I am sitting at the Tea Lounge with Gersh Kuntzman, editor of the Brooklyn Paper, who pointed my attention to an interesting (and quite prudent) disclaimer in this week’s Brooklyn Paper about what comments they will and will not post on the website.
"Our invitation to posters in our editorial is just that. An invitation. Let’s hear it. But try to keep it clean meaning this: the most important thing is we don’t want to discourage unpopular thoughts. Unpopular thoughts are out there and need to be debated. We just want people not to abuse that."
I’m thinking about doing a disclaimer, too. Here’s an excerpt from the editorial in this week’s Brooklyn Paper.
The Brooklyn Paper has started inviting its readers to add their
comments directly below the articles that appear on our Web site.And now, the deluge.
Certainly,
we would not be opening up our Web site to public comment if we were
not fully committed to encouraging a free and open exchange of ideas.At
the same time, eagle-eyed readers will notice a disclaimer embedded
into the comment box compelling commenters to not post any “abusive,
obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually oriented
material, or any material that may violate applicable law,” on the site.
The stock has gained 150% from Oct 8, 2007 to Oct 22, 2007.
By the way check this company MDFI. Their stock is set to increase because of their association with Apple iphone and Complete Care Medical. Find more about this company and stock http://www.growurmoney.com/medefile/
I think moderating works best when there are some guidelines posted. So that way if someone’s post is removed, you are doing so not because they are presenting an unpopular view, but because they are being abusive, attacking someone personally rather than debating ideas, etc. And if you apply those guidelines across the board, then no one is singled out.
I think moderating works best when there are some guidelines posted. So that way if someone’s post is removed, you are doing so not because they are presenting an unpopular view, but because they are being abusive, attacking someone personally rather than debating ideas, etc. And if you apply those guidelines across the board, then no one is singled out.
I agree that while any blog or similar public forum on any subject should be allowed to have a venue, one’s own personal blog should reflect the level of consciousness of the one whose blog it is. Not that dissenting opinions should be censored, not at all, but expulsions of a distorted, toxic mind should be.
Thanks for your two cents. Much appreciated. Louise
I think moderating comments within reason is sensible. But, a disclaimer might discourage would-be commenters who may want to say something “against the grain,” even if it isn’t offensive, from commenting. Most people know what is offensive and what isn’t, and they choose to violate that or they don’t.
Everyone navigates that space differently.
Personally, I think it’s your blog, you should censor what you think is appropriate.
If it were me, I’d let people speak, and use MY discretion as to what comments are offensive and should be removed.
Your the blog host, you hold the keys.
That’s my two cents.