Phil Friedman

4 years ago · 6 min. reading time · visibility ~10 ·

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Finding the Right Balance

Finding the Right Balance| beBeetd s@beBee

}

Finding the Right BalanceWHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN FREE EXPRESSION AND OFFENSIVE SPEACH, AND DOES IT EVEN MATTER? ...


What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.
Salman Rushdie

I am a long-time supporter of beBee USA.  I believe that it has the potential to become the world's premier social media networking and digital self-publishing platform, and I have been outspoken in its promotion and defense. ("Rival Blogging Platforms: beBee Enters the Fray")

However, I am not a beBee "fan" — in the sense that I do not identify so closely with beBee ownership and management that I am moved to take umbrage when someone criticizes the platform or the members of what we all like to think of as the beBee community.

For although I recently accepted a designation as a beBee "Brand Ambassador", I am not so starry-eyed over being such that I feel bound to swarm to the defense of the platform's perceived honor, whenever someone chooses to denigrate it, whether justifiably or otherwise. Especially when such a defensive swarm takes on the flavor of mob action.


learn2engage

Before Writing Comes Thinking

For more than a few decades, I've remained stubbornly committed to the principles of free speech and expression. And I try — really hard and especially as a writer — to maintain that commitment, even when I read things with which I vehemently disagree.

One of the main reasons I've been so strongly attracted to beBee as a networking and self-publishing platform is that it is much more open and tolerant of a wide variety of opinion and styles than most competing platforms — in particular, LinkedIn where users are constantly told by other users that certain forms of expression are "not professional" or "too political" or "unacceptably disruptive."

Consequently, I was dismayed recently to witness an acrimonious exchange on a user's post (call him Author X) and what seemed to me to be an ensuing foray into the territory of censorship and the restriction of free expression.

Everyone is in favor of free speech ...  but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage. 

—  Winston S. Churchill

For me, the most disturbing aspect of the situation in question was that it occurred on Author X's post, not on the post of any of those who disagreed with him and who eventually banded together to report and ask for the deletion of his comments from the discussion thread.

Let's be very clear. I personally disagreed with a number of the assertions made by Author X in his post, and with several of the points that he made in reply to comments in the discussion thread. I especially took exception to what appeared to me to be his intentionally provocative stance and haughty and arrogant manner of expression.

However, keep in mind that, in this particular case, Author X did not 1) enter the comments thread on another author's post and  2) was, in the main, answering criticisms made in the comments thread of his post. The upshot is that Author X was not disrupting anyone else's conversation, other than his own.

And as far as I could tell, the sum-total of the substance of the complaints echoed by members of the mob that formed was, to quote from another context a writer-friend of mine and fellow Beezer, Kevin Pashuk,

The complaints are on the order of, "He started it by striking back, when I hit him ... 

Kevin Pashuk on beBee

Omer

 

 

 

he | (ET ZX Zee

 

 

 

rect Gop

Which is a pretty good fit for what happened in the case in question. question.

Author X made what some people readers felt were unfair and derogatory remarks about beBee and some of its Brand Ambassadors. In response, a slew of people jumped onto their high horses and headed into verbal battle in defense of beBee's honor. And they were met in return with, by any reasonable standard, a volley of provocative and insulting replies.

Now, we can discuss ad infinitum what constitutes an abusive statement and what does not. And we can debate how many people need to dance on the head of an I'm-offended pin before a "higher power" needs to step in. But that would be to miss my point entirely.

My point is that, when we're talking about freedom of expression, it doesn't matter how verbally abusive the statements in question may or may not be. For it is only when we are dealing with speech that we detest or find exceedingly offensive, that we need to worry about protecting freedom of expression.

It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that." As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. "I find that offensive" ... has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I am offended by that." Well, so fucking what...

—  Stephen Fry writing in the Guardian

86485001.jpg

I suggest to you that a person is "abusive" on social media when he or she :

a) Posts a comment on another's article that aggressively seeks to attack the author of the article personally, or

b) Repeatedly posts comments on the articles of others, which comments are clearly intended to be disruptive, and refuses to cease and desist when asked to do so, or

c) Posts statement or comments that exemplify prejudice and hate, and which are derogatory and defamatory in respect of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical attributes, or mental disabilities. 

But a person is not abusive when he or she says or publishes statements that we simply don't like or which make us personally uncomfortable or with which we strongly disagree.

And I suggest to you that the way to deal with people whom we find unpleasant, but who do not cross the line into genuinely abusive rhetoric or disruptive action on social media, is simply to ignore them, their posts, and their comments. (See my previously published "On the Limits of Free Expression")

That someone has the right to do a thing does not mean it is the right thing to do...

G.K. Chesterton

Understand that I am not in any way defending Author X. In fact, what I saw in his end of the exchange was a deliberate provocation, with, I believe, the goal of eliciting precisely the response that ensued, all in the service of proving a point about beBee and its team boosters.

It is both unfortunate and ironic that Author X got exactly what he was looking for and what he felt he needed in order to make his point.

Without a doubt, some people seem driven on social media to repeatedly cross over the boundaries of civil conversation. Indeed, some appear to enjoy picking fights. But the goal for the rest of us needs to be to strike a balance in our response.

When the rhetoric gets rough, and the exchange becomes essentially nasty, that is not the time to respond with a team (read "mob") mentality.  It is not the time to seek to quash an "opponent's" right to free expression. Rather, it is a time to take a deep breath and recommit ourselves to protecting free speech and expression.

To do anything less, especially to fall into a group or mob mentality in such matters is to set a dangerous precedent.  Since who is to say when the "team" might change its collective mind about what is and what is not acceptable and decide to quash your    or my   right to free expression?  — Phil Friedman


Postscript:  BeBee CEO, Javier Camara Rica, has numerous time said that there is a place for everyone on beBee. As I and another writer-friend of mine, Jim Able, can attest, beBee practices what Javier preaches. (See, for example, "Floats Like a Butterfly, and When It Counts... Stings Like a Bee")

BeBee has to date been imbued with a high level of tolerance and respect for differing, sometimes even alien modes of expression. It is beBee's strength and, I might add, its distinguishing characteristic and main hope for eventual predominance on the social media field of combat.

My sincere hope is that, in our enthusiasm for all that is good and great about beBee, we do not inadvertently undermine what is beeing accomplished. And I invite you to join me in a conscious effort to avoid falling into an intolerance born of enthusiasm, one that leads us to tar and feather those who break with the perceived party line.— PLF


Author's Notes:  If you found this post interesting and worthwhile and would like to receive notifications of my writings on a regular basis, click the [FOLLOW] button on my beBee profile. Better yet, elect there to follow my blog by email. As a writer-friend of mine says, you can always change your mind later.

Should you be curious about some of my other writings on social media, you're invited to take a look at the following:

"On Trees, Trolls, Trust and Truth" 

"Self-Ascription, Self-Certification, and Snake Oil"

"BeBee vs beBee: Differentiation Thru Conversation"

Please feel free to "like" and "share" this post and my other articles — whether on beBee, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, or Google+, provided only that you credit me properly as the author, and include a live link to my original post.


About me, Phil FriedmanWith 30 some years background in the marine industry, I've worn numerous hats — as a yacht designer, boat builder, marine operations and business manager, marine industry consultant, marine marketing and communications specialist, yachting magazine writer and editor, yacht surveyor, and marine industry educator. I am also trained and experienced in interest-based negotiation and mediation.

In a previous life, I was formally trained as an academic philosopher and taught logic and philosophy at university.

 

Before writing comes thinking.  ( The optional-to-read pitch) :  

As a professional writer, editor, university educator, and speaker, with more than 1,000 print and digital publications, I've recently launched an online program for enhancing your expository writing: learn2engage — With Confidence. My mission is to help writers and would-be writers improve their thought and writing, master the logic of discussion, and strengthen their ability to deal with disagreement... all of which I have found to be natural precursors to improved writing.


3a061125.jpg


For more information, click on the image immediately above. To schedule an appointment for a free 1/2-hour consult email: info@learn2engage.org. I look forward to speaking with you soon.


Text Copyright 2017 by Phil Friedman  —  All Rights Reserved
Image Credits: Phil Friedman, Google Images, and FreeDigitalPhotos.net

1cd25d7c.jpg

#BEBEEVERSUSBEBEE #AFFINITYNETWORKING #BEBEE


""""""
thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments
Sarah John

Sarah John

7 months ago #235

I came across many testimonies on net testifying of GREAT Dr OCUSODO a voodoo spell caster that will help you cast a LOTTERY spell and give you the rightful numbers to win the lottery. I didn’t believe it at first. But as life got harder, I decided to take a try. Now my try has made me a millionaire after playing all types of lottery for 7 years and hadn’t won up to $1000. After contacting him he cast the spell and gave me the hot figures. Behold, I won (FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) $70,000. Now I am a living testimony of the good works of GREAT Dr OCUSODO, a gifted man with great powers; it is my secret but I have decided to make the world know too. It might be of help to anyone who is interested. You are free to contact him or email him. ( drocusodospellcaster@gmail.com) or (drocusodospellcaster@yahoo.com) add him on WhatsApp +2347066448668

Sarah John

Sarah John

7 months ago #234

I came across many testimonies on net testifying of GREAT Dr OCUSODO a voodoo spell caster that will help you cast a LOTTERY spell and give you the rightful numbers to win the lottery. I didn’t believe it at first. But as life got harder, I decided to take a try. Now my try has made me a millionaire after playing all types of lottery for 7 years and hadn’t won up to $1000. After contacting him he cast the spell and gave me the hot figures. Behold, I won (FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) $70,000. Now I am a living testimony of the good works of GREAT Dr OCUSODO, a gifted man with great powers; it is my secret but I have decided to make the world know too. It might be of help to anyone who is interested. You are free to contact him or email him. ( drocusodospellcaster@gmail.com) or (drocusodospellcaster@yahoo.com) add him on WhatsApp +2347066448668

Fay Vietmeier

Fay Vietmeier

1 year ago #233

#382
Phil Friedman You are not alone Phil ... many bees (including me) find this spamming VERY off-putting ... even offensive Should be stopped ... very unprofessional ATTENTION: Bee-KEEPERS Javier \ud83d\udc1d CR I did find your post ... and commented below all the scamming

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

1 year ago #232

Javier \ud83d\udc1d CR it appears nobody is minding the store and the spammers are running wild on beBee. I have to tell you that, if this kind of thing persists, I intend to remove my content from the platform rather than allow it to be used and crapped on by these con artists.

Fay Vietmeier

Fay Vietmeier

1 year ago #231

Winston Churchill: “Everyone is in favor of free speech ... but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” ... This is known as HYPOCRISY ... blossoming like corona

Fay Vietmeier

Fay Vietmeier

1 year ago #230

Phil Friedman Phil ~ I happened upon this post when answering a comment ... and glanced up “Finding the Right Balance” was the good answer Your post is equally relevant today although for different reasons ... but truth is truth & always “relevant” ... and I'm sharing it once more in the "field of bees" Winston Churchill: “Everyone is in favor of free speech ... but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” ... This is known as HYPOCRISY ... blossoming like corona ... I love GK Chesterton & quote him often ... a favorite: “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.” The comment I was responding to is in my recent post “The Giver & the takers” (on the erasing of history and... https://www.bebee.com/producer/@fay-vietmeier-pennsylvania/the-giver-the-takers “Submitting to censorship is to enter the seductive world of The Giver: the world where there are no bad words and no bad deeds. But it is also the world where choice has been taken away and reality distorted. And that is the most dangerous world of all.” ~ Lois Lowry

Manuel Chinchilla da Silva

Manuel Chinchilla da Silva

1 year ago #229

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #228

#366
Thank you, Lyon Brave, for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Lyon Brave

Lyon Brave

2 years ago #227

nice buzz

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #226

#362
Thank you, Fay, for reading and the kind words. When it comes to the problems of social media, I like to quote Pogo as he spoke along the shores of Lake Okeefenokee, "We have met the enemy and ... he is us!" Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #225

#361
Thank you, John, for the words of support. I son't spend a lot of time on beBee anymore, but some of my work, including most of the pieces in this series seem to live a life of their own. My best to you... and thanks for reading. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #224

#360
Thank you, Pepper, for reading and taking the time to comment. Cheers!

