4 ms·

An irrational move made by a small-minded person. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you're confident in your views and your opponent is incapable of artic

An irrational move made by a small-minded person. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you're confident in your views and your opponent is incapable of articulating his (and, in fact, may actually be hurting his cause) ... you make sure he has a big audience.

this_user 13y ago
Have you actually read the article or only the headline? The main point the author makes is that a small but very vocal minority kept derailing any serious discussion which left the moderators no other choice.
- phazmatis 13y ago
  Those poor helpless /r/science masses, unable to control theirselves when a controversial post is made. It's a good thing we have moderators to save us from ourselves. (Face it: People suck)
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Disagree. There are some people who simply disregard reason/evidence and rationalize their beliefs on emotion. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  There are some people who simply disregard reason/evidence and rationalize their beliefs on emotion. That's true, and the world will never be rid of them. And that's probably a good thing, because every now and then, they might be right. I'm not saying that this is the case with global warming/climate change, but history is full of examples where a contrarian turned out to be correct. Repressing speech because it is unpopular or simply wrong is ultimately counterproductive, because it establishes a precedent.
HelloMcFly 13y ago
Your comment may be correct, but it may not be in line with the goal of the mods at r/science. If their goal is better discussion rather than predictable, emotional rabble-rousing, then removing the biggest obstacle to that end seems like the right move.
pjc50 13y ago
Is this actually true in practice? People do not pay detailed attention when evaluating two sets of plausible and highly technical claims, when there is emotional loading attached. We get "teach the controversy". This makes it quite easy for the determined and self-interested to manipulate public opinion. It's like spam: people have long since ceased to argue with spammers, they just remove the spam. "Sunlight" has no effect on it; rather, it risks blocking out the light to other messages. A valid argument for not banning viewpoints is that it prevents accurate dissent from getting through, and results in the status quo drifting into being wrong because it cannot be critically re-evaluated. But in this case it has been evaluated often and thoroughly enough that we can be confident. They should nonetheless put a sunset date on the policy for future review.
ceejayoz 13y ago
> Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield prove this not to be true in all cases.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  I disagree: in both cases the truth has come out, just not on a more convenient timetable.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    As with global warming, though, the truth hasn't stopped a cottage industry of deniers from getting "he-said-she-said" style media coverage and lots of followers willing to ignore the science.
raganwald 13y ago
Let me see now: You start your comment with an ad hominem attack on the author and then move to making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the experience of Every. Single. Online. Community. I don't think you're contributing to this discussion, and in fact, your comment is an example of what drags discourse into the gutter: Emotional, personal attacks coupled with information-free claims contradicting the established body of knowledge in a field. If I had the power, I'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would make that choice.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  If I had the power, I'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would make that choice. I hope that's sarcasm, otherwise you're simply reinforcing my point.
  - raganwald 13y ago
    No, it isn't sarcasm. Online communities need moderation to thrive. If you allow people to insult each other at will, eventually you drive all the thoughtful folks away: We have better things to do than constantly point out Discussion 101 things like fallacies and abusive behaviour. Unmoderated forums end up full of people who have a great deal of time on their hands and a large emotional attachment to arguing online. If that's your bag, you should hang out in such places. If it isn't you should try to avoid comments that come out swinging with insults. I favour moderated forums, and I favour moderating away comments that are blatant examples of abuse. Your tastes may vary. p.s. Normally I just downvote and move on, but since this discussion is actually about moderation, I thought that explaining myself was appropriate. But normally, I don;t engage in much of this kind of discussion, because it "feeds the trolls:" People with an emotional axe to grind thrive on arguing angrily about why they should be allowed to argue, angrily.
NegativeK 13y ago
Climate change denial has been going on for 20 years. I, too, believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but that runs into trouble when you have a democracy -- not everyone knows how to properly vet whether each side is articulating their point. Regarding reddit, sometimes the internet just doesn't work that way. When the con positions become disruptive instead of debates (and the knowledgeable people tire of having their positions constantly attacked by the unknowledgeable,) you have to weigh banning against transparency.

