nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

A respectful discussion about the perception of liberal bias...

hatrickpatrick

...in Boards' moderation.

Title appropriated from a post by Permabear, plagiarism complaints can be delivered by PM along with an appropriately amusing selection of dank memes.

A moderator locked the original discussion thread, which was discussing the closure on Politics Cafe of a thread about perceived liberal hypocrisy, but stipulated that we could continue the conversation in a new thread, one which did not address a specific instance of moderation which has now been resolved (but without the issues around it having been resolved).

Here's my last post from that thread:

My argument here is that the thread was completely innocuous, and any mod looking at it should have said "shouldn't have been reported, case closed". It broke no rules and violated no aspect of the charter, and I can't imagine any reason for it being reported other than "we don't want a mens' rights circlejerk". The problem with that is that there are countless other circlejerks which are allowed on Boards no questions asked, and it's when only a handful of subjects or topics of conversation are flagged as "potentially problematic" and therefore worthy of pre-emptive thread closure, that one arrives at a conclusion of either (a) Boards is hypersensitive to certain subjects and doesn't want them discussed lest "objectionable" viewpoints be aired, or (b) Boards is hypersensitive to controversy and doesn't want heated debate of any kind.

The many Sinn Fein threads over the years easily constitute a hyperbolic load of hyperbollocks (

), but you don't see them being locked after just 5 posts. Same with Israel/Palestine threads, same with water charges threads, same with threads about crooked politicians, etc. But once a thread is about a sacred cow tenet of the social justice movement - abortion, feminism, immigration, religion to name just a few - it tends to be kept very strictly under the thumb of the mods, if it's even allowed at all. God forbid anyone have a lively and heated discussion on these subjects, mirite?

You must admit that it's become very difficult to continue to believe that Boards does not engage in ideological policing at least to some extent. This wasn't always the case. If I could pinpoint when it began, I think I'd point to somewhere in the region of late 2011 - mid 2012. It has accelerated wildly in the last two years, to the point at which anything remotely controversial tends to get suppressed or neutered as quickly as possible.

And I want to point out that I'm a left wing poster myself and I tend to actually agree with the viewpoint Boards is perceived as pedalling. I just don't come to an online discussion forum to have my own views reinforced in a totally artificial echo chamber in which dissenting voices are silenced - what's the point? I can go off and talk to myself if that's what I'm looking for. :pac:

Boards, as I see it, is coming to resemble the film "Hot Fuzz" - spoiler warning -

The neighbourhood watch committee in an "idyllic", peaceful rural town in England achieves total harmony and happiness by discreetly murdering anybody who so much as steps on a protected blade of grass or hands a painting slightly crooked.

So let's have that discussion we were told we could have!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

looksee

I seem to have missed the email? When did the instructions go round to mods about liberal agendas?

What does liberal mean these days anyway, I thought I understood what a political liberal was but evidently I am missing quite a lot, given the number of times people are 'accused' of it.

And the whole feminism bit, there are some aspects of what used be called feminism which were and still are relevant. Increasingly though it is the hysterical ( :P yes I know) shrieking of people with too much time on their hands and no ability to see rationality in a discussion. It will be abandoned along with safe spaces and triggers, which is a pity because all three did at one stage have a role to play.

I do not agree with burqas, and have said so. I can also appreciate why open door immigration might worry some people. Neither of these mean that I am going to demand a total halt to immigration or remove peoples rights to wear whatever they want - with the exception of full face veils. Does that make me a liberal or right wing?

There are extreme left / liberal views that are as daft and dangerous as extreme right wing views; the problems arise when someone with a moderate viewpoint is accused of being liberal - which is now an insult - or fascist. It is so much easier to throw these terms around (with one's own personal definition) than argue coherently why a viewpoint might be reconsidered.

Trojan

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Although that's a somewhat tongue in cheek phrase, I think there is an element of truth to it. In the sense that a more liberal worldview is being adopted by new generations, and as a species, we are moving toward the left. That makes what was just right of centre 40 years ago now more of a strong or even extreme right position.