Fay Vietmeier

Fay Vietmeier

2 years ago #223

Phil Friedman @Phil Friedman I love…love…LOVED your post ;~) Your well chosen quotes resonated with me … as did your logic Thanks for the other things you shared (Postscript & mention of other posts) Being in “balance” with ALL the ways we communicate requires wisdom & discernment: • the ability to see & perceive • the ability to hear & understand As I observe the world around me … as I read… as I listen … and I do LISTEN I never cease to be amazed at the lack of wisdom & discernment in what people say ... how they say it ... where they say it NOISE is everywhere and mindless words abound. The UN-balanced communicators belong to what I have named the "Society of Solipsism" (more on this in a future Buzz) ... the members of the Society love attention because they are self-important, self-focused and self-leaning ... they are "blind guides" leading the blind ... ... the road they travel is very crowded ... they don't really know their destination because they do not think ahead ... they are incapable of reason and logic ... they have a dulled sense of right & wrong (and-or no sense at all ;~) ... they lack the ability to be HONEST ... to look within & self-examine honestly Things that I have found contribute to good communication & conversation: • LISTEN • Before you speak ... THINK • Be respectful … one can “disagree without being disagreeable” • Know when to shut-up (or when not to “cast pearls before swine”) • Speak edifying words • Write thoughtfully • Speak the truth in love Examine your heart: “For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” ~ Luke 6:45 ~ Matthew 12:34 Words can impact destiny: ”For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” ~ Matthew 12

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #222

#358
Unfortunately, @Ivonne Teoh, this piece was about an exchange that turned sufficiently angry to have some people calling for what I saw as censorship. A key point of mine is that shutting a protagonist down is something to be undertaken only as a last resort in the face of abusive conduct and, even then, only with serious care. For it's too easy to mistake the fact that someone disagrees with you for "abusive" treatment. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

2 years ago #221

#356
Thank you, , for the kind words. Unfortunately, I believe that beBee is currently in a position of stasis, not falling off the charts, but certainly not mving forward toward being better or what it could be. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 years ago #220

#354
Thank you, Jennifer, for reading and commenting on this long discussion. This conversation is representative of the intense intense interest in beBee that emerged for a while during its first couple of years. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

3 years ago #219

#352
Thank you, Preston, for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Randall Burns

Randall Burns

3 years ago #218

Well just to confirm and illuminate the issue that's erupted here over the last couple of days, this post has the most comments, 338, than any other post I've been on Phil Friedman and there are at least 180 of them missing off of this thread, mostly "holes" of 9 at a time, weird. (some great feedback though of what is there)

Randall Burns

Randall Burns

3 years ago #217

Great post Phil Friedman Agreed 100% that there is a distinction between someone "trolling", provoking, insulting and harassing in the public domain and on other's posts, that is unacceptable but publishing one's own article full of one's own perspectives and opinions is their own personal domain, and their right to do so; that is free speech. If I or anyone else don't like or agree with it, walk away, ignore it. There is a quote by Voltaire I used in my "Politically Correct" post that I used and applicable here; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" I must say considering the content of this post your delivery and perspective remained quite positive and upbeat, Well Done!

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #216

#344
Thanks for making the distinction Phil Friedman! That is in fact what I basically meant by 'Free Speech' that is being able to express ideas and differing views in a respectful manner. I don't believe in bullying tactics or even 'hate speech', but freedom comes with a responsibility, that is to be respectful of other's opinions even if they don't gel with your own. It also comes with a price, the price we occasionally have to pay in terms of learning how to shrug off those slings and arrows that are flung. (Something I am still working on!) Fortunately I haven't had to deal with trolls/trolling to the extent that you have in the past, you were exceptionally patient to say the least....

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #215

#343
I am pleased, Claire, that you've taken the time to say so. I do have to say that I am personally not so much a defender of "free speech" as of the free expression of ideas and opinions. I make the distinction because I don't believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want to say, particularly when they level unsupported personal accusations. And I know well the frustration of being the target of such accusations, as I've several times been accused of attacking people personally, yet not one of those accusers has ever -- repeat ever -- brought forward a single iota of verbatim supporting evidence of such. At the same time, I admit I prefer lively discussion and exchange of opinion to sugar (honey) coated tidbits. Hence, my commitment to finding a "balance". Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #214

I also defend the rights to free speech, whilst I have crossed swords with you in the past Phil Friedman, what I respect about you is that you a) do not go along with the crowd mentality and b) your posts and comments spark a healthy debate.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #213

#338
Except, Gerald Hecht, when what you are saying is something a lot of people don't like or want to admit. The test of our commitment to freedom of expression comes not when people say things that we either support or even just don give a sh#t about, but rather when they are saying things that make us uncomfortable -- especially when what makes us uncomfortable is the truth. IMO. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #212

#337
Gerry, next time you're at the supermarket try grabbing a few of those stubby pencils they have at the Lotto Ticket counter. They are better and keeping their points. Cheers, bud!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #211

#335
Phil, I've never asked you before "who is a beBee Affiliate Marketer?" Thank you for your response.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #210

#332
Milos, you keep asking the same question. And I keep giving the same answer. An Affiliate Marketer is someone who performs specified marketing duties, including recommending a product or a service of a brand, in exchange for monetary or other valuable consideration, or the promise of future monetary or other valuable consideration. In the case of beBee, the beBee Brand Ambassadors are Affiliate Marketers. That is simply a factual statement, not a pejorative one. However, to deny or obfuscate the fact does raise both ethical and legal issues (legal because of U.S. FTC regulations that require disclosure for such marketing instances within U.S. legal jurisdiction). As I have also said many times now, anyone who does not like being named as an Affiliate Marketer, for beBee or any other firm, can simply state publicly that he or she will not now or in future accept any monetary or other valuable consideration in exchange for performing the duties required by beBee or whatever other firm is in question. I do not believe I can make it any clearer than that. And I don't care if stating the facts of the situation pisses off people who would rather delude themselves as to the true nature of what they are doing. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #209

#330
"I enjoy pissing people off" - discussion on socialanxietysupport.com started by Repent A must read for all SM users. http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f33/i-enjoy-pissing-people-off-162211/

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #208

#330
Ok Phil, then who is a beBee Affiliate Marketer?

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #207

#330
“Dance with the one that brung ya”.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #206

#329
No, Milos, it will not be, since in case you haven't noticed I am not a beBee Affiliate Marketer and have no potential monetary incentive,either current or future. The key to understanding Affiliate Marketing is to recognize the loss of objectivity when one is incentivized monetarily to recommend a person, service, or product. I see Affiliate Marketing as having the same issues as Influencer Marketing. https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/the-ethical-and-functional-bankruptcy-of-influencer-marketing Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #205

#327
Phil, It will then be affiliate marketing and I agree :)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #204

#324
"Well, then it isn't one to you, since nothing is really good or bad in itself—it's all what a person thinks about it." - William Shakespeare, Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #203

Fifty-two Relevants. Thirty-Two Shares. Three hundred fifteen comments. buzz @beBee John White, MBA

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #202

#324
You are welcome Phil. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". I am ugly.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #201

#322
Phil, The sense of losing of empowerment also entails various consequences. There are a number of socio-psychological studies that also indicate on this, even here on beBee. What is a social structure?...

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #200

#323
Those statements, Milos, have too many undefined pre-suppositions about expressions like "good behavior", "affiliate marketing", and "bad behavior" for me to even begin to understand what is meant. But thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #199

#322
Yes Phil. "Good behavior" is for someone nothing more than affiliate marketing. You can simply ignore that "bad behavior". IMO. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #198

#321
We continue, Milos, to disagree on this point. I challenge you to show where any major "Troll" has been converted and brought into the "fold" by continuing to give that person attention. One recent notable example on beBee demonstrated just the opposite. There was a troublesome, arrogant, and belligerent individual who was eventually made a Brand Ambassador -- which I would think is about as much into the "fold" as someone can be taken. The sense of empowerment that caused brought behavior that ended in the expulsion of that person from the platform. No. Not only is it problematic to give bad behavior the reward it seeks, namely, attention; it often does more damage to the community than good. There are a number of socio-psychological studies that indicate the correct approach is reward good behavior with positive attention and simply ignore bad behavior, thereby avoiding the reinforcing of it. IMO. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #197

#320
Phil, There is no way to get away from a fractal troll :) He is constantly leading us to nowhere and this is the essence of mutual learning. Ejecting of someone from the game is not a permanent solution. Too long an environment of non tolerance and haughtiness was a favored approach for development of a "follower" in different social structures. I prefer more a complex social entity,.self-regulation and the adaptive approach. “Behaviorally, self-regulation is the ability to act in your long-term best interest, consistent with your deepest values." - Steven Stosny "What is a social structure?" by Daniel Little on understandingsociety.blogspot.rs http://understandingsociety.blogspot.rs/2007/11/what-is-social-structure.html

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #196

#319
I understand and (if anyone does) sympathize with how you feel. As you know, I had my own pet Troll follow me around literally for years. And you might think when he was booted from beBee, I'd be pleased. But also as you know, I wasn't. Because I believe in the power of blocking as a tool for the community to self regulate. For if enough people object to and block someone, that person ends up taliking only to him- or herself. That is not censorship because although everyone has a right to free expression, nobody is obligated to read or listen. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #195

#316
Yeah but a troll is still a troll, not matter how egalitarian you might feel. :)

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #194

#316
Yeah. nut a troll is still a troll no matter how democratic you might be.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #193

#315
Jim, I personally would not for a minute deny that an environment of fairness and tolerance is well-established on beBee -- as an executive policy. And nowhere in this piece have I asserted or implied that any of the beehaviours questioned here were the result of official policy. However, as you and I both know, freedom of expression is a fragile right that has to be both exercised and defended at all times. Even against our own wrath, however justified or not. And whether you and I happen to like someone personally or not. In fact, the hardest time to stand on principle is when you don't like the person whom the principle is protecting. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #192

You and I have been through enough social media crap to sink a battleship. And by and large those who deliver that crap have, over the long haul been proven to be of that cult that is a few brick short of an intellectual load. Freedom of speech is incredibly important, especially right now in your country where is either being threatened or up to its eyeballs in political correctness (not sure what's worse. BeBee is very much a site that has figured out the difference between harassment and lively debate on issues. It's not perfect, but it's not a perfect world. But ask yourself this...where is Author X today? Out delivering crap in places that are not beBee. That's what I call Hive Justice. And besides, any site that piuts up with Jim Able's shenanigans, has my undying respect. Phil Friedman

Dominique 🐝 Petersen

Dominique 🐝 Petersen

4 years ago #191

Hear, hear.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #190

#309
For the record, Federico, I personally never thought for a moment that the problem was intentional. I was just expressing frustration with what I always thought of as an accidental glitch. Thank you for all you do to keep the system operating. :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #189

#305
Fair enough, Brian. You should, however, include the link to Grumblepot when you mention it. To make it easier to check it out. Just sayin' Cheers and a salute to those who prefer dark to milk chocolate .

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #188

#303
Gee, Brian, ya coulda fooled me! :-) nevertheless, I empathize with your rejection of the beeBorg Collective. The tyranny of sweetness has all but a stranglehold on the BuzzMarket these days. C'nest pas, Gerald Hecht?

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #187

#301
Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #186

Wow, a glitch that trunkates a 290-comment comment thread at 10? That is of serious concern. For it takes a lot of time and effort to build that kind of engagement, and it is disappointing to have it tossed in the garbage by the system. Javier \ud83d\udc1d beBee

Randall Burns

Randall Burns

4 years ago #185

Same issue here Phil Friedman no comments past the recent 10 or so... great article, so true, formulating a response to follow shortly...