this_user 13y ago

Have you actually read the article or only the headline? The main point the author makes is that a small but very vocal minority kept derailing any serious discussion which left the moderators no other choice.

phazmatis 13y ago
Those poor helpless /r/science masses, unable to control theirselves when a controversial post is made. It's a good thing we have moderators to save us from ourselves. (Face it: People suck)

toomuchtodo 13y ago

Disagree. There are some people who simply disregard reason/evidence and rationalize their beliefs on emotion. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

MrZongle2 13y ago
There are some people who simply disregard reason/evidence and rationalize their beliefs on emotion. That's true, and the world will never be rid of them. And that's probably a good thing, because every now and then, they might be right. I'm not saying that this is the case with global warming/climate change, but history is full of examples where a contrarian turned out to be correct. Repressing speech because it is unpopular or simply wrong is ultimately counterproductive, because it establishes a precedent.

HelloMcFly 13y ago

Your comment may be correct, but it may not be in line with the goal of the mods at r/science. If their goal is better discussion rather than predictable, emotional rabble-rousing, then removing the biggest obstacle to that end seems like the right move.

pjc50 13y ago

Is this actually true in practice? People do not pay detailed attention when evaluating two sets of plausible and highly technical claims, when there is emotional loading attached. We get "teach the controversy". This makes it quite easy for the determined and self-interested to manipulate public opinion. It's like spam: people have long since ceased to argue with spammers, they just remove the spam. "Sunlight" has no effect on it; rather, it risks blocking out the light to other messages. A valid argument for not banning viewpoints is that it prevents accurate dissent from getting through, and results in the status quo drifting into being wrong because it cannot be critically re-evaluated. But in this case it has been evaluated often and thoroughly enough that we can be confident. They should nonetheless put a sunset date on the policy for future review.

ceejayoz 13y ago

> Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield prove this not to be true in all cases.

MrZongle2 13y ago
I disagree: in both cases the truth has come out, just not on a more convenient timetable.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  As with global warming, though, the truth hasn't stopped a cottage industry of deniers from getting "he-said-she-said" style media coverage and lots of followers willing to ignore the science.

raganwald 13y ago

Let me see now: You start your comment with an ad hominem attack on the author and then move to making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the experience of Every. Single. Online. Community. I don't think you're contributing to this discussion, and in fact, your comment is an example of what drags discourse into the gutter: Emotional, personal attacks coupled with information-free claims contradicting the established body of knowledge in a field. If I had the power, I'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would make that choice.

MrZongle2 13y ago
If I had the power, I'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would make that choice. I hope that's sarcasm, otherwise you're simply reinforcing my point.
- raganwald 13y ago
  No, it isn't sarcasm. Online communities need moderation to thrive. If you allow people to insult each other at will, eventually you drive all the thoughtful folks away: We have better things to do than constantly point out Discussion 101 things like fallacies and abusive behaviour. Unmoderated forums end up full of people who have a great deal of time on their hands and a large emotional attachment to arguing online. If that's your bag, you should hang out in such places. If it isn't you should try to avoid comments that come out swinging with insults. I favour moderated forums, and I favour moderating away comments that are blatant examples of abuse. Your tastes may vary. p.s. Normally I just downvote and move on, but since this discussion is actually about moderation, I thought that explaining myself was appropriate. But normally, I don;t engage in much of this kind of discussion, because it "feeds the trolls:" People with an emotional axe to grind thrive on arguing angrily about why they should be allowed to argue, angrily.

NegativeK 13y ago

Climate change denial has been going on for 20 years. I, too, believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but that runs into trouble when you have a democracy -- not everyone knows how to properly vet whether each side is articulating their point. Regarding reddit, sometimes the internet just doesn't work that way. When the con positions become disruptive instead of debates (and the knowledgeable people tire of having their positions constantly attacked by the unknowledgeable,) you have to weigh banning against transparency.