for anything perceived as "right-wing," such as Trump or Casey, we get Feedback threads, investigations, and Boards staff suggesting with a straight face that Russians might be infiltrating the site.

There's a notable disparity here. Posters strenuously advocating a cause aligned with the progressive left are generally given a free pass, while those doing the same thing from a different perspective trigger suspicion and investigations. That's antithetical to open discussion.

blanch152

Juniper Attractive Molding wrote: »

The only place where I've seen an obvious concerted effort at play is with the Shinnerbot accounts on Boards. Sinn Fein openly recruits people to become Sinn Fein Online Supporters, so as to "reshape politics in Ireland," and I've seen many posters over the years relentlessly pushing pro-SF propaganda in an obviously orchestrated way -- and yet, to my knowledge, there's never been an investigation into this. Some of these accounts were given free rein to carry on for years. (Some may still be active. I lost interest a while back in arguing with these "bot" accounts.)



I fully support open discussion. The issue I raised is that when the progressive left is pushing an issue, such as same-sex marriage, nobody blinks an eye when the level of support on Boards far exceeds that in the general population. But when support emerges for anything perceived as "right-wing," such as Trump or Casey, we get Feedback threads, investigations, and Boards staff suggesting with a straight face that Russians might be infiltrating the site.

There's a notable disparity here. Posters strenuously advocating a cause aligned with the progressive left are generally given a free pass, while those doing the same thing from a different perspective trigger suspicion and investigations. That's antithetical to open discussion.

Ah yes, I remember them well.

There was a whole heap of them who arrived around 2010 to tell us they had been voting in elections all their lives but had never voted for Sinn Fein before but were going to vote that way in the next election because they were fed up with the alternatives.

When you looked through some of their other posts and saw that some of them were barely old enough to vote, you could only laugh.

ancapailldorcha

Juniper Attractive Molding wrote: »

I fully support open discussion. The issue I raised is that when the progressive left is pushing an issue, such as same-sex marriage, nobody blinks an eye when the level of support on Boards far exceeds that in the general population. But when support emerges for anything perceived as "right-wing," such as Trump or Casey, we get Feedback threads, investigations, and Boards staff suggesting with a straight face that Russians might be infiltrating the site.

While I don't want to speak for Boards.ie staff, admins and CMods, is seems likely that there is Russian interference which tends to favor rightwing causes such as Brexit and Trump. I'm not sure how successfully it has permeated bigger sites, let alone Boards but I've not heard any mention of Russians trying to support the 8th being repealed.

Juniper Attractive Molding wrote: »

There's a notable disparity here. Posters strenuously advocating a cause aligned with the progressive left are generally given a free pass, while those doing the same thing from a different perspective trigger suspicion and investigations. That's antithetical to open discussion.

I disagree. While mods can ban certain posters who become abusive, we can't control who wants to post on certain topics. If most of the population is pro-repeal to stick with the 8th amendment example then one would expect a heavy showing of pro-repeal posters in those threads. Though for other subjects, support for one viewpoint such as Casey would buck that trend but then, Casey may have support from an older demographic which might not be interested in online debate.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of people on this site who advocate strongly for various positions on both left and right who do so unimpeded.

dudara

Juniper Attractive Molding wrote: »

The only place where I've seen an obvious concerted effort at play is with the Shinnerbot accounts on Boards. Sinn Fein openly recruits people to become Sinn Fein Online Supporters, so as to "reshape politics in Ireland," and I've seen many posters over the years relentlessly pushing pro-SF propaganda in an obviously orchestrated way -- and yet, to my knowledge, there's never been an investigation into this. Some of these accounts were given free rein to carry on for years. (Some may still be active. I lost interest a while back in arguing with these "bot" accounts.)

All that I can ask (of all posters) is that any suspicious accounts / activities are reported. With an explanation why. HQ and Admins will look into it best we can.

Juniper Attractive Molding wrote:

I fully support open discussion. The issue I raised is that when the progressive left is pushing an issue, such as same-sex marriage, nobody blinks an eye when the level of support on Boards far exceeds that in the general population. But when support emerges for anything perceived as "right-wing," such as Trump or Casey, we get Feedback threads, investigations, and Boards staff suggesting with a straight face that Russians might be infiltrating the site.