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #184

Hey Phil Friedman. I wanted to read down this comment stream, but for some reason nothing past the 8 or 10 most recent comments will load. You should check it out at your end. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #183

#290
The only solution, Christine, is free speech itself. Open and vigorous exchange. And faith that the truth will out. My experience is that those who counsel control of what can be said, are those who are committed to "winning" the argument vs finding the truth. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #182

#285
Itmay seem ironic coming from me, John, but sometimes one can be over-reflective and over-analytic. These long comment threads are like an extended grad school discussion being carried on in the quad of s university. The seriousness and activity waxes and wanes as people join and leave, and sometimes the talk is idling in wait for someone new to sit down. The key is to accept it for what it is and not try to force it into a preconceived form. That said, in the early stages of a thread, I do think it important to resist those whom I deem passive-aggressive trolls -- who attempt to hijack the conversation and take it far off topic. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #181

#288
Thank you, Christine forreading and saying so. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #180

#281
Yes, Camille, what you say is true. But sometimes, we are forced to speak out in politics. Right now, here in the US, we appear to be in one of those times. Cheers and thank you for reading and commenting.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #179

#278
Chas, I agree with you here. What we call here a "tag" is a workaround used by implied mutual consent because the volume of new posts sometimes makes it hard for a reader to see the new post of someone they follow. But "workaround" is neutral, whereas "gaming the system" is clearly pejorative. One might, however, argue that the use of a workaround indicates a need to modify the system. Much like the walking paths worn in the grass of a campus indicate the need for some new stone walkways in those locations. Thank you for joining the conversation. (?? Claire \ud83d\udc1d Cardwell re the walkway metaphor and architecture.)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #178

#276
Yep, Jim, baffling that someone should be obsessed with the situation for more than four years now. And to the extent of misrepresenting it via innuendo and in-detailed accusation. ‪https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-able/beware-of-imposters-there-is-only-one-real-jim-able‬ ‪https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-able/floats-like-a-butterfly-and-when-it-counts-stings-like-a-bee‬ Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #177

#272
John Vaughan, welcome to the club and thank you :) The most important is an exchange of knowledge, but also some inner thoughts and longing. Those who want to teach successfully also need to be an “expert“ in the following skills: creativity, passion, determination and critical analysis. — from "I'll be Back, Innovation in Self Leadership", LI long—form post, published on May 5, 2015

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #176

I remember the sock puppet over in the Lumpy Kingdom that Boris Bacal refers to. That was a hoot. Only someone with a very teeny tiny sense of humour would fail to have had a good laugh over it. As for being kicked off LinkedIn. I believe a lot of writers add that to their resume when it happens.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #175

#264
PF: I stand by my assertion that what Cook and Heilmann identify as "private self-censorship" — or what we have previously referred to as "intra-personal censorship" — is more perspicuously termed "self-restraint" because this term connotes self-directed motivation, as opposed to the other-directed motivation cited by Das and Kramer. Cont... Pt II MDj: I agree Phil (see my previous comment) that Cook and Heilmann provided real expert opinion, while opinion by Das and Kramer is just "expert" opinion which neglected the utmost importance of private self-censorship (self-restraint), about which I wrote in #203 (MDj: "I silenced myself (sometimes, not always) - self-censorship"), just as you Phil in #264 and the novelist China Miéville in "Social media and online comments 'causing writers to self-censor" (see #203) by Charlotte Higgins at theguardian.com Once again Phil Friedman, thank you for an excellent No-Muzak discussion. As always, it is very important to be precise in interpreting other people's attitudes, as we show here. Now there are no more "fog". And this is the reason why I insist on self-coercion and principle No.1 in social media: "Lead by Example". Cheers, my friend Phil!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #174

#265
Thanks John Vaughan.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #173

#264
No problem Phil Friedman, I will just copy a parts of my previous self-explanatory comments: #212 "So when someone talks about self-censorship there is no chance or intentions of author to blur an important distinction between self-censorship and censorship. I also have to point out that self-restraint is not the same as self-censorship." #246: "You are right @Phil Friedman and thanks for your contributions and clarifications. I was talking only about private self-censorship in #212, and yes Phil, "self-restraint" is also an appropriate term. I agree that censorship and self-censorship are interwoven terms." #249: "I think it's important to make a clear distinction between two types of self-censorship and externally-driven censorship. I am "fighting" against all form of coercions which are imposed externally in social media, except self-coercions as an act of decency, knowledge and respect of others." P.F. in #264 : "Milos, forgive me if, being the neophyte that I am, I mistake what you are saying concerning "self-censorship". But since you do not lay out with the citations your own thesis." MDj - RE: in #246: "You are right @Phil Friedman and thanks for your contributions and clarifications. I was talking only about private self-censorship in #212, and yes Phil, "self-restraint" is also an appropriate term. I agree that censorship and self-censorship are interwoven terms." - My own thesis in the the same comment with citations (RE: "But since you do not lay out with the citations your own thesis." - PF )

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #172

I should like to apologize to many of you who have commented here and continued to follow the comment thread. The discussion has taken a rather academic detour into a consideration of the different types of censorship that may occur, which detour may or, more likely, may not be of interest to you. If not, I hope that we can bring the thread back onto a track of more general interest. But even if not, please feel free to join the conversation nevertheless, with your own observations and comments. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #171

John Vaughan, FYI #264.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #170

John Vaughan, see #266.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #169

#253
#255 #251 — Milos, forgive me if, being the neophyte that I am, I mistake what you are saying concerning "self-censorship". But since you do not lay out with the citations your own thesis, I am left to infer it as best I can. Please feel free to correct me by explaining it. I do not see anything in the papers you cite that controverts in any manner that which I've said about my preference for the term "self-restraint" in place of "intra-personal self-censorship" or similar terms incorporating either the term "self-censorship" or "censorship". A reading of Das and Kramer, whom you cite as "expert" opinion, actually shows that in the case of self-censorship they identify external coercive pressures — such as "avoiding negative expressions [from the community]" or a desire to maintain "self-images across multiple social contexts simultaneously" (1). This effectively equates "self-censorship" with what Cook and Heilmann call "public self-censorship" (2). It is key to recognize that Das and Kramer reference only other-directed motivation for "self-censorship.", supporting my above interpretation and leaving what Cook and Heilmann call "private self-censorship" unaccounted for in the paper by Das and Kramer. I stand by my assertion that what Cook and Heilmann identify as "private self-censorship" — or what we have previously referred to as "intra-personal censorship" — is more perspicuously termed "self-restraint" because this term connotes self-directed motivation, as opposed to the other-directed motivation cited by Das and Kramer. Cont... Pt II

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #168

#253
#255 #251 - Part II - I do not dispute that there are two distinct forms of "self-censorship", but submit again it is not conceptually enlightening to fail to distinguish them by the fact that one involves "external coercion" or at least the other directed perception of it's potential, while the other involved purely self-direct motivations. Best and cheers! FYI: (1) Das and Kramer > "On these venues, self-censorship may be caused by artifacts unique to, or exacerbated by, social media. For example, users may seek to maintain presentation of their self-images across multiple social contexts simultaneously, may be unwilling to diverge from the community’s perceived social norms (such as avoiding negative expressions), or may fear “spamming” friends with uninteresting or unnecessary content ..." (https://research.fb.com/publications/self-censorship-on-facebook/) (2) Cook and Heilmann > "In public self-censorship, the censee aligns her expression of attitudes according to the public censor. In private self-censorship, the roles of censor and censee are fulfilled by the same agent." (http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/currentResearchProjects/ChoiceGroup/PDF_files/WP_6_2.pdf)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #167

#260
Mr "Author X", I'm blessed among all those masters of personal branding. Both links does not work (because of *), please check. Regards, Milos

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #166

#257
Gerald Hecht, Congrats. How likely are you to become famous? :)... Find out in just a few minutes. http://www.gotoquiz.com/how_likely_are_you_to_become_famous

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #165

#255
John Vaughan. He is authentic, well-intentioned man and professor.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #164

#250
You are most welcome Phil Friedman, my frined. A valuable observation! A must read paper (free to download): "Self-censorship on Facebook", AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) by Sauvik Das and Adam D. I. Kramer (https://research.fb.com/publications/self-censorship-on-facebook/) Expert: "Self-censorship is the act of preventing oneself from speaking. Important in face-to-face communication, it is unsurprising that it manifests in communications mediated through social networking sites (SNS). On these venues, self-censorship may be caused by artifacts unique to, or exacerbated by, social media. For example, users may seek to maintain presentation of their self-images across multiple social contexts simultaneously, may be unwilling to diverge from the community’s perceived social norms (such as avoiding negative expressions), or may fear “spamming” friends with uninteresting or unnecessary content (Frederic& Woodrow 2012; Sleeper et al., 2013; Tufekci 2007; Wisniewski, Lipford & Wilson 2012)". - from "Self-censorship on Facebook" by Sauvik Das, Adam D. I. Kramer I silenced myself (sometimes, not always) - private self-censorship.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #163

#249
You are very welcome John Vaughan. I think it's important to make a clear distinction between two types of self-censorship and externally-driven censorship. I am "fighting" against all form of coercions which are imposed externally in social media, except self-coercions as an act of decency, knowledge and respect of others. The beauty of social media is primarily reflected through diversity and willingness to accept other people's views or motivations, of course, only if the decent form was satisfied and if there were no insult or malicious accusations. And this is the reason why I insist on self-coercion and . principle #1: "Lead by Example". It was never about “ME”, it is, and it will always be only about us (“WE” - plural). This is for me (persistence) nothing more than ethical and socially responsible behaviour.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #162

#246
Thank you, Milos. I try always to answer those who post comments in the discussion threads of my articles. I understand the point being made by Cook and Heilmann, but I would suggest to them and to you that, once having identified a real difference between the inter-personal self-censorship and intra-personal self-censorship, the preferred conceptual move is to rename what they at first call intra-personal censorship to something like intrapersonal self-restraint. My considered opinion is that their failure to do so tends to confuse, rather than elucidate the admittedly very real difference to which they point. It is not a picayune point at all, but an important one. cc: John Vaughan.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #161

#244
Not sure, John, why you find it unsettling. Here's a follow-up. In Eau Gallie, Florida we were docked for a number of months at the Eau Gallie Marina, which is at the southern tip of Merritt Island at the juncture of the Indian and Banana Rivers. One of my dock neighbors, a transplanted Long Island clammer, was entertaining aboard his boat, where they were eating steamers and drinking beer. As he tells it, they heard the darndest cursing they had ever experience, then a flash of fire from the corner of their eyes. Being only about 20 miles south of Cape Canaveral, the guest wondered if a satellite launch had taken place (well, they had imbibed more than one beer, and it was dusk). The report was that without missing a beat my neighbor said, "Naw, that's Friedman the Fire Juggler practicing. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #160

#239
Self-censorship, I guess, or postponed "self-restraint" action :)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #159

#245
You are right Phil Friedman and thanks for your contributions and clarifications. Authors (Philip Cook and Conrad Heilmann) in their article (Two Types of Self-Censorship: Public and Private, Political Studies, Volume 61, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 178–196, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00957.x , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00957.x/abstract) develop and defend a distinction between two types of self-censorship: public and private. In particular, principles of free speech do not apply to the case of private self-censorship, because while an instance of censorship, the absence of an external censor makes the censorship non-coercive. An important normative implication is that principles of free-speech only apply within a narrow set of interpersonal censorship relationships, and therefore that principles of free speech are inapplicable to intrapersonal private self-censorship. I was talking only about private self-censorship in #212, and yes Phil, "self-restraint" is also an appropriate term. I agree that censorship and self-censorship are interwoven terms. You can check free version of the same paper (Cook, Philip and Heilmann, Conrad (2010) Censorship and two types of self-censorship. LSE Choice Group working paper series, vol. 6, no. 2. The Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science (CPNSS), London School of Economics, London, UK) here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/currentResearchProjects/ChoiceGroup/PDF_files/WP_6_2.pdf

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #158

#236
#237 #212 — From the Oxford Dictionaries: Censorship — noun — 1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security: "the regulation imposes censorship on all media" Self-censorship — noun — 1. the exercising of control over what one says and does, especially to avoid castigation: "a climate of self-censorship, fear, and hypocrisy" For those who take comfort in appealing to the authority of dictionaries, the above definitions clearly indicate that adding the prefix "self" to the noun "censorship" does not substantively change the meaning. For in both cases, the act of censorship is the result of external coercion, in the case of censorship, overt, and in the case of self-censorship, more subtle or implied. I believe, however, that the use of the term "self-censorship" in #212 was intended to convey a sense of voluntary self-control, which I maintain is much better expressed, with less confusion of connotations, by using the term "self-restraint." I do not mean to beat a dead horse here, but the point is, I think, worth considering because the ways in which we choose to speak often, if not always influence the ways in which we think about the world. And in the world, censorship has to do with coercion and should not be confused with something more positive or benign such as self-restraint. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #157

#225
Gerry, this story is not relevant to anything here, except your mention of burning toast. For more than seven years, my wife and I lived and cruised aboard an 18-ton sailing yacht that we had built in our boat shop in Ontario. I like my toast very dark, right on the edge of burnt. So being a caricature of an absent-minded professor, I often burn the toast. And living aboard our boat, I developed a reputation among dock neighbors wherever we landed for any length of time because periodically they would hear a stream of sailor's cursing followed by a fireball ejecting through my yacht's companionway hatch, arching high into the air, and finally extinguishing as it fell into the water. On a small vessel, you don't mess with fire. And when you burn the toast so badly as to set the toaster on fire, you get rid of the entire shebang as quickly as you can. Consequently, over the years I became quite adept at ripping the cord from its connection, opening the hatch, and hearing the entire burning mess into the water. I hope your experience was somewhat calmer. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #156

#234
Max Carter, what is it about "The user has deleted this comment" (#210) you don't seem to understand?

