21
   

New A2K is Anti-Free Speech

 
 
old europe
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:01 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
First of all, even in my current sort by time (new posts) choice, posts with low vote counts are collapsed into the caption "voted down."


That's because you have your preferences set that way.

Why don't you change your preferences, if you don't prefer to have posts collapsed for you based on other people's voting?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Do you not believe that people will, with significant frequency, vote down posts merely because they disagree with the ideas expressed?

They might, but then again, so what?

As long as you set your preferences to show all posts, then how other people vote on posts will have no bearing on whether you can see those posts or not. So it's largely irrelevant to you. They can't censor what you read so long as you don't want them to. And if you're worried about people voting down your posts because they disagree with them, just remember that, merely by hitting "reply" on one of your posts, a user gives that post a "thumbs up." Hell, I've been responding to your posts in this thread and giving you multiple votes, and I don't even get a "thank you." Consequently, as long as you say something that generates a discussion, you'll get your share of "thumbs up."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Do you not believe that people will, with significant frequency, vote down posts merely because they disagree with the ideas expressed?

Doesn't the fact that they are able to see your post in order to vote you down kinda undermine your argument that A2K is somehow limiting your speech?
0 Replies
 
caribou
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:08 pm
@Brandon9000,
Minority opinions are in the minority.
That's why they are called minority opinions. Not everyone whats to read them, so what?
What gives you the right to say that we must read them?

First of all, even in my current sort by time (new posts) choice, posts with low vote counts are collapsed into the caption "voted down."
Then you need to change your preferences. The only ones collapsed in my view are the ones I collapsed.

"Secondly, regarding the new option to sort by popularity, someone may desire to see and hear only ideas that he agrees with, and it's his right to do so, but to enable him by creating a specific mechanism for it is not a good thing."
So you are here to tell us that because we can all chose what to read.... this is a bad thing? We've been chosing what to read along. Just now you know the majority doesn't want to read your opinions.

Certainly no one's post is made completely invisible when it's voted down, but this design will have the effect of giving minority views less visiblity than majority ones, which is not something we should be trying to do.
Sezs who? We can all do whatever we want. We always could. Read or not read. respond or not. And that hasn't changed.

Your arguement isn't about free speech.




0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, maybe economics is something that this crowd can understand.....because unpopular views take more time to find now they are more expensive than popular ideas here or than unpopular ideas were at the old a2k...expense does not mean only money in economics. With the increase in price above the perceived value ( and least try to remember that the same voting numbers that made the words less visible also at least imply that those words are not valuable to the majority so the majority would by the same token not find these words valuable enough to take the time to find) consumption is decreased. See the current gasoline market in America for instruction.

the economic system here at a2k is designed to depress the trade in minority ideas.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
How about an example of this accusation you keep making?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawk, how many folks do you think are voting here (just like in America, kinda) for the good of the site, over their own opinion in their own little A2K ecosystem?

Really...
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:33 pm
@caribou,
I consider that the new a2k gives me freedom in reading selection.

I have chosen no minimum and search new posts.

I do vote threads down, for clarity in wading through pages of new posts.

Thus many threads I am not interested in are collapsed for me, all riddles threads, for example. I am not opposed to riddles, I am just not interested in following them, and they and a lot of word game threads clutter my view of the boards. I sometimes collapse threads I'm just done with. I consider that housekeeping.

I vote down a few threads written by people I've read for years and find incessantly illogical. I also leave up some such threads, because of the nature of the arguments that can see taking place, some of which I learn from re 'how to argue', one of the reasons I follow a2k. I'll call this clearing of belligerent incessance, when I do choose to clear some.

I often leave threads by people I disagree with since they are started and maintained by people with logical minds in general who are capable of good arguments, some of which can change my own thinking from time to time.

I often collapse threads by people I generally agree with but express their views obnoxiously. (I haven't collapsed my own yet, but since I can be obnoxious, the day is coming.)

I often collapse threads about a subject I've seen argued over and over for almost six years.

I put on ignore a selection of people, some of whom are on a time out for having a rant week if I've heard the rant again and again.
I put a person on ignore whom I have listened at length to the argument of on the rare times it's coherent and sometimes agree - because of the general incoherence.
I put a person on ignore that I sometimes agree with, disagree strongly on one issue, and see future infinite harping on that issue. (I consider this a time-out, will check periodically re the harping.)
I've put a person on ignore who annoys me by sometimes constant thread interruptions, even though I often like digressions - I seem to have a limit for that. (This is likely just a time-out.)

I collapse individual posts for troll-ness or high insult value on occasion.


None of my thread or post collapses are primarily because I disagree with the person; they have to do with behavior.
If you choose No Minimum, you see everything I have collapsed.




0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:36 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, it certainly is, but when they vote a post down, it will become less visible for others too.