There's no liberal conspiracy on boards. I can say that categorically, as a former admin. What there might be is subconscious bias on the part of individual mods. And the more self-aware mods will even be conscious of their own biases and try to ensure they balance properly.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That simply isn't true, I've carded and banned users for that in the last week or 2.

But you feel that is the case, all we can do is explain otherwise but there isn't a lot we can do when beliefs are involved.

Wigglepuppy

I like plenty about Boards (beats the fecking journal) but the shutting down of the thread about the Fathers 4 Justice guy was bizarre, no reason given. "It's under review" is not a reason.

I know it's likely because it'll draw messers but why not just grow a spine and take on board what they have to say or ignore them. They can be banned as a last resort.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

This post and that thread describes what I 'm talking about.

The threads on the Syrian refugee crisis got so bad that anyone who was anything less than utterly opposed to taking even one in was insulted and villified to the point where the thread had to be locked.The Café even needed to be rebooted it got so bad.

The above was never given as a reason to close those threads though.
And the immigration threads were never given as the reason for the Cafe's closure.
Unless you know something that I don't.

Esel

Trojan wrote: »

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Although that's a somewhat tongue in cheek phrase, I think there is an element of truth to it. In the sense that a more liberal worldview is being adopted by new generations, and as a species, we are moving toward the left. That makes what was just right of centre 40 years ago now more of a strong or even extreme right position.

There's no liberal conspiracy on boards. I can say that categorically, as a former admin. What there might be is subconscious bias on the part of individual mods. And the more self-aware mods will even be conscious of their own biases and try to ensure they balance properly.

Aren't you an admin now?

darced

This post has been deleted.

Trojan

Esel wrote: »

Aren't you an admin now?

No longer, ten years of diplomacy was enough. (It does show me as an admin in one of the skins on the touch site.)

jack923

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...in Boards' moderation.

Title appropriated from a post by Permabear, plagiarism complaints can be delivered by PM along with an appropriately amusing selection of dank memes.

A moderator locked the original discussion thread, which was discussing the closure on Politics Cafe of a thread about perceived liberal hypocrisy, but stipulated that we could continue the conversation in a new thread, one which did not address a specific instance of moderation which has now been resolved (but without the issues around it having been resolved).

Here's my last post from that thread:

My argument here is that the thread was completely innocuous, and any mod looking at it should have said "shouldn't have been reported, case closed". It broke no rules and violated no aspect of the charter, and I can't imagine any reason for it being reported other than "we don't want a mens' rights circlejerk". The problem with that is that there are countless other circlejerks which are allowed on Boards no questions asked, and it's when only a handful of subjects or topics of conversation are flagged as "potentially problematic" and therefore worthy of pre-emptive thread closure, that one arrives at a conclusion of either (a) Boards is hypersensitive to certain subjects and doesn't want them discussed lest "objectionable" viewpoints be aired, or (b) Boards is hypersensitive to controversy and doesn't want heated debate of any kind.

The many Sinn Fein threads over the years easily constitute a hyperbolic load of hyperbollocks ( ), but you don't see them being locked after just 5 posts. Same with Israel/Palestine threads, same with water charges threads, same with threads about crooked politicians, etc. But once a thread is about a sacred cow tenet of the social justice movement - abortion, feminism, immigration, religion to name just a few - it tends to be kept very strictly under the thumb of the mods, if it's even allowed at all. God forbid anyone have a lively and heated discussion on these subjects, mirite?

You must admit that it's become very difficult to continue to believe that Boards does not engage in ideological policing at least to some extent. This wasn't always the case. If I could pinpoint when it began, I think I'd point to somewhere in the region of late 2011 - mid 2012. It has accelerated wildly in the last two years, to the point at which anything remotely controversial tends to get suppressed or neutered as quickly as possible.