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #155

#223
Sorry, Gerry, will cease at once. You migh also use the mute-conversation button. Best. Cheers!

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #154

#221
Chas \u270c\ufe0f Wyatt I fully agree with you . Have a great week ! :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #153

#218
And what would you think, if your detractors chose to remain in the shadows of anonymity? No, the fact is that the exchange in question involved not much more acrimony that what you and I have generated here in this exchange. And the complaints fit Kevin Pashuk's description (taken from another context) to a tee. An important point to keep in mind is that censorship is about before-the-fact gagging or silencing, not about after-the-fact action for verbal abuse and assault. And it is that which makes it so odious in my mind, for it deals in presumption, not reality. Right and wrong and truth are not determined by a vote or by popularity in the instant. Were that the case much of the work of great artists and writers would not today be available to us today. I often read that this or that is "in the eye of the beholder", but only rarely, if ever do I see that truth acknowledged about "offense" in the context of seeking to silence those with whom we disagree.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #152

#214
Aleta, if I told you that your rant offended me, would you agree that it should be taken down and that you should be reported to the powers that bee at beBee for abuse? After all, when I joined the platform I was promised honey, not a verbal punch in the face. Okay, so my taking offense is only me. But what if ten people felt offended, would you then agree? I agree completely with you when you say that, ",,, offense and injury are very real problems on the Internet ... [and] there are times when people simply have to be stopped." But this post is not about that. This post is about someone publishing an article that has never itself alleged to have been offensive. Then people who read it voluntarily enter the comments thread (on Author X's piece, not talking about this post) to voice strong disagreement. And then when the author of the article in question answers them (to my mind some abrasively, but not with anything even approaching abuse), rising up in a group to complain and have the comments censored because they (members of the group) found the author's answers "offensive". The problem of verbal assault and — as you can see by some comments made about me in this thread — scurrilous defamation by false claim and unsupported innuendo are a plague on the Internet. And how to deal with them is, IMO, a real dilemma. But that is a long-standing problem, the solution of which will have to wait for another day. Cont. Pt II

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #151

#214
Aleta - Part II I actually like the quote from Fry a lot, because I see it as admonishing one to criticize statements if they are false, or wrong-headed, or abusive, but not because some idiosyncratic sense of propriety that you hold has been "offended". And if you believe that I am advocating incivility in discussion, then you either haven't read this post with any care or you haven't read much of what I've written on this subject. If I may be allowed to follow Milos's lead and quote myself: https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/conversation-isn-t-just-politely-waiting-your-turn-to-speak https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/discussion-versus-debate https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/building-engagement-on-social-media https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/cynicism-as-positivity https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/on-trees-trolls-trust-and-truth https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/on-the-limits-of-free-expression Now, if you will excuse me, I need to return to my room at the Holiday Inn Express, where I am multitasking in studying brain surgery, learning to self-censor myself, and writing three more books for my tens of millions of readers. Relax, have a beer on me, and send me the tab. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #150

#212
Sorry, Milos, but I stand by my conviction that talk of "self-censorship" tends to blur what I see as an important facet of "censorship", namely, that it is externally imposed. To my mind, talking about "self-censorship" is like talking about "internal coercion" — inherently self-contradictory. But obviously, you may use the term as you see fit, while I will object to the potential semantic flow-on as I see fit. Appeal to a dictionary as an authority does little for me since dictionaries are not anything more than compilations of nominally current usage, often out of date, and even themselves do not claim to be final authorities. Since I have now stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for two nights, I prefer my own opinion on this. Cheers, my friend!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #149

#209
John Vaughan, please check my comment #212.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #148

#204
Phil, Your concern has no factual basis. Who said that there is equality between self-restraint with censorship? I certainly do not. I was talking about self-censorship. Please be very precise in interpreting other people's testimony. Please check this: 1. self-censorship: "control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary" 2. self-restraint: "control of your own actions" 3. censorship "the act of censoring books, films, etc: censorship of the press." 4. censor: "a person whose job is to read books, watch films, etc. in order to remove anything offensive from them, or who reads private letters, especially ones sent during war or from prison, to remove parts considered unsuitable." (Source - Cambridge English Dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org) Therefore, self-censorship and censorship are not the same (self-censorship: "control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, BUT WITHOUT being told officially that such control is necessary") and the important difference is clear. On the other hand, censorship includes externally imposed action by institution, a person - censor or system in practice of censoring. So when someone talks about self-censorship there is no chance or intentions of author to blur an important distinction between self-censorship and censorship. I also have to point out that self-restraint is not the same as self-censorship.

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #147

John Vaughan: if you feel that you have been a victim of bullying or mob mentality on beBee, I'd encourage you to report it so it can be addressed and we can move forward. You can also call me personally to discuss it if you like: 970.692.3270.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #146

#205
John, as I said to Chas, I take absolutely no exception to his description of his own behavior or characterization of his comment. I simply questioned why he thought that this post somehow categorizes what he said and did, which was simply to disagree, as "mob" action.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #145

#203
Milos, you make a good point. But I personally do not equate self-restraint with censorship. Censorship is, to my mind, always externally imposed. And I have concern that to talk about "self-censorship" is to blur an important distinction. Thank you for staying with the conversation. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #144

I silenced myself (sometimes, not always) - self-censorship. Nevertheless, fragments tend to become scattered with time and due to the accumulation of conflicting experiences. Then, targeted interactions with people, adds up all again. It should become the rule. "The novelist China Miéville said self-censorship was both inevitable and desirable. "There are millions of things we shouldn't say. We self-censor all the time, and a bloody good thing too. Our minds are washing machines full of crap that we pick up over our years on this earth." - from "Social media and online comments 'causing writers to self-censor" by Charlotte Higgins at theguardian.com (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/21/social-media-stifle-literary-endeavour)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #143

#201
With which, Chas, I take absolutely no issue. I took it, however, from your question that you believe this piece argues that disagreeing with Author X made you part of the "mob" — which it in no way does, no way, nowhere.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #142

#199
With all due respect, Chas, I think that misses the point. Did you join in with a group to privately complain about Author X and demand that his comments be censored? And that he be silenced? That is what I see as mob action, not disagreeing with him, or even saying that he was you objected to his manner. My question to you is genuine, and I wait on your answer.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #141

#185
Kudos to you, Devesh, for such an eloquent and insightful summary. To wit, "The glaring testimony of the Bebee experience is this, a voluntary participation which consumes a lot of time and effort to discuss Bebee. I don't see despair like LI I see hope here." There is such strength in diversity.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #140

#190
Thank you, Claire, for your kind support, which I appreciate immensely. But please do not vex yourself further on my account, for it is hardly worth arguing with anyone who makes such ridiculous claims. There are only about 13 million users on all of beBee. Why would someone with "tens of millions" of readers bother with the few hundred, even few thousand who might read this post and the comment thread? To quote John Vaughan quoting Latin proverbs, "res ipsa locquitor". And for the record, there is absolutely no resemblance between John Vaughan and Troll X. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #139

#189
Sorry, Claire, if what I wrote was misleading. I thought that the fact that Author X had actually made some statements of substance which were admittedly ill-received, would have been sufficient to rule out the person with whom you confused him. I will take more care in future. Cheers!

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #138

#110
Robert Bacal - I am not in anyway denigrating your contribution to self help literature. Or the audience of readers you have built up on your website etc. However you do not keep your opinions to yourself when commenting on Phil Friedman did to you all those years ago. All I know is that your negativity and sniping are a constant theme on the comment's stream on his posts both on beBee and LinkedIn. I have nothing against people expressing their disagreement with what people post, that leads to a healthy debate. To paraphrase my Grandmother who said 'if you don't have something nice to say don't say it' I say 'If you don't have something constructive to say don't say it!'

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #137

#170
John Vaughan was writing about and thought it was the wasp that haunts his posts....

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #136

#186
I am not saying that Javier \ud83d\udc1d beBee incredibly open to engaging and exchanging ideas and opinions. I am simply saying that I would personally never seek to insult you, and that I again personally understand that you guys own the enterprise and that the risks involved are yours. And that, consequently, the critical decisions have ultimately to be yours. My opinion is only my opinion. I don't see how it can or should be any other way.

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #135

#184
Phil Friedman this is not the case. I am not paying any bill so please can you tell me your opinion ? If you prefer not to tell me you opinion I will understand you agree with him. Thanks !

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #134

#176
Political voting is about deputing an authority or making a decision within context of the law. Here you already are the authority and when it comes to voting to make a decision, it must be as per the user agreement which is already aligned with the Law. The glaring testimony of the Bebee experience is this, a voluntary participation which consumes a lot of time and effort to discuss Bebee. I don't see despair like LI I see hope here. Perhaps from the utility aspect that enhances your existing competitive advantage, a process to channelise such discussions and a protocol to manage them with smart PR is needed. Funny thing, I had a lot of good ideas which were not getting structure till now, I was writing complicated articles and poetry, a discussion such as this has triggered a structure, I'll get back to you with a post. Only time will tell if it has utility and it will keep personal branding at the core with positivity. I think I am still addicted to debating :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #133

One thing I've learned in years as a consultant is that you don't argue aggressively or endlessly with the guy who pays the bills. I've developed a pretty regular procedure for expressing my considered opinion, then interacting as welcome to further explain that opinion and defend it. But there always comes a point when I say, "Hey, that is my opinion, for which you pay me. It's your prerogative to accept or reject what I think." Ultimately, the guy who pays the bills (or owns the enterprise and the risk) always gets to make the decision. And BTW, at times when I've been an employee, I've added, "And once you make the decision, I will follow that decision to the best of my ability." Cheers to all!

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #132

#181
Phil Friedman do you agree with calling me "a product stakeholder" ? Do you think that is respectful or disrespectful ? Thanks

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #131

If a system enables plusses and minuses to be registered anonymously, then why not enable anonymous comments? And no, it is not the same as voting in politics. If there were two classes of users on social media, 1) Writers and commenters, and 2) Readers and voters, then I would agree that there would be nor harm or foul in enabling anonymous "voting" on comments and posts. But many of the "voters" are themselves writers and commenters, who we know often feel competitive with those whom they are voting on. So enabling anonymous "voting" is asking for abuse of the system. I agree with JV, when he says, "Many of the comments here are nothing more than "I like it" or "I hate it". BUT ... at least they're "signed" and acknowledged." To my mind, eliminating anonymity keeps everyone "honest". BeBee may choose to cater to those who lack the courage of their convictions, but I cannot see how it helps the platform or serves a necessary function. IMO.

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #130

John Vaughan dont be disrespectful with me. Dont call me "a product stakeholder". I thought you were smart Thanks

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #129

John Vaughan on beBee these actions are voting for and against. On beBee we dont use it for rating. Are you going to explain what beBee is doing ? That is very funny. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #128

Voting can not be transparent as they wouldn't be free to do it. The same ocurs in politics. I am the "product guy" on beBee and I have enough feedback to know that it works great ;)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #127

#170
On a side note, John, one might think that this is all a tempest in a teapot, but it's not. If the research Milos Djukic cited in links below has any validity, and their is more than an accidental isomorphism between real world social relations and those that develop on social media, then ... it is reasonable to postulate that causation runs in both directions. And what develops on social media affects social organization in the "real" world. If the last three US presidential elections are any indication, the new field of struggle for the heart and mind of society IS social media. And these seemingly petty disagreements may actually be quite important. Therefore, if we do not speak out against dark practices on SM, on for example the encouragement of anonymous attacks from the shadows, we may all of a sudden be facing similar in "real" life. Scary, I agree. But not so far fetched.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #126

#170
Jeez, John, you need to stop thinking every remark is aimed at you personally. My remark about owning what one says is clearl made in the context of criticizing the anonymous negative check function. I neither said nor implied that you don't take credit for what you say. BTW, as much as I abhor the anonymous negative check tool, I also don't like the positive version either. The concept encourages the view that popularity leads thought, which God help us all, it shouldn't. Whether or not de facto it does.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #125

#165
PS, John — For the record, I firmly believe that with freedom of expression goes the responsibility to take public authorship of that which you say or otherwise express. Just as civil disobedience has to be accompanied by a willingness to accept the social and legal consequences of one's decision, free speech requires being willing to accept, not hide from potential ensuing consequences. If you aren't willing to own it, don't don't say it.And that goes for the negative check button. IMO.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #124

#165
John, you and I can agree on at least one thing,namely that the negative button is an unnecessary and potentially pernicious tool. Especially, if coupled with anonymity. Unlike a comment, it enables a poison pen message to be sent from the shadows. And it, therefore, should be eliminated or changed to display the user as does the relevant button.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #123

What say you about #162 and #163 Gerald Hecht?

