Finding the Right Balance

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.

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.
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

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

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...
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 Friedman: With 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.

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

#BEBEEVERSUSBEBEE #AFFINITYNETWORKING #BEBEE
""""""
Articles from Phil Friedman
View blog
TODAY'S POPULAR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND Ai ARE RIFE WITH SCIENCE FANTASY AND L ...

SEATTLE YACHTS BUYS ALASKAN BRAND, CONTRACTS WITH FORMER PALMER JOHNSON CEO, PHIL FRIEDMAN, TO DIREC ...

WILL KICKING BUTT IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE A STEP FORWARD OR TWO STEPS BACK? · Prefac ...
Related professionals
You may be interested in these jobs
-
Software Development Manager
1 week ago
Amazon BostonAbout Us · At Amazon, we prioritize work-life balance. Our team recognizes that finding the right equilibrium between personal and professional life is crucial for long-term happiness and fulfillment. · We strive to provide flexibility in working hours and encourage individuals t ...
-
Engineering Consultant
13 hours ago
Shive Hattery Group Iowa City**Career Development Opportunities** · At Shive-Hattery, we believe in investing in our employees' growth and development. As a Mechanical Engineer, you will have opportunities to learn from experienced professionals, participate in training programs, and contribute to various pr ...
-
Medical Career Opportunities
2 days ago
VieMed Healthcare Staffing SilvisWelcome to VieMed Healthcare Staffing, where we take pride in delivering exceptional staffing solutions for the healthcare industry. As a premier healthcare staffing agency, we understand the importance of finding the right talent for your facility's needs. · Key Highlights · Com ...
Comments
Sarah John
4 years ago#224
Sarah John
4 years ago#223
Fay Vietmeier
4 years ago#222
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
4 years ago#221
Fay Vietmeier
4 years ago#220
Fay Vietmeier
4 years ago#219
Manuel Chinchilla da Silva
5 years ago#218
Phil Friedman
5 years ago#217
Thank you, Lyon Brave, for reading and commenting. Cheers!
Phil Friedman
5 years ago#216
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
5 years ago#215
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
5 years ago#214
Thank you, Pepper, for reading and taking the time to comment. Cheers!
Fay Vietmeier
5 years ago#213
Phil Friedman
6 years ago#212
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
6 years ago#211
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
6 years ago#210
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
6 years ago#209
Thank you, Preston, for reading and commenting. Cheers!
Randall Burns
7 years ago#208
Randall Burns
7 years ago#207
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#206
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!
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#205
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
7 years ago#204
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
7 years ago#203
Phil, I've never asked you before "who is a beBee Affiliate Marketer?" Thank you for your response.
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#202
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
7 years ago#201
"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
7 years ago#200
Ok Phil, then who is a beBee Affiliate Marketer?
Milos Djukic
7 years ago#199
“Dance with the one that brung ya”.
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#198
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
7 years ago#197
Phil, It will then be affiliate marketing and I agree :)
Milos Djukic
7 years ago#196
"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
7 years ago#195
Milos Djukic
7 years ago#194
You are welcome Phil. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". I am ugly.
Milos Djukic
7 years ago#193
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
7 years ago#192
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
7 years ago#191
Yes Phil. "Good behavior" is for someone nothing more than affiliate marketing. You can simply ignore that "bad behavior". IMO. Cheers!
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#190
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
7 years ago#189
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
7 years ago#188
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
7 years ago#187
Yeah but a troll is still a troll, not matter how egalitarian you might feel. :)
Jim Murray
7 years ago#186
Yeah. nut a troll is still a troll no matter how democratic you might be.
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#185
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
7 years ago#184
Dominique 🐝 Petersen
7 years ago#183
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#182
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
7 years ago#181
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
7 years ago#180
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 Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
7 years ago#179
Phil Friedman
Phil Friedman
7 years ago#178
Randall Burns
7 years ago#177
Jim Murray
7 years ago#176
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#175
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
8 years ago#174
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
8 years ago#173
Thank you, Christine forreading and saying so. Cheers!
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#172
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
8 years ago#171
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
8 years ago#170
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
8 years ago#169
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
8 years ago#168
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#167
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
8 years ago#166
Thanks John Vaughan.
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#165
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
8 years ago#164
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#163
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#162
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#161
#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
8 years ago#160
#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
8 years ago#159
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
8 years ago#158
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
8 years ago#157
John Vaughan. He is authentic, well-intentioned man and professor.
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#156
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
8 years ago#155
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
8 years ago#154
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
8 years ago#153
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
8 years ago#152
Self-censorship, I guess, or postponed "self-restraint" action :)
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#151
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
8 years ago#150
#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
8 years ago#149
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
8 years ago#148
Max Carter, what is it about "The user has deleted this comment" (#210) you don't seem to understand?
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#147
Sorry, Gerry, will cease at once. You migh also use the mute-conversation button. Best. Cheers!
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#146
Chas \u270c\ufe0f Wyatt I fully agree with you . Have a great week ! :-)
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#145
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
8 years ago#144
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
8 years ago#143
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
8 years ago#142
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
8 years ago#141
John Vaughan, please check my comment #212.
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#140
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
8 years ago#139
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#138
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
8 years ago#137
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
8 years ago#136
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#135
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
8 years ago#134
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
8 years ago#133
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
8 years ago#132
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
8 years ago#131
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!
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#130
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 Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#129
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
8 years ago#128
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
8 years ago#127
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#126