And I want to point out that I'm a left wing poster myself and I tend to actually agree with the viewpoint Boards is perceived as pedalling. I just don't come to an online discussion forum to have my own views reinforced in a totally artificial echo chamber in which dissenting voices are silenced - what's the point? I can go off and talk to myself if that's what I'm looking for. :pac:

Boards, as I see it, is coming to resemble the film "Hot Fuzz" - spoiler warning -
The neighbourhood watch committee in an "idyllic", peaceful rural town in England achieves total harmony and happiness by discreetly murdering anybody who so much as steps on a protected blade of grass or hands a painting slightly crooked.

So let's have that discussion we were told we could have!

10 mods might look at a thread and not think anything of it but it just takes one who doesn't like the thread and he will scan the rules and guidelines for a reason to shut the thread down

maregal

On a related note, I see that Facebook have also been accused of having a liberal bias and suppressing conservative opinions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37205029

A former journalist who worked for the company had alleged that Facebook workers "routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers".

A former Boards mod has made similar accusations about this site (I won't say where these claims were made unless given permission to). In fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bias of some sort on Boards. The admins cannot control the dozens of mods here and a lot of decisions are a judgement call. The best we can do is limit this bias by calling it out when we (the regular users) see it.

fran17

maregal wrote: »

On a related note, I see that Facebook have also been accused of having a liberal bias and suppressing conservative opinions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37205029

A former Boards mod has made similar accusations about this site (I won't say where these claims were made unless given permission to). In fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bias of some sort on Boards. The admins cannot control the dozens of mods here and a lot of decisions are a judgement call. The best we can do is limit this bias by calling it out when we (the regular users) see it.

You have my permission

I feel that the question of Admin having to control their mods as a moot point really as the possibility of a significant percentage of moderators breaking rank,so to speak,highly unlikely.On serious social or political issues the spectrum of opinion appears to be quite narrow indeed.

K-9

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Could be the user base is changing or just getting older.

One thing I've noticed in 5 or 6 years modding politics is reported posts often come from a biased angle, amount of times somebody will report "the other side" and when you review the thread you see the same, or worse, from their own side. Politics really is like following Liverpool or United or your county team to many, it's just dressed up in fancy clothes!

But what that means is people will often see the other side "getting away" with something, but they miss the posts that their own side also get away with. They dismiss or forget that, or else it simply doesn't register at all.

Peregrine

K-9 wrote: »

That simply isn't true, I've carded and banned users for that in the last week or 2.

But you feel that is the case, all we can do is explain otherwise but there isn't a lot we can do when beliefs are involved.

Don't bother. They'll never believe you and if they do, they'll ignore it.

I've gotten many PMs from disgruntled users saying that they wouldn't have been banned if they were a lefty or asking why a certain right-winger wasn't banned. In most cases, I politely point out how they're wrong and they'll go on ranting as if I never said a word.

The number of users — on either "side" — with a persecution complex is incredible.

Stheno

Peregrine wrote: »

I've gotten many PMs from disgruntled users saying that they wouldn't have been banned if they were a lefty or asking why a certain right-winger wasn't banned. In most cases, I politely point out how they're wrong and they'll go on ranting as if I never said a word.

same here

Pelvis Parsley

I used to think this place was straight down the middle in political terms, at least inasmuch as it was possible to be, given the youthful demographic that used to be here. There was always standout instances, such as overly feminist/ atheistic mods, and certain individuals in cmod and smod roles who had a strong political bias, and as such extorted undue control over discussions, but all in all it was as good as it could be expected to be in regard to political leanings and fairness.

Then there was a change, suddenly it became bad taste here to call out misandry or ask for a fair debate on immigration (even though there were plenty of table bangers here ready to throw the race card, you could still have a conversation prior to that, if you wanted to run the gauntlet). We had long rambling diatribes about how sexist we were, it even got enshrined in charters, and as such sanctioned by the site. Thread locks and moderation, always an overzealous facet to boards, became ever more common, and tended to favour one side over another.

Despite the protestations of many moderators and volunteers here, hard working and otherwise, level headed or not, I see no change in that pattern over the last couple of years. If anything, it's gotten worse. To the extent that debate is stifled and cut off at birth.