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #122

#162
Not sure about what you intend to say here, Milos. Are you implying that scientists and others should offer de facto emotional therapy to the "scientific outsiders" because they are, as the quote says, "confused and hurting"? Should we accord pseudo-science and anti-science a chair at the table of scientific discussion on the basis of a commitment to freedom of expression? I am aware of your commitment to teaching by example, but don't you think that sometimes teaching also involves, perhaps requires explanation? Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #121

#159
"People want to feel wanted and loved. That there is someone who will listen to them. To feel part of a family. How many science communicators do you know who will take the time to listen to their audience? Who are willing to step outside their cosy little bubble and make an effort to reach people where they are, where they are confused and hurting; where they need? Most science communication isn’t about persuading people; it’s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us, it says, aren’t we clever? We are exclusive, we are a gang, we are family." - from "Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public" by Richard P Grant at theguardian.com (https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #120

#159
"A crisis of trust is looming between scientists and society – it's time to talk" by Helen Czerski at theguardian.com (https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jan/27/a-crisis-of-trust-is-looming-between-scientists-and-society-its-time-to-talk) Excerpt: "Academia shouldn’t try to tell society how to run itself, but it provides vital fodder for the discussion. And it is academia itself which must take on the responsibility of demonstrating why this matters. No-one is going to do it for us. To the scientists, I say: our connection to society is not about them. It’s about us. All of us." - from "A crisis of trust is looming between scientists and society – it's time to talk" by Helen Czerski at theguardian.com

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #119

#159
Phil, This is all for fun and is being ruined by a bunch of fractals :-) Social media are online games without frontiers or any final determination. in Belgrade, staying at a Holiday Inn Express, means nothing more then staying at a Holiday Inn Express. it's not brain surgery. Milos will keep calm at a Holiday Inn Express. The average Serbian Joe Sixpack Milos

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #118

#158
Milos, in the U.S., staying at a Holiday Inn Express, in some TV commercials, qualifies you to do things like brain surgery. In Belgrade, what does it do for you? Maybe, help you write bad jokes? :-) Seriously, the thesis I see in the cited work is that online games and communities provide useful "laboratories" for studying human group behavior because behavior online and in online games is the same as human behavior in off-line communities and group situations. In other words, the online communities and games become useful models for investigating the interactions of human relationships and groups. I suppose one might see the publication of a misinterpretation of the substance and meaning of the original papers as an abuse of freedom of speech, but I don't think that would be right. To my mind, I think it would just show that with freedom of speech goes the ancillary right to be wrong and possibly very confused. But not being a scientist or an engineer, I'd tend to leave a final determination to you and Gerald Hecht. While I sleep it off at a Holiday Inn Express. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #117

#155
Phil, Last night I have been in buffet and drank coffee. https://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/belgrade/begur/hoteldetail

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #116

#155
Phil, In addition, you always have the right to ignore me and my comments, since someone maybe could see how this bears on the issues of censorship and freedom of expression :) That was also a freedom of expression.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #115

#155
Phil, thank you for reading and commenting. I may be even more obtuse, but we have fabricated personas also in a real life (nonvirtual), but also self-similar people. No Phil, this study (published in Scientific Reports) is not "why-would-you-think-otherwise?" type study. This is a misinterpretation by Jenna Bilbrey at sciencemag.org and by social scientist James Ivory. This is a broader debate about the possibility of freedom of expression abuse.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #114

#154
Milos, thank you for reading and commenting. I may be obtuse, but I fail to see how this bears on the issues of censorship and freedom of expression, but I did read the article cited. As well as stay at a Holiday Express last evening. My impression is that this study is pretty much one of those "why-would-you-think-otherwise?" studies in social science. That people behave the same way in online communities as they do in real world communities, does not exactly knock me over. I would expect that. What might be interesting to know, however, is how the ability in online groups for people to present fabricated personas to others in the group affects the internal dynamics of the community and the sub-groups formed. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #113

I open the competition for my 150 personal and real connections - friends on beBee (note: I have 445 Followers). Does it mean that 295 people - connections could not be my friends? Of course not since fractals are forever :) p.s. This was a joke that is not scientifically confirmed. Any comments would be highly appreciated.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #112

“Remarkably, though the game sets no constraints on the size of alliances, players organized themselves into social structures that matched those found in the real world. The largest alliance in Pardus was only 136 members, suggesting that the limit of 150 personal connections is an inherent part of our social psychology. This is a good example of a paper ("Fractal multi-level organisation of human groups in a virtual world", mentioned below, comment by MDj) that suggests a clear correspondence between how people behave in real life and virtual environments,” says social scientist James Ivory, who studies social and psychological aspects of people online at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg. “People tend to behave like people, whether they’re in a prehistoric world, a business, a knitting group, or a video game. Instead of looking at behavior in video games as alien, what you basically have is a place where you can study people.” - from "Even online, you can't have more than 150 friends" By Jenna Bilbrey at sciencemag.org (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/even-online-you-cant-have-more-150-friends)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #111

The Fractal Revolution in Society, beBee Affinity Network. "In summary we present clear further evidence for the fractal nature of hierarchical organisation of human society. Remarkably this organisational principle that has been found to apply in so many different settings and contexts, is also found in societies that are completely detached from constraints of the real, physical world. The existence of this social organisational principle in virtual societies is an indication of how deeply it is rooted in human psychology." - from open article: Benedikt Fuchs, Didier Sornette2 & Stefan Thurner, Fractal multi-level organisation of human groups in a virtual world, Scientific Reports 4, Article number: 6526 (2014), doi:10.1038/srep06526 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep06526) "And finally the most obscure aspect connected with statistical self-similarity which reflect the most current state of social structure in which randomly generated fractals (humans) have a chance to make a new Renaissance, which is far from totalitarian single-mindedness as expressed in Star Trek Borg Collective model, Equilibrium movie by Kurt Wimmer, "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell, Kafka's "Der Process" or in "The Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. The Fractal Revolution in Society, beBee affinity network is the first social media" - from "The Fractal Revolution in Society, Social Media First", LI long -form post by Milos Djukic, published on September 4, 2016 (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fractal-revolution-society-social-media-first-milos-djukic?trk=prof-post)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #110

#149
JV sez, "Censorship is one of beBee's unfortunate reactions that you talked around in your article, even tho you were reluctant to name it." John, please refer to paragraph #6 of the piece, to wit: "Consequently, I was dismayed recently to witness an acrimonious exchange on a user's post (call him Author X) and what seemed to me to be an ensuing foray into the territory of censorship and the restriction of free expression." Seems to me that I made it pretty clear I considered this about censorship. As to the identity of Author X, it is, from my point of view, entirely irrelevant to the discussion. To paraphrase a tag line that I use in marketing a course that I offer, "Before writing comes reading." I don't intend to quibble about how vigorous discussion and disagreement needs to be expressed. I reject any suggestion that I pussyfoot around difficult topics. You have your preferences as to style and I have mine. And that is all there is to that. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #109

#147
Thank you, Laurent, for reading and for the very kind words of support. While I do not accept in general that the goal is to be like-minded, in order to have a free meeting of the minds or a meaningful exchange of information, we must be able to structure our engagement with manners. C'nest pas?

Laurent Boscherini

Laurent Boscherini

4 years ago #108

Thank you Phil Friedman for sharing your such excellent and brilliant post. "There are three knowledges: the knowledge itself, the know-how, and then the manners: both last ones exempt very often from the first one. " - Talleyrand

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #107

#142
Thank you, Siraj, not Surat. The autocorrector is getting ever more aggressive -- and stubborn. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #106

#142
Thank you Surat for reading and for the kind words. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #105

#140
¡Saludos, Juan Blanco, ten un monjito en mi!

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #104

#140
salud John White, MBA !! Espero que estés practicando tu español allí :)

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #103

Phil Friedman: No worries at all regarding agreeing to disagree. I salute you for raising this issue in such a way that is highly respectful and constructive for all of us. As beBee grows this problem will only get bigger. I believe it is an area where all of the other social networks have failed miserably. So, we need differing opinions to be able to position ourselves for a long-term solution that hopefully will be better than anything we've seen from the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. I raise my mojito to you, my friend! Salud!!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #102

#137
Gerry, remind me not to back you in an egg- carrying contest, but I will always welcome you to any authentic verbal donneybrook. Cheers, my friend. Thank you for joining the conversation.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #101

#136
Not usually, Todd, without Federico's intercession. I done it occasionally by switching to a desktop or laptop page before it was updated. Then copying and pasting quickly to a fresh comment slot... but if the servers sync in the interim, gone...

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #100

#133
#134 - Thank you, John, For saying so. Realize it's not easy for you. As to your comment about accuracy, such is irrelevant in the context of this post, as I am focusing not on the dispute, but the reaction to it. For the same reason, I did not identify Author X, for I felt that was not my place. If you choose to claim the title that is your prerogative. As to mentioning censorship or not, that is a red herring -- or armed flag waved in the bull's face -- and unnecessary, since the broader issue has to do with the abrogation of the right to freedom of expression. Finally, I realize this may be difficult for you to accept, but this post is not about you. Rather, it is about beBee, what it is, what it should be, and what indeed it can become. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #99

#126
Javier, in the words of my all-time favorite TV cop, Rick Hunter, "Works for me." :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #98

I want to thank everyone who has made a thoughtful and civil contribution to this discussion for caring enough to do so. It was not my intent to establish a given position as the correct one, or the only one, but rather to stimulate reflection on the issue of dealing with free speech and expression versus the rights and sensibilities of beBee users. And I am personally gratified by the, for the most part, thoughtful and engaged responses posted here. What has transpired in this thread, including, indeed perhaps especially because of Javier's appearance, is what keeps me bound to beBee as my primary social networking platform. (Gee, maybe Jim Murray can fashion a meme out of that. :-) ) Cheers and have a great weekend.

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #97

#126
Good Luck. I hope to witness it grow in this fashion.

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #96

#122
I always liked the term beyond reasonable doubt. It helps in drafting formal agreements, it's an absolute must in negotiations and decision making and the basis for sustainable relationship building.

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #95

#125
tolerance, respect, diversity... that is beBee !

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #94

#116
Thank you, Javier, for taking the time to read and comment. As I've said, I fully acknowledge that beBee is a private, for-profit enterprise and that, as such, is within its rights to set and enforce rules of conduct of its own determination. And as I have been at pains to point out, beBee is already a very different social media platform, one that displays a distinctive flexibility and tolerance for a wide range of ideas, opinions, genres and styles. Which is why I am personally such an enthusiastic supporter and advocate of it, as well as a true believer in its potential to become the world's premier social networking and digital self-publishing platform. However, I believe that when it comes to respecting freedom of expression, it is critical to protect the rights of the Minority against the potential tyranny of a Majority — and particularly to avoid selective enforcement driven by "vote". Moreover, I also respectfully stand by my assertion that there is a better way for beBee to enforce its own code of conduct, which is to shut down the offending comments thread and delete ALL comments. For this functions as an admonition to ALL parties that the platform rules of engagement have been breached, and a reminder that it is the responsibility of all of us to maintain proper decorum. IMO. As they say, "res ipsa loquitur" or (I think) "La cosa habla por si misma." Cheers and my best to you and beBee.

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #93

TO EVERYBODY: BEBEE MOST IMPORTANT VALUE WILL BE RESPECT. That is not usual on FB,TW and LI. This means you are free to say what you want while respecting others. When somebody get tones of abuse report (without taking in account our ambassadors) in a buzz, obviously this one is a wasp. AGAIN, beBee will be a beehive nor a wasps-nest. Thanks Phil Friedman for trying this debate. I think I was very clear. We don't need to see "technical details"

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#121
I wonder who accused you of being a rotten apple they themselves weren't Phil Friedman. I don't think we judge an apple as rotten instantaneously, and we have to be very sure. A bad and pungent smell will have general agreement that it is bad.