Only if you choose a minimum threshold for collapsing. A great many of us, perhaps the majority, choose No Minimum.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:47 pm
@Rockhead,
i doubt that many at all vote in the interest of common good over their personal best interests or personal comfort. We have heard many people talk about how they vote, how they use ignore, and the approaches are varied, but I have not heard one say that they voted based upon their guess of what would be good for a2k. I personally refuse to vote though I do cast a vote when I reply to a post directly or when I report a post, and it pisses me off that I thus take part in a system that is destroying a2k, but even my nonvoting is a personal preference. I do it because this is what is right for me, I don't do it for a2k.

However, I fail to see what your point has to do with allegation that a2k systematically depressing the trade in minority opinions, with also depressing the general vitality of the place.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Cause I think you are a paranoid Nidiot??

A2K is not systematically doing ****, except giving you a cool place to air your skewed views...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 01:02 pm
I don't believe A2K is limiting free speech at all. After all, I haven't been banned.

But I still think the frustration comes in how rapidly an interesting or potentially interesting topic cycles off the front page and becomes buried, sometimes so buried it is essentially gone forever. Some members seem to spend all their time introducing new threads on all manner of subjects that are either not interesting to most members or members who have limited time to be here simply decide not to be involved - at most these might generate a few responses. Or there seems to be the mentality that 'oh, this topic isn't on the front page so I'll start one' and adds still another thread to a dozen others on the same subject. (Yes, this has always been the case, but I think never to the extent that I'm seeing it now.)

I personally prefer everybody to be involved on one or two threads on a topic and settle in to an indepth exploration of the topic. I think the old forums were more conducive to that and far more conducive to attracting new members to join the discussion.

Or maybe not. Everybody can't have it just the way they think it should be. I was just exceedingly pleased for the hated rep points to disappear. That alone has encouraged me to keep inviting folks to participate here.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  6  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 02:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

the economic system here at a2k is designed to depress the trade in minority ideas.


Well, A+ for being consistant.

I buy what I want when I can afford it. If I don't want it, I don't buy it. Enough other people like it, and the shelves will be restocked. If nobody buys it, the product goes back to the warehouse. You, on the other hand, would require me to buy everything the store tries to push off on me. You don't tell me why I should support a crumby product.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 02:18 pm
@roger,
you missed totally,what I want is for minority views to be priced reasonably, so that more people will take an interest in them and thus we can have some good discussion. I am in no way suggesting that you should be forced to buy.
roger
 
  6  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 02:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Some expressions of minority views don't meet the cost/value standard. Some, I'm simply not interested in. In some views, it is regretable that I'm not required to buy them, anyway.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 02:32 pm
@roger,
if you go back to the debates about minority rights at the founding (america) you will find that the value of minority opinions was not clearly obvious to the masses, that the elite were aware of the proper valuation for minority views so far as societal health goes and had to educate the masses. However, once the value of minority opinions in the public space was pointed out by those who were already aware the majority thus agreed, thus minority rights were ratified in the Constitution (and more so in the bill of rights portion).

I am consistent because I am right, and I have hopes that in time enough others will see why I am right that my view of the value of minority speech will no longer be the minority view. I am using and will continue to use the degradation of a2k as a prime piece of supporting evidence for my case.
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 02:35 pm
Free Speech Zones
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 02:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye, you are SO much less oppressed than any martyr in history.

Please quit whining, and show us your message...

(If it's one of the ones we already seen, then STFU) IMHO
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  7  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 04:36 pm
Whole helluva lotta hot air about a software sorting mechanism.

Man oh man.

Really. This is a large site. With lots and lots (and lots!) of topics.

They cannot all be on the first page.

Otherwise we would have teeny tiny ass print.

And then nothing would be seen. Nothing would be usable.

As for the reasons why people vote something down -- so what does that have to do with the price of apples in Oshkosh? I'm wearing a dark orange top and blue shorts today. Does this mean I voted down my tan shorts and my blue top? Maybe. Maybe I'm in an orange top and blue shorts mood.

So what. Big fat hairy deal.

If people are interested in your posts, for whatever reason, they will read them. If they aren't, they won't. This is no different from any earlier incarnations of A2K. Hell, it's no different from any other message board site on the Internet. The only differences are (a) there's a software sorting mechanism in place here and (b) you know about it.

Question: what if people were voting UP for no good reason? Say, they like the letters in your userid or the color of your avatar or your post numbers or it's a Monday or they just had the best peanut butter and tuna fish sandwich ever -- is that a bad thing, too?

Or is it only bad if it's a vote downwards?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 04:42 pm
@jespah,
<snort>

I LOVE it when ya get snarly...

(sorry RP)
Confused
 

Related Topics

Oh My God - Discussion by cjhsa
Is free speech an illusion? - Question by Angelgz2
Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate? - Discussion by izzythepush
Time To Boycott EA games? - Discussion by RexRed
Four Dead In O-Hi-O - Discussion by realjohnboy
respect or free speech? - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2021 at 11:47:48