I'm not a liberal, I'd describe my self as centre right on some things, and left on some others. But I applaud those who've posted here, identified themselves as liberal, and campaigned for a freer and fairer metric for how the site is run. That's what liberalism actually is. We need more of it in society.

Not shouting down those who disagree with you, attempting to control the discourse, and then lapsing into little gleeful side discussions about the word cuck.

jack923

K-9 wrote: »

Could be the user base is changing or just getting older.

One thing I've noticed in 5 or 6 years modding politics is reported posts often come from a biased angle, amount of times somebody will report "the other side" and when you review the thread you see the same, or worse, from their own side. Politics really is like following Liverpool or United or your county team to many, it's just dressed up in fancy clothes!

But what that means is people will often see the other side "getting away" with something, but they miss the posts that their own side also get away with. They dismiss or forget that, or else it simply doesn't register at all.

That's the same with mods though isn't it? They'll shut a thread down or ban a user for having an opinion they don't like, you could ban anyone by going through the rules and guidelines and using your subjective view of a rule to ban someone because of their post.

K-9

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

I like plenty about Boards (beats the fecking journal) but the shutting down of the thread about the Fathers 4 Justice guy was bizarre, no reason given. "It's under review" is not a reason.

I know it's likely because it'll draw messers but why not just grow a spine and take on board what they have to say or ignore them. They can be banned as a last resort.

We did explain in the other feedback thread and on this one. In short we fcuked up, there wasn't enough bodies about to advise and I should have saw that and posted to keep the thread open. The floggings are at midnight!

Lesson to learn is that a mod doesn't necessarily have to act on a Reported post. I'd often just keep an eye out on whatever is brought to our attention, that doesn't mean it is being ignored or not taken seriously, it's waiting to see how posters deal with something. Nothing better than seeing a troll get ignored but unfortunately it doesn't happen enough.

That patience comes with time and experience and often you've to learn the hard way, by mistakes or threads like these!

The above is also why a some automated reply system for reported posts would be difficult to implement.

K-9

Peregrine wrote: »

Don't bother. They'll never believe you and if they do, they'll ignore it.

I've gotten many PMs from disgruntled users saying that they wouldn't have been banned if they were a lefty or asking why a certain right-winger wasn't banned. In most cases, I politely point out how they're wrong and they'll go on ranting as if I never said a word.

The number of users — on either "side" — with a persecution complex is incredible.

In fairness the reply wasn't just aimed at the poster, it was more for people reading. We've 2 or 3 American Republican posters in politics who don't be long telling us if they think we're unfair and that's a good thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Stheno, in the interests of transparency, could you tell us what potential issues you flagged when asking for advice about the Rose of Tralee thread in the mod forum? As in, what exactly were you asking other mods about, or what issue was it that made you flag that particular thread?

Zaph

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Stheno, in the interests of transparency, could you tell us what potential issues you flagged when asking for advice about the Rose of Tralee thread in the mod forum? As in, what exactly were you asking other mods about, or what issue was it that made you flag that particular thread?

This is straying into the specifics territory that LoLth asked people to try to avoid. Stheno has already said that she wanted to check whether the thread belonged in the Café or not. I don't really think that there an awful lot to be said after that tbh.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Stheno, in the interests of transparency, could you tell us what potential issues you flagged when asking for advice about the Rose of Tralee thread in the mod forum? As in, what exactly were you asking other mods about, or what issue was it that made you flag that particular thread?

Stheno asked about the reported post. She wasn't sure whether to move, close or keep the thread open, she just didn't know imo.
The issue has been addressed at length on this thread, the other feedback thread and in the mod forum. I'm a bit uncomfortable at raking over every single detail, you wouldn't get this level of analysis in a professional job.

The mod asked for advice and a wrong call was made. All we can do is learn from it and move on. I accept Boards isn't perfect and you raise valid points, but it's unfair to focus on one single mistaken call or one mod imo.