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#121
I wonder who accused you of being a rotten apple they themselves weren't Phil Friedman. I don't think we judge an apple as rotten instantaneously, and we have to be very sure. A bad and pungent smell will have general agreement that it is bad.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #90

#118
The problem, Ali, with your approach is that the determination of which apples are rotten should not be a matter of vote or mob response. It was not too long ago that I was the secret target of a group who believed my writing brought too much "negativity" to beBee, yet could not, when challenged, bring forward a single documentation of a single instance in which I had been abusive. And the fact was the people involved just didn't like what I had to say. If we over-prune the tree to force it to conform to our a priori concept of how it should be formed, we often end up with a dwarf that lacks hardiness and which fails to bear an abundance of fruit. Thank you for reading and commenting.

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #89

#117
not metaphorically speaking, but in strict Bebee sense. Who is the Wasp?What's the policy? Perhaps a simple walkthrough which can serve as good information and also a warning. Why isolate wasps, why not convert them into bees?? I tried different ways to get the message through , I try this too :) because i have faith in your proactive responses and I am happy customer. I could give detailed suggestions too as a user but I believe you have things covered, I wait for the new app :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #88

#114
Thank you, Todd, for reading and for joining the conversation. It took me several years of being on social media to come fully to the realization that the best reaction to offensive people is no reaction. You are absolutely correct that it takes a very high degree of self-restraint and self-control to ignore obnoxious and offensive remarks. Indeed, as you can tell from one of my exchanges in this very thread, I sometimes "fall off the wagon" in the face of the repeated personal attacks launched by someone who has followed my posts for years for no other purpose than to post such unfounded and duplicitous attacks. Still, my personal commitment to freedom of speech and expression prevents me, despite the existence of a years-long pattern of such behavior, from reporting the comments and asking beBee management to ban the person from the platform. Refusing to engage with a perceived offender is, in my book, the best way to deal with the problem. And on the rare occasion when things have really gotten out of hand, and the exchange enters the area of infringing on the rights of others, I believe the best way for management to respond is to shut down the comments thread and delete ALL comments. This functions as an admonition to ALL parties that the platform rules of engagement have been breached, and that it is the responsibility of all of us to maintain decorum. IMO. Cheers and, BTW, I hope your struggle with rabbit food is easing up. Perhaps, it will give you some satisfaction to keep in mind that Spaniards and some other continentals eat rabbits in retaliation. :-)

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#116
A rotten apple will rot the whole apples. I salute you Javier \ud83d\udc1d beBee for removing all rotten apples, if any.

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #86

You can read this buzz :) https://www.bebee.com/producer/@javierbebee/differences-between-bees-and-wasps-diferencias-entre-abejas-y-avispas-en-es Are Wasps free to fly over beBee and being disrepectful ? Yes of course. Is beBee free for frightening the flies and keeping them out ? YES OF COURSE ;) ... because beBee is a commmunity for bees. Wasps have a great place in the other social platforms. Have a good weekend !

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #85

Phil Friedman . We say in spanish "a buen entendedor pocas palabras" that means " it is crystal clear" or "it is very easy to understand".

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #84

#99
Devesh Bhatt

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #83

#91
John, you and I have been online friends for quite some time, so you know, I am sure, that I respect you, your work, and what you say. But in this matter, I think you and I have to agree to disagree. (If for no other reason than so as not to spoil your last day on the beach.) I don't know where you went to school, but at the schools I attended and those I taught at, freedom of speech and political expression was one of the highest and most adhered to principles in the book, right next to academic freedom. So the answer in the case you pose would be no, the Dean or another administrator would not interfere. In my own classroom, I would have counseled the students in the principles of free speech and expression and explained that freedom of speech and expression does not extend to interfering with the speech and expressions of others. In other words, everyone gets to speak, whether what they said met the approval of the majority or not. There is a back story here. Which is that I did my undergraduate work at Roosevelt University in Chicago, which was founded in the 1950s, with the dedicated support of Eleanor Roosevelt, by a group of academics who left the University of Illinois over administrative policies that were generated as an extension of the with hunts and acts of political suppression flowing at the time from the McCarthy Committee hearings — a travelling attack in general on freedom of speech and political assembly. It was at Roosevelt U. where I cut my eye teeth on this kind of issue. Cont... Pt II below

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #82

#91
John White - Part II - I understand that you believe the exchanges in the case in question warranted intervention. However, I stand by my assertion that intervention is only warranted in the event that a disruptive person or group is infringing on the rights of others to express their views. That was not the case in this case. Everyone was free to speak. Moreover, anyone who did not like how they were being treated or did not like the tone of the replies they were receiving, was free to leave the discussion and mute the ongoing conversation. I reiterate that it disturbs me that a group of commenters should gather ex parte to seek intervention and the quieting of someone who, however abrasive, arrogant, or whatever you want to term it, was not disrupting the conversations (posts) of others, but simply answering those who decided to comment on his post. And the entire affair had too much of the flavor of mob rule for me not to speak out about it. To be clear, I agree that beBee is a private, for-profit enterprise and as such has the right to control what appears on the platform. However, as I said at the time, contrary to your assertion here, I consider it a harsher act of censorship to delete only some of the comments and not the entire thread. My personal recommendation — which I am voicing here — is to either let an exchange like that play itself out or delete the entire comments thread with a notice that it had become too acrimonious for the platform's standards of comportment. I sincerely hope your last day of vacation is a great one, and that you return trip is a safe and uneventful one. Talk to you when you get back. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #81

#108
Yes, that's the point.

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #80

#107
Thanks Milos Djukic ! - I suppose the precept or theory of why something would work can be regarded as fiction, but the means and methods of proving your hypothesis is the technical part.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #79

#104
"I've said many times in the past that it's a lot easier to write a technical article/book than a work of fiction or write on more nebulous or fictional topics." - Claire \ud83d\udc1d Cardwell Very true Clarie and the scientist need both (a scientific paper and a work of fiction, but not together).

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #78

#105
Thanks Phil Friedman - maybe I've let the Kraken out too! Have an awesome weekend!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #77

#104
Thank you, Claire. It is very kind of you to say so, as well as courageous to speak up. I am genuinely touched by your support. My best to you. And cheers!

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #76

#95
Yet again I see evidence of a vendetta that a certain person has for Phil Friedman. How this person (who writes 'idiots guides') can lord it above the rest of us leaves me lost for breath. Yes to have published and written so many guides is to be applauded. However I've said many times in the past that it's a lot easier to write a technical article/book than a work of fiction or write on more nebulous or fictional topics. I have always enjoyed Phil Friedman's work. His pieces are well written, witty and thought-provoking.

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #75

#102
thanks... He responds immediately, it's a good thing, but I usually message him around 2 India time. Thanks a lot.

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #74

#99
Federico \ud83d\udc1d \u00c1lvarez San Mart\u00edn's problem commenting on this post? Gracias, amigo. Devesh: sorry that happened that is really frustrating. I can't stand losing my work!! I've alerted Fed and I am sure his team will be able to help.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #73

It is better not to write at all than to write nonsense. "6 Ways to Abuse Your Freedom of Speech and 6 Ways to Respect It" by Brandon Cox at brandonacox.com http://brandonacox.com/leadership/6-ways-to-abuse-your-freedom-of-speech-and-6-ways-to-respect-it/

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #72

At the end of the day, I believe all that participated in this heated exchange learned something from it. I think beBee will be stronger because of it. Good night to all from the Dominican Republic. I've got one last day on the beach tomorrow before returning to the frigid temps in Colorado. Buzz on!

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #71

I wrote a long comment, it did not get posted. I wrote I again and saved it in word, copied and tried again and again in half hour intervals...It still doesn't show Strange.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #70

#97
Yes John White, MBA and that is "an equilibrium which is set up from within".

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #69

Robert Bacal: Well, I admit that I gave author x some of his/her own medicine to prove a point, it's not something that I'm proud of nor would I encourage my kids to do it. Those comments were out of character for me. However, what we have to realize here is that there were MANY users that complained about the author's comments, and not only the ones that were attacked personally. If the author was offended by any of the comments made by myself or others on the thread, he/she could have reported them as could have others. They would have been reviewed by our team and quite possibly removed as well. I will never pretend to be perfect myself, as I realize I am a flawed individual. However, what we have to guard against is a repeated pattern of abuse. We can all say stupid things that we regret at times. However, if abuse becomes a pattern or we have such a high number of complaints against one user, then action must be taken. We cannot let the actions of one user drive away the greater good of the platform.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #68

"Order is not pressure which is imposed on society from without, but an equilibrium which is set up from within." - José Ortega y Gasset, Mirabeau and Politics (1927)

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #67

To me, censorship would have been to remove the entire post. Yet, the post remains there for anyone to read it (minus author x's insults and attacks).

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #66

#90
Thanks Phil. Those who tend to disrespects other are usually those who are seeking respect most. Offensive people are often insecure and they are all around. And yes, all three categories: aggression, avoidance, and assertion should meet requirements of free speech and expression, if the decent form was satisfied and if there were no insult or malicious accusations. “We're imperfect people trapped in an imperfect world until we get to that place beyond.” ―Kathie Lee Gifford Social media is that place beyond.

John White, MBA

John White, MBA

4 years ago #65

Phil Friedman: When someone writes a post and went on the offensive degrading an entire community that author should expect that some of the commenters might not agree with his/her stance and challenge them. That DOES NOT give them the right to then personally insult people when that community responds and challenges said positions. Readers should be able to disagree with an author without being personally attacked. Author x wrote some very hateful comments directed at certain users and the larger beBee community. We received dozens of complaints about those comments. It was one of the most highly offensive posts I've ever read. They were removed due to MANY respected members complaining and asking beBee leadership to intervene. Therefore the comments were reported were deleted. All of author x's non-hateful comments remained. I hope you understand that we cannot allow beBee to become a place for mean-spirited and degrading comments. Imagine that in a classroom of students there was a good debate going and then one student started calling the others and yourself stupid. Then, the students from your class all went to the dean telling them they don't feel safe in your classroom. Clearly, some sort of action would need to be taken to restore civil discourse.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #64

#88
Thank you,Milos, for reading and commenting. I agree that in order to be respected, one has to accord respect to others. However, the other side of the coin is that he who disrespects other should not whine or complain about himself being disrespected in return. Which is one of the messages, I think, in the great line by Kevin Pashuk which I quote in the article. Beyond that, I suggest to all that it is not necessary to either give or receive respect in order for one to remain committed to the principles of free speech and expression. Indeed, to my mind, it is most important when we come into conflict with those who fail to respect us and whom we don't respect. For it is in those cases that our commitment to free speech is really tested. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #63

Teaching is the most impressive way to help people. Good teacher has never been aggressive. Appendix - from Dirks MA, Treat TA, Weersing VR. The Latent Structure of Youth Responses to Peer Provocation. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2011;33(1):58-68. doi:10.1007/s10862-010-9206-5. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044843/) "You are walking by yourself up to the door of the school before class in the morning. There are lots of students outside, and some of the teachers too. As you get to the door you see a good friend of yours. She is walking into the school. You say hi to her. She turns around, looks right at you, and says “why are you talking to me?” then turns away from you and walks quickly away. What would you say or do if this happened to you? Please fill in the circle next to everything that you would really say or do. 1 Say “What’s wrong with you?” 2 Tell the teacher what s/he did. 3 Tell all our friends what s/he did and get them on my side. 4 Never speak to him/her again. 5 Say “What did you do that for? 6 Call him/her a rude name. 7 Say “You should apologize.” 8 Shove him/her back. 9 Walk away"

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #62

But there's no one here who is Author X. And here, we have a good example of real people Respect others to be respected. It seems that sensationalism is what is required. Not at all!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #61

#86
Thank you Franci\ud83d\udc1dEugenia Hoffman, I hope so. First of all, this is a personal responsibility.