There's a notable disparity here. Posters strenuously advocating a cause aligned with the progressive left are generally given a free pass, while those doing the same thing from a different perspective trigger suspicion and investigations. That's antithetical to open discussion.

Sorry, I realise now that it sounded like my question was addressed to you personally. I really meant my question for the OP, who initiated this whole discussion. But it could also be answered by any poster.

To reply to your point, the general perception in the world right now is that “right-wing” movements have successfully utilised social media and the internet to achieve their objectives. And that probably influences the Reported posts we get. Cause and effect.

However, we take action based on the behaviour of users. And anyone who sticks to the Boards rules, no matter how left or right they are, will be allowed post. In the 8th discussion, AH overwhelmingly supported repeal and this was borne out in the results. For the presidential election, AH supported Peter Casey, yet this was not borne out by the eventual results.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

While I don't want to speak for Boards.ie staff, admins and CMods, is seems likely that there is Russian interference which tends to favor rightwing causes such as Brexit and Trump.

The explanation for the Casey vote is far simpler, IMO. Judging by the regular AH threads on the topics, a significant number of posters take issue with the current public debates around Travellers and social welfare. Many are not pro-Brexit or pro-Trump -- and I suspect that few would expressly identify themselves as "right-wing" -- but many do disagree with the media and political establishment depicting Travellers as victims of settled people's racism, all while ignoring or downplaying the extent of violence, criminality, anti-social behavior and tax evasion within that group. They also have issues with a social welfare system that often seems to advantage people who don't work more than those who do. Casey struck a chord with those people, and so gained significant support within the forum.

dudara wrote: »

In the 8th discussion, AH overwhelmingly supported repeal and this was borne out in the results. For the presidential election, AH supported Peter Casey, yet this was not borne out by the eventual results.

I'd be less inclined to look at which side won or lost than at how the margin of support differed. In the informal AH 8th Amendment exit poll, 81 percent of posters said they voted Yes for repeal, versus 66 percent of those who voted in the actual referendum -- so AH support for Yes exceeded the electorate's by 15 percentage points. In the informal AH presidential election exit poll, 51 percent stated that they voted for Casey, versus 23 percent of voters who supported him. So, support for Casey on AH exceeded the general electorate's by 28 percentage points.

This shows only that there can be a wide margin between the stances expressed on AH and corresponding stances among the general electorate ... which I guessed we all already would have suspected.

Frankly, anyone who knows which way the winds blow in AH should expect a candidate criticizing Travellers and excessive social welfare entitlements to get a good deal of support. There was never any reason to suspect the Russians!

batgoat

Juniper Attractive Molding wrote: »

The explanation for the Casey vote is far simpler, IMO. Judging by the regular AH threads on the topics, a significant number of posters take issue with the current public debates around Travellers and social welfare. Many are not pro-Brexit or pro-Trump -- and I suspect that few would expressly identify themselves as "right-wing" -- but many do disagree with the media and political establishment depicting Travellers as victims of settled people's racism, all while ignoring or downplaying the extent of violence, criminality, anti-social behavior and tax evasion within that group. They also have issues with a social welfare system that often seems to advantage people who don't work more than those who do. Casey struck a chord with those people, and so gained significant support within the forum.



I'd be less inclined to look at which side won or lost than at how the margin of support differed. In the informal AH 8th Amendment exit poll, 81 percent of posters said they voted Yes for repeal, versus 66 percent of those who voted in the actual referendum -- so AH support for Yes exceeded the electorate's by 15 percentage points. In the informal AH presidential election exit poll, 51 percent stated that they voted for Casey, versus 23 percent of voters who supported him. So, support for Casey on AH exceeded the general electorate's by 28 percentage points.

This shows only that there can be a wide margin between the stances expressed on AH and corresponding stances among the general electorate ... which I guessed we all already would have suspected.

Frankly, anyone who knows which way the winds blow in AH should expect a candidate criticizing Travellers and excessive social welfare entitlements to get a good deal of support. There was never any reason to suspect the Russians!

The big thing you get in relation to people like Casey or Trump is an upswing in posters with 2 or 3 posts, much of the time with brand new accounts expressing incredibly strong views. You tended to get this far less often with the yes side on either of our last two referendums. While not necessarily Russians, topics like this tend to include many rereges who were banned for good reason.