Wibbs

fran17 wrote: »

I feel that the question of Admin having to control their mods as a moot point really as the possibility of a significant percentage of moderators breaking rank,so to speak,highly unlikely.

It's happened before over issues users and mods had with the site and administrators. If anything I'd reckon it's more likely to happen now as people are less emotionally attached to the site and to each other. Though it would likely happen in a different way. Not the previous gathering together as a community, but more people mods and users just drifting away or closing their account.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

That simply isn't true, I've carded and banned users for that in the last week or 2.

But you feel that is the case, all we can do is explain otherwise but there isn't a lot we can do when beliefs are involved.

Aye K-9. Perception is all. No matter what one's personal hobby horse.

The Right On feel Boards has become "hateful" and full of [insert group here]phobes eager to take their rainbows, the Right feel Boards has become invested with Leftie Liberals and "Cucks" eager to take their cash. The salient word here is feel. Both groups, or at least their most vocal members tend towards the feels overrule facts pretty equally. Both get sniffy if challenged and both are just as eager to "run to teacher" and report perceived slights to mods.

Tom Dunne

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye K-9. Perception is all. No matter what one's personal hobby horse.

The Right On feel Boards has become "hateful" and full of [insert group here]phobes eager to take their rainbows, the Right feel Boards has become invested with Leftie Liberals and "Cucks" eager to take their cash. The salient word here is feel. Both groups, or at least their most vocal members tend towards the feels overrule facts pretty equally. Both get sniffy if challenged and both are just as eager to "run to teacher" and report perceived slights to mods.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there Wibbly. In this post-truth era where emotion and perception trump reality and fact, sides become even more entrenched, even more convinced how wrong the other side is.

Fascinating article here on the BBC about this issue : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160823-how-modern-life-is-destroying-democracy

In reality, the perception of liberal bias is most likely, in my opinion, confined to the more popular forums such as AH and Politics. The other, what thousand or two don't appear to be suffering from this perception and continue on without the vocal minority proclaiming the end of Boards.

Cabaal

From my experience people can get awful odd on discussion boards and can often start throwing around claims of bias all over the shop!

One example I have from my own experience is many years ago before the Talk to Three forum was created Three wanted to interact with customers to sort their Mobile Broadband issues. This seemed a positive move and when this all kicked off some users on the site took a massive dislike of this and made claims that I was working for Three and trying to silence complaints about Three.

My only experience with Three prior to the events was that I once had a billpay phone and when my contract with them was up I had an awful experience trying to get the bloody thing unlocked. I documented the entire thing on boards at the time.

Despite me explaining this and stating numerous times that I most certainly did not work with or for Three many users still persisted in claiming I was working for Three and trying to silence complaints about Three.

The claims remained totally baseless, but this didn't stop some users side tracking countless threads. Eventually DeVore stepped in and told them that if they continued making such claims then they'd be banned.

I've also had claims about political bias as well on other forums claiming I actually work for a political party (a party I've never even voted for!), again another baseless claim with zero evidence to support.
But again it doesn't stop a hand full of users getting it into their heads that its real.

So in short, a belief of a bias or "agenda" does not mean a bias or "agenda" actually exists

Wibbs

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there Wibbly.

And you're shocked. Well thanks a bunch…

In this post-truth era where emotion and perception trump reality and fact, sides become even more entrenched, even more convinced how wrong the other side is.

Pretty much. Given I'm to the Right of Mussolini in a few ways, you'd think I'd be convinced Boards is biased towards the right, but I don't see it. Not in day to day moderation anyway. There is a bias towards the more centre left which is quite simply a reflection of wider Irish society. This is not America, nor Russia, nor Whereeverland. There are more vocal left and right types on Boards alright, but I suspect that's mainly down to people being far more reticent about "their" politics in public.