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

#85
Excellent contributions, Milos.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #59

As a contribution to this issue: 1. Leadership and Successful Human Conversations, LI long-form post, Published on March 1, 2015 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-successful-human-conversations-milos-djukic?trk=mp-reader-card Excerpt: "My intention is to discuss with all of you, respected LI members, what are the criteria (intention, form and function) that may be considered as socially acceptable during conversation on social media." 2. What Makes Us Unique on Social Media, LI long-form post, Published on December 28, 2014 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-makes-us-unique-social-media-milos-djukic?trk=mp-reader-card Excerpt: "The need to write on social media may be something quite abstract or very intimate, but also a source of money, success and fame. The essence is in balance. After all, everyone chooses their motives and intentions."

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #58

#80
Dorothy, thank you for reading and commenting. Freedom of expression is messy and always will be. And at times we are all called upon to clean up the mess we make. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #57

#81
Donna-Luisa, I am very sorry to hear that you are in mourning. My sincerest sympathy and best thought go out to you. I admire you for speaking out on freedom of expression, and clearly for stimulating conversation about what it means. Too often, I think, we all approach what some other people write or say in a knee-jerk way, whereas the maintenance of free speech often requires reflection before action. Cheers and thank you for reading and commenting.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #56

#73
Robert Bacal > "The example Phil mentions is a good example, although he conveniently fails to provide all the relevant details. SOme of John's comments were removed." Robert, will you ever stop distorting and misrepresenting the facts for your own ends? The fact of the matter is that I did not refer in this piece to the removal by beBee of some of Author X's comments in his own article because I was the first to publicly object to that removal. To wit, my comments 131 and 138 in Author X's thread. "130 Gerry, unless John made those deletions himself, that is a disturbing occurrence. If beBee management feels the conversation was over the top, then the entire comment thread should be deleted. Otherwise, it's like tying the schoolyard nerd down before kicking him into the hospital ... 135 Yes, Gerry, it appears that all of John Vaughan's deleted comments (which BTW are on his own post) have been restored, as they should be. This is an indication that the deletions occurred as the result of an egregious ABUSE of the report feature. Likely by one or more of the same people who hide in the shadows, while clicking the negative button in an attempt to censure by mob rule. Whether one likes or dislikes what JV had to say, or cares or doesn't for his sometimes abrasive manner, such abuse of the system to interfere with free and open expression demonstrates clearly the dangers of allowing people to act anonymously..." I also carried the discussion forward in my comments defending Author X's right to freely express himself without being gagged in my comments 143, 173, and 174, which I shall not quote here as they are not pertinent to this post, but which are available to be read — something you obviously either have not done or have chosen to ignore in you typical manner of special pleading. Continued below in Pt. II

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #55

#73
Robert Bacal - Part II - Indeed, Author X responded on several occasions in that thread with appreciation for what I had written, for example, in his comment 140, "#135 Thank you, my friends, @Phil Friedman and @Gerald Hecht, both for your friendship and for your diligence in protecting "the value proposition" at this socialNet." I mention all this NOT to demonstrate what a great guy I am, but to detail the extent to which you will go, and the scurrilous distortions you will employ, in the course of posting derogatory remarks both about me and about what I write. I years ago stopped answering you because the effort is not worth it, and most people see your bull chips for what they are. I do not enter into the conversations on your posts, and I would very much appreciate it if you would show me the reciprocal courtesy of staying the f#@k out of mine. (Sorry, David B. Grinberg, for the semi-curse word.) At least until the beBee block function is implemented, at which point I will resolve the matter for good. Thank you.

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #54

#73
I appreciate your thoughtful sentiments, Robert Bacal. However, I'm not exactly sure which blog post you're referring to as an example. I made no comments/replies whatsoever on the post about "tagging" (which I believe you are citing). Thus, you might be confusing me with somebody else. Thanks again, Robert, and have a wonderful weekend, kind sir.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #53

#53
Yes, Jim, you, Don \ud83d\udc1d Kerr, and I "play rulers" because ... we've all lost our marbles.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #52

#69
Sorry, Chad, not Chas. The beBee auto corrector needs a slap in the ear.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #51

#69
Chas, the Fry message is basically get over yourself. Who cares if YOU are offended ... other than you? We can control what we read and listen to, so why do some of us want to control what others write or say? The large amount of tomato based sauce used in Italian cooking is hell these days on my stomach, so I avoid Italian restaurants. But do I demand that all Italian restaurants close? Why not? Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #50

#67
Fatima > "Right is Right even if nobody does it ; And wrong is wrong even if everyone does it" You are a bright star in beBee's sky, Fatima. IMB. (in my book) And I for one am very pleased that you have joined the community of writers here. Cheers!

🐝 Fatima G. Williams

🐝 Fatima G. Williams

4 years ago #49

Finally someone said something ! Thank you Phil Friedman for this very telling buzz. We never solve issues by gagging those who annoy or offend us.This is something I believe and have practiced as well. Noone can choose to hurt me with their comments/actions unless I allow them to do so. Maintaining the equilibrium is important. I never engage in something that doesn't add any value to me or doesn't provide value to other's. I believe that " Right is Right even if nobody does it ; And wrong is wrong even if everyone does it " So we need to choose between being on the side nobody is even if everybody is on the other wrong side as that would the right thing to do IMHO. Thank Phil for this enigmatic enlifting buzz. I was laughing @some sections like the Stephen Fry's quote so true 😂😂😂

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #48

Jan 27, 2017 11:48:45 PM #57 My apologies, Franci, fat fingers on a teenpsie mobile keyboard had me referring to you as "Franco".#62

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #47

#57
My apologies, Franco, fat fingers on a teenpsie mobile keyboard had me referring to you as "Franco".#62

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #46

#63
In fact, David, I agree entirely with what you say. Tolerance for "bad" language varies from person to person, and so standards should be set by those who own the platform. That's easy for me to say because, although I curse like a sailor in person, I don't generally employ that language in my writing, and never in my comments or replies to others. I was just saying that it doesn't bother ME if someone does occasionally. I also agree that the use of such language devalues one's personal brand, but then you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him scuba dive. Cheers!

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #45

#56
Phil, I agree with your points, with the exception of this statement, in part: "I personally don't think it really counts as abuse if you occasionally call someone a bloody fool and an asshole to boot." Thus, please allow me to add some context: 1) I believe it's in the best interest of any social media platform to clearly define what constitutes "abuse" and the repercussions for engaging in such conduct. Different people will likely have different definitions of what they think constitutes "abuse" on social media. Therefore, I believe it's incumbent upon management/leadership of any social platform -- or organization, by extension -- to unequivocally convey their specific policy on such issues and periodically reiterate it (to avoid any inadvertent misunderstandings of users who might use such language). 2) As you know, Phil, I greatly admire your innate talents, skills and intellect as a writer/blogger, editor, deep thinker, debater etc. However, even if it's not deemed abusive to use foul language on social media platforms (such as "asshole" or "bloody fool"), it nonetheless strikes me as a personal attack. Moreover, IMHO, such language is completely unnecessary and only degrades the quality/competency/productiveness of the discussion, not to mention the online forum in which such language is used/condoned. I simply don't see any value in needless name calling of any sort in order to effectively make a point or intellectually refute the points/opinions of those with whom we may disagree. I also think such language hurts the individual's personal brand image and detracts from the otherwise valid points that individual is trying to make. But, again, that's just my humble opinion, for whatever it's worth (or not). Thanks for considering it.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #44

#57
I agree, Franco, the best choice is to ignore those small-minded, mean-spirited interlopers who seek only to disrupt and to draw attention to themselves. Sometimes, hiwever, following that advice is very hard indeed. But always in the end they behave like Rumplestiltskin and stamp their feet until they drive themselves through the floor. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #43

#60
And this is a repeat of my reply: #45 Aurorasa, I think of you more as an A+. Cheers and thanks.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #42

#52
Jim, I like the descriptive term Kraken and will keep that for future reference. I've learned from my study of The Wisdom of Chung King (ca 650 AD)'and in discussions with my Associate Keeper of the Scrolls, Gerald Hecht, that "Striking a pile of bull chips only leaves you with smelly hands." I've met with the innuendo from the Kraken before. What I now do is simply refer to my post ‪https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/i-ll-show-you-mine-then-you-show-me-yours‬ And say, okay, now show me your bona fides. But the pertinent fact here is I don't need a mob to shut this guy down. His own demeanor does that admirably. Thank you for speaking out.

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

Good straightforward read, Phil. I feel that to fall into a group or mob mentality can be harmful, no matter what the situation. Opinions can quickly change and then you can find yourself in an undesirable position. It appears there are those that intentionally enjoy drawing others into a free-for-all. Those are the ones that are best left alone, IMO. Let them make a fool of themselves solo.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #40

#54
David, I raise you one (or maybe ten). I personally don't think it really counts as abuse if you occasionally call someone a bloody fool and an asshole to boot. Abuse is constantly coming onto the comments threads of other people to post groundless, defamatory, false and scurrilous innuendo and claims with no basis in fact. And especially when you keep doing it over and over again because nobody gives a damn about you nitwit bull chips and because all you want to do is disrupt the conversation. That describes neither you, nor for that matter Author X. Although it does describe the Kraken which Jim identifies in this thread. But as my post points out, I don't need the support of a mob in a case like this, since I can choose simply to ignore the adolescent behavior involved. Cheers, my friend.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #39

#50
I agree, Chad, on that point. Someone is not a troll because he or she says something that is not considered politically correct. Thank you for reading and for joining the conversation. Cheers!

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #38

#46
Hey Phil, yes it's me again -- but fret not, as I won't pester you. To the contrary, I just want to reiterate a simple message for which I think you will agree: That is, similar to TV, if you don't like what you're seeing/reading, simply change the channel and don't tune in again (like I did regarding "Author X" due to a conspicuous confrontational writing style which I personally perceive as narcissistic, tone deaf and unproductive -- but that just my personal opinion). However, if someone's language is abusive, hateful or bullying in tone and mannerism then the user/blogger should be reported, as appropriate. Are we on the same page here, oh wise one? (with the exception of my personal opinion about "Author X")

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #37

#1
The Beezers do not rule. We just play rulers on social media. :)

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #36

Looks like, at least from reading some of the comments on this thread, you have unleashed the kraken, so to speak. I find this totally ironic since you were talking about how to take the higher ground when people deliberately try and bait you with bullshit comments that add nothing top the conversation and only manage to reaffirm their lack of civility. This is a great post and not at all Trump-like.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #35

#45
Aurorasa, I think of you more as an A+. Cheers and thanks.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #34

#44
I agree, George. Muting and unfollowing are pretty effective tools for clearing your mental waters of flotsam, as will bee the new blocking function on beBee when it arrives. My reiterated question (for others, not for you necessarily) is why, then, worry about what's being said out there that you aren't seeing or reading or which isn't clogging your incoming feed? I understand that, if we run across hate messages or scams that can cause people serious harm, we have to speak out in care for our fellows in the community. But otherwise who cares if jerks are out there talking to (hopefully) only themselves? Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #33

To put things in context, I've noticed that Candice \ud83d\udc1d Galek, Disruption Marketing Ace, has not been as successful generating controversy on beBee as on LinkedIn. What's my guess about that? Because the beBee community is much more open and tolerant than that at LI, and much less prone to getting their bikini briefs into a wedgie. But Candice, I am sure, will eventually figure out new ways to provoke attention here.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #32

#41
No, Kevin, the thanks go to you for that quote and for your writing it in the first place. For it brilliantly describes the essence of an attitude that needs to be avoided. Thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Kevin Pashuk

Kevin Pashuk

4 years ago #31

Thought provoking as usual Mr. Friedman... And thanks for using that little quote of mine. Here's another that might work in the context of your post, especially about people who feel that any opinion or custom that differs from their own is somewhat wrong... "If we are truly all the same, then why do we buy so many different kinds and colours of cars?" We need to celebrate our distinctive traits, not suppress them.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

4 years ago #30

#36
LOL Please accept my apologies, i can see how that comparison may have been degrading. From the south it all looks the same:)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #29

#29
The block function will definitely alleviate the problem of aggressive commenters coming into one's posts to disrupt the conversation or harass the author. But we can already remove the posts of those authors whom we don't want to read, by using the mute user function. And we can shut down notices re a given ongoing conversation by using the mute conversation function. At least in theory. I am sure the Federico is, as well as adding new functions, sharpening up the system overall to function more as it should. I suggest, however, to all that we need to exercise our own judgement and actively manage our individual beBee experience, and not seek to generalize our idiosyncratic preferences. Thank you Javier for staying engaged.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #28

#35
For the record, Harvey, we born and bred Chicagoans (now finally properly acknowledged by the TV prime time trio Chgo PD, Fire, and Med) pride ourselves on the difference between our unique style of polite expression and that of those a$$hole New Yorkers. :-)

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

4 years ago #27

#34
I found his presentation with adjectives a little inflaming but his points were valid points for consideration. I could not comment on his points because its not in my wheelhouse of understanding. I was focusing on the reaction to the presentation as i believe you are, in seeking equilibrium. Your style of writing has a very Chicago style of edginess, my style is southern by nature. Having experienced the Chicago/New York style of communication i had to learn quickly to focus on the points not the presentation. Affinity networking will experience the cultural differences of presentation. You are broaching this in your post seeking equilibrium. I learned more from the edgy folks than i have my southern teachers. Not because one was better but the contrast identified that the point is what is important not the presentation.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #26

#31
Thank you, Harvey, for reading and commenting. I need to emphasize that my piece here is not about Author X or the ensuing exchange per se. But rather with the reaction and actions of the "crowd" (of which I am a member). And my thesis has to do with returning to and maintaining equilibrium. We never solve issues by gagging those who annoy or offend us.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #25

#32
Right on target, Pascal. My piece here is, as you correctly perceive, not about Author X or that post, but rather about our reactions to rough dissent and our need to regain and in future maintain our equilibrium. As always, your counsel is wise. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!