Franz Von Peppercorn

dudara wrote: »

TBC, I raised a concern during the 8th referendum debate, not because of Trump. I saw a long of long-term accounts come back to life (some dormant since before the Boards hack) and it made me suspicious that there could be some concerted effort at play. We found no evidence to support that theory, and it was simply far more likely that the old accounts were re-energised by the debate to post on Boards.

Personally, I think moderates are increasingly unlikely to take part in debate in forums like this. And as a result we have more polarised discussion, as evidenced by the Peter Casey poll. All that poll tells us is that the people who cared enough to vote in the poll preferred Peter Casey.

In general, what do you want from this discussion? I think it’s fair to say that Boards wants to allow an open atmosphere for discussion, with the exception of illegal discussion or discussion that contravenes the terms of use. So while a discussion may not be palatable to you or others, it doesn’t automatically mean that it should be closed.

Conversely the politics forum about trump is dominated by left wingers. (Well American style democrats who think they are actually living there, not here).

These particular threads tend to drive some opposition away, but there’s no external conspiracy.

The op is a bit sinister though. Clearly someone who believes that speech should be curtailed, if he doesn’t agree with it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

dav3 wrote: »

Hi Niamh, we should park talk of Russian bots for the moment. I'm not the one that brought that particular phrase up. It offers nothing to the discussion apart from spreading hysteria as can already be seen in this thread. You must however be aware that there are a large number of posters from certain countries commenting on Irish issues and urging Irish people to adopt a certain stance on issues.

I am surprised that boards.ie do not know the demographics of their users. There is not a single age group, gender, socio economic group, or constituency that voted for the particular candidate mentioned in my previous post. What happened in the run-up to the presidential election should be viewed as a test run for future elections. A test run in which boards.ie failed spectacularly.

We are not talking about users passionately debating a single issue. We are talking about a single candidate in an election who received a disproportionately high support on here compared to what was seen in every constituency throughout the country.

You are not giving a voice to the silent majority, you are not giving a voice to people who are normally afraid to speak out, you are giving a voice to a very vocal minority. A vocal minority, no matter what way you dress it up, that does not exist in any demographic within Ireland.

Certainly everyone needs to have a voice in a debate, but you need to be careful when you give 90%+ of the platform to people who only represent a fraction of that, and in some cases less than 1% of Irish people. This is the very definition of an echo chamber, this is what boards.ie are currently encouraging.

You can see how this might become an issue in the future, certainly in relation to any upcoming elections. When you pander to a small minority of people you leave yourself open to all forms of abuse by a those people. I highly doubt any of your sponsors would be happy paying to promote the views of a number of people that represent less than 1% of the population, views that are predominantly filled with hatred and intolerance.

I don't believe the website is doing enough to address the issues raised. I am happy to provide further suggestions to help combat the obvious targeting from certain groups that is currently taking place.

1. Block all new registrations in the run up to elections.
2. Set a minimum limit of posts required by a user before they can vote in a poll.
3. Set a minimum number of posts required by a user before they can like another post.
4. When a user is site banned, all posts, thanks and votes made by that user are automatically removed.

I would hope that the people running this website will take these suggestions seriously. I believe it is important to have these discussions on record for posterity so people can view how these issues were dealt with by the people in charge of running the site.

What gives you the utterly insane idea that this forum or any other has to exactly match the electorate coming up to an election or that it has any duty to? It’s a website. Start your own if you don’t like it.

seamus

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Hold the phone there. You're jumping to conclusions. There's no rule that says the demographic of any website ought to correspond to the demographic of the public at large. That's why online polls have absolutely no validity in terms of gauging public opinion.

Just because there was a great a proportion of Peter Casey supporters in After Hours than there was in the electorate at large, doesn't mean they were all Russian trolls.

I agree.

I called it out, in that thread though, that AH had seen a massive sudden surge to the right in the space of a few weeks. Not just the Peter Casey thread, but practically any thread on social issues.

Posters with a more centrist slant have deserted AH because inevitably most threads become brigaded by the same few names who would argue that the sky is purple so long as they could stick it to feminists and left-wingers.

I doubt Russian bots are to blame, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a small corner of some enclave for sad rejects like 4chan, where a few people continually discuss the best way to sh1t all over a thread on AH.

Not sure if there's anything that can be done, or should be done. But AH has lost any reputation as a "fun" place to talk, and instead it's considered just barely less sh1tty than the comments section of the journal.