Phil Friedman do you agree with calling me "a product stakeholder" ? Do you think that is respectful or disrespectful ? Thanks
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#125
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#124
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#123
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#122
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#121
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
8 years ago#120
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
8 years ago#119
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
8 years ago#118
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
8 years ago#117
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#116
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
8 years ago#115
"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
8 years ago#114
"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
8 years ago#113
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
8 years ago#112
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
8 years ago#111
Phil, Last night I have been in buffet and drank coffee. https://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/belgrade/begur/hoteldetail
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#110
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
8 years ago#109
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
8 years ago#108
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
8 years ago#107
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#106
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#105
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#104
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
8 years ago#103
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
8 years ago#102
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#101
Thank you, Siraj, not Surat. The autocorrector is getting ever more aggressive -- and stubborn. Cheers!
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#100
Thank you Surat for reading and for the kind words. Cheers!
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#99
¡Saludos, Juan Blanco, ten un monjito en mi!
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#98
salud John White, MBA !! Espero que estés practicando tu español allí :)
John White, MBA
8 years ago#97
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#96
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
8 years ago#95
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
8 years ago#94
#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
8 years ago#93
Javier, in the words of my all-time favorite TV cop, Rick Hunter, "Works for me." :-)
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#92
Devesh 🐝 Bhatt
8 years ago#91
Good Luck. I hope to witness it grow in this fashion.
Devesh 🐝 Bhatt
8 years ago#90
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 Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#89
tolerance, respect, diversity... that is beBee !
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#88
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 Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#87
Ali Anani
8 years ago#86
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
8 years ago#85
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
8 years ago#84
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
8 years ago#83
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
8 years ago#82
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
8 years ago#81
A rotten apple will rot the whole apples. I salute you Javier \ud83d\udc1d beBee for removing all rotten apples, if any.
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#80
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#79
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#78
Devesh Bhatt
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#77
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
8 years ago#76
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
8 years ago#75
Yes, that's the point.
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#74
"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).
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#73
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!
Devesh 🐝 Bhatt
8 years ago#72
thanks... He responds immediately, it's a good thing, but I usually message him around 2 India time. Thanks a lot.
John White, MBA
8 years ago#71
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
8 years ago#70
John White, MBA
8 years ago#69
Devesh 🐝 Bhatt
8 years ago#68
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#67
Yes John White, MBA and that is "an equilibrium which is set up from within".
John White, MBA
8 years ago#66
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#65
John White, MBA
8 years ago#64
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#63
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
8 years ago#62
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#61
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
8 years ago#60
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#59
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#58
Thank you Franci\ud83d\udc1dEugenia Hoffman, I hope so. First of all, this is a personal responsibility.
Milos Djukic
8 years ago#57
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#56
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
8 years ago#55
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
8 years ago#54
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
8 years ago#53
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
8 years ago#52
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
8 years ago#51
Yes, Jim, you, Don \ud83d\udc1d Kerr, and I "play rulers" because ... we've all lost our marbles.
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#50
Sorry, Chad, not Chas. The beBee auto corrector needs a slap in the ear.
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#49
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
8 years ago#48
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
8 years ago#47
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#46
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#45
My apologies, Franco, fat fingers on a teenpsie mobile keyboard had me referring to you as "Franco".#62
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#44
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
8 years ago#43
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
8 years ago#42
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
8 years ago#41
And this is a repeat of my reply: #45 Aurorasa, I think of you more as an A+. Cheers and thanks.
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#40
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.
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#39
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
8 years ago#38
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
8 years ago#37
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
8 years ago#36
The Beezers do not rule. We just play rulers on social media. :)
Jim Murray
8 years ago#35
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#34
Aurorasa, I think of you more as an A+. Cheers and thanks.
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#33
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
8 years ago#32
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#31
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
8 years ago#30
Harvey Lloyd
8 years ago#29
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
8 years ago#28
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
8 years ago#27
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
8 years ago#26
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
8 years ago#25
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
8 years ago#24
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
8 years ago#23
Harvey Lloyd
8 years ago#22
Bill Stankiewicz
8 years ago#21
Javier Cámara-Rica 🐝🇪🇸
8 years ago#20
Aurorasa Sima, as you already know, "block option" will be available soon
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#19
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
8 years ago#18
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
8 years ago#17
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#16
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
8 years ago#15
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
8 years ago#14
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
8 years ago#13
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.
David B. Grinberg
8 years ago#12
David B. Grinberg
8 years ago#11
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#10
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
8 years ago#9
On that note, Devesh, I stand with you and will watch your back always. Keep the faith.
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#8
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
8 years ago#7
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
8 years ago#6
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
8 years ago#5
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
8 years ago#4
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
8 years ago#3
Devesh 🐝 Bhatt
8 years ago#2
Phil Friedman
8 years ago#1