Pascal Derrien

Pascal Derrien

4 years ago #24

Pretty well balanced article and I think it is important to probe what freedom of expression means, this is not to be confused with labouring a point to death or riding a dead horse it is fundamental (remember Charlie Hebdo anybody?). I have seen the article you are referring about, have my own opinion and choose not to participate. I don't follow author X either.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

4 years ago #23

If Author X is the person i believe they are...then i would have to say that the depth of knowledge in the subject area is way past mine. When i read posts that are not in my wheelhouse of understanding i cant interpret arrogance. The writers tone might appear that way, but i cant judge. I might get angry at the post or comments but i first have to try and understand the point being made, by scrapping off the adjectives and adverbs that don't apply. If i wish to comment i should honor the writer by addressing the point, not my emotional position. In reading the post of Author X i found it interesting that once one started to defend, the developing scrum was amazing. Given my limited knowledge, of the writer, it appeared Author X was baiting the group. These are good points, for a social network that wants to grow. I am not sure folks can grasp the concept of looking past behavior within participation.

Bill Stankiewicz, 🐝 Brand Ambassador

Great 👍

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #21

#4
Aurorasa Sima, as you already know, "block option" will be available soon

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #20

#26
Thank you, Paul, for reading and commenting. I infer that you understand that, although I differ from David on his conclusions, I am suggesting precisely that concerning expression that we don't like — namely avoid and ignore it. In most cases, I've found that trying to deal with it only provides it with reach and traction that it would not otherwise attain. See my reply to Clair below #25 (reply to #20). I guess your court is in Bali -- so to speak. :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #19

#19
You make good points on this, Aurorasa. It's important to keep in mind that clearly Author X set out to provoke the "mob" because he wanted to confirm his thesis that, in fact, such a mob mentality does exist on beBee. Unfortunately, a number of people were drawn into confirming the truth of his hypothesis.

Paul Walters

Paul Walters

4 years ago #18

Phil Friedman on all of his points. negative people, vexatious people , miserable people...these days I tend to turn away from them for I am too old or wise for negative sentiment ..keep scribbling, love your musings !!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #17

#20
Thank you, Claire, for speaking up about that. It's been going on for years. The person about whom you are likely speaking rarely even reads what I've said, and never appears to understand. Most of the time he comments based on some other comment or on some straw-man position that he has concocted to fit his need to have something to know down. But not to worry, he has to come onto my posts in search of attention, because he cannot generate any notice or significant readership on his own. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #16

#18
David - continued... 3. I do not contend that free speech on private for-profit social media platforms is in any way guaranteed. Indeed, I do not believe it is. I suspect that under US federal law, the owners of such a platform could run into trouble if they enforced their own terms of use in an unfairly discriminatory way, for example, decided to ban author X, while not banning author Y, when both did substantially the same things. But that is a matter for the shysters, oops legal eagles to argue out. 4. My piece here is not an attempt to definitively settle the issues of protection of free speech online. It is presented as a suggestion and a recommendation for conduct on the platform that is consistent with what I believe to be the relevant US Constitutional principles that, FWIIW, are an acknowledged example for the world. Finally, what I submit we should avoid at all times is self-righteous mob-like action. Self-righteousness should be reserved to individuals (like me and you), because it is less dangerous that way. :-) Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #15

#17
David, thank you, as always, for reading and commenting. I agree, in part, with what you say, but would make the following points. 1. Disruptive and/or abusive activity can be defined as that which interferes with the rights of others. For example, if Troll A repeatedly posts nasty and off point comments on the posts of others, that is disruptive. If A posts his own article, he can say whatever he or she wishes, because none of us have to pay any attention to it, and it does not interfere with civil conversations the rest of us are trying to have. 2. I have no idea who the "Free Speech Gods" you refer to are. Making fun of the dumb and dangerous things some political figures, including our current POTUS, say is not interfering with free speech. So I need some specifics about what you're thinking of before I can understand what you're saying here.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #14

#9
No, Mike, you don't have to "cut people loose" -- unless they are disruptive in a way that interferes with the rights of others. You can simply mute or block them. Eventually they will be talking only to themselves. 2. If you read any of my published work on the subject, you will find out that I repeatedly say that private, for-profit organization can do as they please. Although, in the US there is basis in Federal law for action if even a private company acts in a discriminatory manner. 3. I agree with you that trolls are best ignored, as engaging with them gives them what they want, which is attention. But one person's engagement is often another's trolling. 4. I have no idea what you mean with this point. In the US all state laws are superseded by the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thank you for reading and commenting.

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

4 years ago #13

#3
Absolutely Don \ud83d\udc1d Kerr's posts. 90% of the time it appears like this person has not even bothered to read the article......

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #12

(continued from below) 3) Third, as an American citizen, I consider myself a strong proponent of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, I'm not sure this is necessarily applicable to online speech in cyberspace with no geopolitical boundaries per say. In other words, I don't know of any specific laws, case law, or other universal legal precedents which dictate what a privately owned online company can or can't prohibit on its own web site in terms of speech. I know this issue is being litigated by some U.S. circuit courts per specific cases with specific sets of facts. However, I don't believe there's no absolute guarantee to free speech or expression online, especially from websites which are based in countries outside the USA's legal jurisdiction.4) 4) In essence, there are many legal questions still to be determined pertaining to online speech. Therefore, no one should saddle up on their high horse and preach the universal gospel of online free speech unless or until free speech is universally legalized in cyberspace. At least that's my take -- whether you take it or leave it.

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #11

Phil, a few thoughts: 1) First, you hit the proverbial nail on (my) head in concluding, "And I suggest to you that the way to deal with people whom we find unpleasant, but who do not cross the line into genuinely abusive rhetoric or disruptive action on social media, is simply to ignore them, their posts, and their comments." That's exactly what I do and why I refrain from reading or commenting on blog posts by "Author X". But who defines what constitutes "disruptive action" or "abusive rhetoric"? As with most things in life, the beauty (or lack thereof) is in the eyes of the beholder -- especially online. 2) Second, I find it ironic that there are times when self-proclaimed free speech gods try to shut down someone online from speaking freely because they disagree with the individual's political views or purported support of a political party, politician or ideology whom THEY believe is against free speech. Isn't railing against someone for speaking freely online and accusing them of digressing from free speech in fact anathema to the fundamental foundation of free speech? (continued above)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #10

#13
Yes, Aurorasa, you can mute a user, but if someone you follow shares a post by that person, you do see it in your feed. I have unfollowed some people whose writing I like, but who share too many posts of authors I don't want to see. I assume that the new iteration of the system will have the promised controls, and that we'll receive a detailed instruction post or two.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #9

#12
On that note, Devesh, I stand with you and will watch your back always. Keep the faith.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #8

#4
PS Aurorasa - I am different, I think, from you in that verbal acrimony as such does not upset me as much as grips banding together behind the scenes for the purpose of seeking to have those with whom they disagree silenced. Often on the pretense that the target is abusive, when in fact, the mob could simply avoid that person using existing tools. Of course, perhaps I am particularly sensitive about that because I was in at least one case targeted in that manner in the shadows of beBee because some self-appointed arbiters of PC decided my writings were "too negative@ and bad for beBee's image. Cheers!

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #7

#8
ok, I believe I understood you, I just didn't get my message through. I am just saying that quashing free speech, eventually leads to a situation where the quashers have to admit and be sorry. This was a very small example and a wise word of caution from you. But if this becomes a habit, eventually there will be an admission , it has already hurt the context, eventually such things hurt business. The wise stick to what is right, the unwise get a wake up call. Ambassadors are basically diplomats :). There must be diplomacy in such cases and a go-to PR guy with Bebee when things get irritating, offload onto someone who can handle it better, someone who knows 3-4 languages :) I am for Free Speech.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #6

#4
Aurorasa, you make several good points. But the block function is needed only to keep disruptive commenters off YOUR posts. If you don't want to see their posts, you can use the mute user function or if you want to leave an existing conversation, you can use the mute buzz function now. Thanks for reading and taking the time to commentt. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #5

#3
Thanks, Don, for saying so. There are several people on beBee whose posts Offend me personally because of the flagrant bullshit they sling. But I think the best way to deal with that is to ignore them and I recommend that others do as well. For although everyone has the right to speak, nobody else is under any obligation to listen. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #4

#2
Thank you, Devesh, for reading and commenting. There is much to discuss in what you say, not the least of which is that, to my mind, Salman Rushdie is a brave and great man of whom India should be proud. IMO.. Please understand that my post is not intended to settle anything about the example used. My points are about the behaviors of those who objected to what Author X said. And part of the point is that nobody forced them to read and comment in the first place. It is not like several Beavisbcohorts who come onto my posts to make aggressive off-point comments intended to disrupt. Cheers!

don kerr

don kerr

4 years ago #3

Phil Friedman I think you nailed it right here "BeBee has to date been imbued with a high level of tolerance and respect for differing, sometimes even alien modes of expression. It is beBee's strength and, I might add, its distinguishing characteristic and main hope for eventual predominance on the social media field of combat."

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

Devesh 🐝 Bhatt

4 years ago #2

It took 20 years for our country to accept Rushdie ban was wrong, just admission, not lifted it yet :) but a country had to admit. Social Media is full of offensive people who may not even have any merit in their arguments. Eventually such people will also join Bebee while it grows. This could have been seen objectively and settled, infact I thought if It was bilateral between you and him, a third party view would have been better. This thread precisely left the impression of some people who continuously post on self restraint and good responsible responses and positivity etc etc etc simply lose it on a simple nudge and somehow focus on the offensive to invite others to gangup. I will give another example. A certain Ambassador in his thread had written that India was one of the top 4 countries where Bebee is popular, incorrect, some of my Indian friends did not join because it was akin to false info right at the initial stage, bad impression. But the person was kind enough to remove the post. Bebee also removed many false Profiles from India instantly. I was beginning to think , responsiveness is better than LI and this happens. A growing company is under great scrutiny, it should be accepted, it should be seen objectively and positive elements should be filtered out. It is irrelevant how the thing is being said. A person is a person, eventually he would run out of steam, why fuel the aggression, this is social media, not face to face where it becomes harder to calm people down. If the aggressor is persistent , he turns out to be the fool, the thing about personal branding, the mindset, they don't align. Many geographies are still learning to accept free speech, but everyone can certainly accept common sense. Free speech is common sense here, it's business sense , it's sensible.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #1

Kevin Pashuk (all together the "Beezers" confirming for me that one CAN strike the kind of balance I talk about here. Cheers!

More articles from Phil Friedman

View blog
2 years ago · 1 min. reading time
Phil Friedman

It’s Good To Be Back Testing and Reviewing Yachts for Major Magazines

GETTING OUT ON THE WATER IN YACHTS LIKE THE RIVIER ...

3 years ago · 1 min. reading time
Phil Friedman

Golden Advice for Developing and Managing New-Build Yacht Projects

THE UPDATED AND EXPANDED SECOND EDITION OF THIS WE ...

3 years ago · 2 min. reading time
Phil Friedman

Golden Advice for Successful Yacht Refits

HEADED TO THE YARD FOR A REFIT? AVOID THE SHOALS O ...