No doubt the argument will be that, "People are just sick of the PC agenda blah blah blah", but the shift was so sudden, and the brigading (i.e. all appearing at roughly the same time and overwhelming the thread together) so specific that it makes me suspicious.

Calhoun

seamus wrote: »

Not sure if there's anything that can be done, or should be done. But AH has lost any reputation as a "fun" place to talk, and instead it's considered just barely less sh1tty than the comments section of the journal.

No doubt the argument will be that, "People are just sick of the PC agenda blah blah blah", but the shift was so sudden, and the brigading (i.e. all appearing at roughly the same time and overwhelming the thread together) so specific that it makes me suspicious.

If AH lost the reputation for fun it was a long time ago, when it became a vehicle for social change.

By now the horse has already bolted and its just a case of which side of the political divide is using it on any given day.

tabby aspreme

seamus wrote: »

I agree.

I called it out, in that thread though, that AH had seen a massive sudden surge to the right in the space of a few weeks. Not just the Peter Casey thread, but practically any thread on social issues.

Posters with a more centrist slant have deserted AH because inevitably most threads become brigaded by the same few names who would argue that the sky is purple so long as they could stick it to feminists and left-wingers.

That sudden surge to the right probably coincided with the arrival into the media, of Margaret "the gift, that keeps on taking" Cash, and gathered momentum when Peter Casey spoke about equality for all Irish people.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

batgoat wrote: »

The big thing you get in relation to people like Casey or Trump is an upswing in posters with 2 or 3 posts, much of the time with brand new accounts expressing incredibly strong views. You tended to get this far less often with the yes side on either of our last two referendums. While not necessarily Russians, topics like this tend to include many rereges who were banned for good reason.

Some of the posts supporting Casey got 300+ to 400+ thanks, including from numerous mods and long-time posters. Meanwhile, posters condemning Casey did not manage to gain much traction.

There's no point in pretending, then, that the show of support for Casey can somehow be explained by rereg trolls or a 4chan conspiracy or an infiltration by the Russians. It's hard to deny the fact that Casey had a very strong show of support from within the Boards community itself.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

I agree.

I called it out, in that thread though, that AH had seen a massive sudden surge to the right in the space of a few weeks. Not just the Peter Casey thread, but practically any thread on social issues.

Posters with a more centrist slant have deserted AH because inevitably most threads become brigaded by the same few names who would argue that the sky is purple so long as they could stick it to feminists and left-wingers.

I doubt Russian bots are to blame, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a small corner of some enclave for sad rejects like 4chan, where a few people continually discuss the best way to sh1t all over a thread on AH.

Not sure if there's anything that can be done, or should be done. But AH has lost any reputation as a "fun" place to talk, and instead it's considered just barely less sh1tty than the comments section of the journal.

No doubt the argument will be that, "People are just sick of the PC agenda blah blah blah", but the shift was so sudden, and the brigading (i.e. all appearing at roughly the same time and overwhelming the thread together) so specific that it makes me suspicious.

This just doesn't add up for me.

The one poster who has dominated the Peter Casey discussion, with over 15% of the posts (252) on the current thread, is completely against Casey, and believes that what he said amounts to hate speech. That poster similarly dominated other threads. Only one other poster has more than 75 posts on the current thread.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

tabby aspreme wrote: »

That sudden surge to the right probably coincided with the arrival into the media, of Margaret "the gift, that keeps on taking" Cash, and gathered momentum when Peter Casey spoke about equality for all Irish people.

Margaret Cash, a 28-year-old Traveller with 39 criminal convictions and seven children she can't support, has been pulling a series of publicity stunts to secure permanent social housing in an area of her choosing in Dublin -- on top of the estimated €50,000 in welfare benefits she receives annually.

In Tipperary, an extended Traveller family has refused to occupy six homes provided for them at a cost of €1.7 million unless they are also supplied with stables and acres of land for their horses.

Maybe public disgust at such stories, at a time when honest hardworking people are struggling through a national housing crisis, is not actually evidence of a "massive surge to the right." Rather, it might just be evidence that regular people are increasingly fed up of an entitlement culture gone bonkers.

Captain Obvious

There's definitely a concerted effort on other platforms to push divisive topics and opinions. Twitter, Youtube and Reddit all have it. I don't see why Boards would be different. The only reason it appears top be on the right is because Ireland is generally on the left for most things.