There has been an increase in the imported 'Merkin stuff in the last few years which we see here. Go back ten years and a "cuck" was a male chicken in Donegal, a trigger was on a gun, trump was slang for a fart(hmm) and a libertarian was someone who got off on shoving quails eggs up their bottoms while wearing frilly knickers. So along with Irish people calling their mother "mom" in that stupid mid atlantic accent we have to suffer all that guff too. It's mostly a minority thank the fates.

I've seen this perception stuff up close when I was called both a misogynist(when modding tGC) and a misandrist(when modding tLL) a year apart by the same person. :pac:

osarusan

Wibbs wrote: »

If anything I'd reckon it's more likely to happen now as people are less emotionally attached to the site and to each other.

I'd put myself into this bracket. I've posted before about how I've never felt much community here, for me it's just a place to post waffle and have a laugh and occasionally something serious. These days, there is much less of both in AH at least.

I'm always surprised about how people get to worked up about the site (Gearbest being a good example) and complain about the stuff that they see as unprincipled or whatever - why would people even care?

That stuff doesn't bother me in the slightest, but maybe I just never got into the community spirit enough. On the other hand, some of those complaining are just chronic malcontents also.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not the previous gathering together as a community, but more people mods and users just drifting away or closing their account.

Certainly, I'm posting less than I used to (never that prolific anyway). In AH, less stuff seems worthwhile.

It's basically the same 4 or 5 arguments over and over again, with nobody really interested in discussion - it's just a place to moan and complain, whether the complaint has any validity or not. Maybe it just took me a long time to realise that, or maybe I'm just more tired of it than before.

Regarding bias, if anything I'd say the number of people going on about how AH has become centre for crazy left-wing opinions if greater than the people with crazy left-wing opinions.

An example of this would be while I cannot ever recall a poster sincerely using the word 'trigger' in its US-style meaning (as mentioned by Wibbs above) I see clowns asking 'are you triggered? did it trigger you?' on a regular basis. Now we even have the other side sarcastically asking those clowns if they are triggered and do they need a safe space and so on. It's all just so painful, and maybe it's no surprise that lots of the more thoughtful posters have just drifted away.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye K-9. Perception is all. No matter what one's personal hobby horse.

The Right On feel Boards has become "hateful" and full of [insert group here]phobes eager to take their rainbows, the Right feel Boards has become invested with Leftie Liberals and "Cucks" eager to take their cash. The salient word here is feel. Both groups, or at least their most vocal members tend towards the feels overrule facts pretty equally. Both get sniffy if challenged and both are just as eager to "run to teacher" and report perceived slights to mods.

I think we are getting better at recognising the more right on, liberal at every opportunity, and at all costs types. I've been left scratching my head at some reported posts seriously doubting my sanity! Am I missing something completely obvious here and I'm a bit thick and getting old. Then it turns out it is somebody being way sensitive and looking for that dreaded phase, the safe space.

Again, and it's something I think you've raised recently as well, sometimes reported posts don't need any action or they are more advisory in a just keep an eye on that thread way.

Wibbs

osarusan wrote: »

An example of this would be while I cannot ever recall a poster sincerely using the word 'trigger' in its US-style meaning (as mentioned by Wibbs above) I see clowns asking 'are you triggered? did it trigger you?' on a regular basis. Now we even have the other side sarcastically asking those clowns if they are triggered and do they need a safe space and so on. It's all just so painful,

Aye, though I have seen someone use the words "trigger warning" in a post. It was common enough in the Ladies Lounge, when I was modding there anyway. Threads on sexual assault or eating disorders were the usual environment where it came up. To be fair it was a handful of repeat posters that used it.

But yeah, overall it's often more about people complaining that there are too many left/right wingers on Boards than actual posters having decent discussions along those lines. As I said I'm centre right in general and much more right wing in certain areas and I would welcome half way decent debate on such subjects. Instead what I too often see is some rainbow warrior clip clopping in on their high horse and/or some right winger itching to type "cuck". Both irritate me like testicle itch. Wearing nylon slacks*. In summer.

*I have never worn nylon, nor "slacks". Even the very name suggests the horror of it. I'd rather go naked while smeared in angry wasps TBH.