Topic: Are self-moderated threads censorship? (Read 303 times)

Censorship is the restriction of what others say in a particular formulation and prevents any transgression of this formulation.
This forum leaves you free to express your opinion but sets conditions. As long as the replies are relevant, your post will not be deleted.
Local rules are censorship, as I prevent a particular person or idea from being within the wording. For example, it is forbidden for @XXX to reply. It is forbidden to talk about LN in a topic that talks about Bitcoin scalability problem and so on.

And for that same reason, that little thingy called "Report to moderator" exists; to "filter" shiposts from quality posts

Shitposts are a regular part of being on Bitcointalk though. It is the price we pay for having a forum where we can talk about practically anything and everything. For example, Reddit has shitposts on it all the time. It only becomes a problem when you don't have a mechanism for filtering the shitposts from the high quality, superior vocabulary and ingenious intellect posts like mine, self moderated threads are an example of such a mechanism.

Any change to a thread or post is censorship. If I were a mod, and I decided to change a post containing the world "color" to the traditional "colour" , then that is censorship. If a post in a self-moderated thread is deleted, or changed by a mod or the OP, then that is censorship. Unfortunately, there are so many people on the net with psychological problems, then some censorship is necessary. The problems start to appear when the censors have the psychological problems, or extreme political views.

When someone shows their shitposts around, there is no reason to keep their shitshows upfront, forever. For those cases, censorship is essential thing to do.
Another point is, most of self-moderated threads (from good OPs, not scammers, I meant) clearly emphasize that those threads are self-moderated, with some local rules. Posters who violate those local rules will see their shitposts deleted. I think it is transparently, and fair enough.
You also mentioned about local rules

I think self-moderated threads are, almost by definition, censorship.  But then again, when a moderator deletes your post, that's also a form of censorship--but I would not argue that either one is wrong.  I think the forum needs more of this kind of censorship, because usually what's being deleted are either posts that break the rules or ones that are of little value and just distract from the better posts.

Bitcointalk is actually one of the least censoring forums I've ever seen or been a part of.  That's a good thing, but it's also led to a lot of abuses on the part of sig spammers.  I think more people ought to be making their threads self-moderated, and they also should be deleting low-value posts, not ones they just disagree with.  The latter is a bad form of censorship, IMO.

You're probably right about that, but I think if you start a self-moderated thread you should be conservative as far as which posts you nuke.  I've opened a number of threads that I've moderated myself, and I've only felt the need to delete a handful of posts overall.  The last ones I can remember deleting were from the cryptohunter posse, which I had made a local rule about in the OP.  My point was not to discourage people from posting in my threads but to keep the shitposting to a minimum.

Not necessarily, but I do believe that should be the main reason.  As I said, deleting posts that you just happen to disagree with or from members you don't like isn't a very good thing.  The only reason I'd asked cryptohunter and his gang not to post in my thread was because I didn't want any trolling posts there, and I'd heard everything I needed to hear from them.  The thread would have devolved into a flame war.

Self-moderated threads should be more commonplace in the various spam haven boards. I remember running a thread or two in order to mitigate spam.
It worked, since sig spammers don't want to waste their time on a spampost that doesn't get them the peanuts they want. Unfortunately, they have scores of other threads to turn to with the most general topics imaginable. When the body is only one line and the topic is something like "Gambling is bad?" you can't expect fulfilling discussion.

Perhaps if the discussion was fueled not by vague replies to the tune of, "yes because people get addicted and lose their money," then we could see something useful out of the thread. That's where self-moderation comes in, since the wait for moderation might take longer than it does for the conversation to get redirected into a cesspool of spam that we see everywhere.

I agree. There are certainly instances where ALL all topic relevant information should be available to the reader but only if there are observable instances to substantiate their opinions or statements. If not you just get a weight of number situation where the real valuable and most important information is crushed under a ton of garbage that is the incorrect but popular view of those benefiting from pushing that view on others.

A button where the reader can opt to view the unmoderated original thread should be available.

There are certainly situations where SM threads are very useful but it is simply abused by those that want to hide the truth in many instances.

Usually people don't even reply to self-moderated threads as their posts get deleted for no reason. The feature should only be enabled in threads in marketplace or currency exchange or services boards (wherein people advertise their skills) as no point of having self-moderated threads in other boards (they encourage scammers). I feel that except for the three boards I mentioned, the option to create a self-moderated topic should be disabled like it's for Meta. There's no need to censor a discussion and bother about spam replies. Discussions should be open for all (like Reputation, Bitcoin Discussion, B&H boards).

This is a very fair point, and I certainly wasn't thinking of this when I had written my post. This is especially true for reputation based posts where people try to smear a certain user and want to drown out constructive criticism. imho they shouldn't allow for self moderated threads on forum posts like those

Well, by definition it probably is censorship. Sure, it's not nice when you have something removed but deal with. There are plenty of other options to say what you wanted to say. If it's not against the rules then create your own thread to repost it. Posting in a self-moderated thread and having your post removed is like going into someone else's house then complaining when they kick you out. You can go in there and call them a cunt or say something they don't like if you want but they're well within their rights to throw you out.


That's about freedom of speech, which is different to censorship, though obviously overlaps.

It's not censorship at all.

If you don't like being moderated by another person, then you can go and post in a non self-moderated thread, or even create your own self-moderated thread. You even get a warning at the top of each self-moderated thread which says "If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic". No one (including theymos/the forum) is under any obligation to give you a platform to speak, which is why deleting posts in self-moderated threads, or mods deleting posts anywhere which break the rules, is not censorship.

Relevant xkcd:

This is true currently but..

The OP  does NOT get to decide on the criteria for deletion if my principles are followed. Yes currently people are censoring on topic relevant information that is substantiated by observable instances and that are independently verifiable. So that should NOT be allowed. That is simply creating an echo chamber and a one sided argument.

All relevant and on topic posts should be left in place if they are substantiated with observable instances.

However, on this board people confronted with inconvenient and undeniable observable instances just tend to scream TROLLING or TROUBLE MAKER or LIAR or DEFAMER in the face of these observable instances that don't fit with their agendas. Those aligned and benefiting from those same political views will pile in and make the same false accusations and then if that does not work they will slap red trust on your account and try to discredit you.

Other ass lickers and merit hunters (so they can power up their accounts to spam sigs at a higher rate) will also repeat this garbage and get merits for it. The reader is then confronted with a mass of highly merited posts and hoards of garbage accusations that drown you out and seek to crush your valid and irrefutable central points under mass of numbers.

The merit system and the financial rewards for falling inline with the merit sources/DT's  here are far more damaging to free speech and fair debate than self moderated threads. That is for sure.

I don't think it would be difficult for the board to implement a button on the page where people can opt to view the unedited thread. So that people can choose to view the thread as it would be if the Initial poster had NOT deleted any posts. The edited version would be the default and raw unedited would be an option you can view by clicking the button.

Username: "The One Above All"
Certainly checks out when you write posts like these

The irony is that you're the one claiming that one should follow a fixed criteria to keep their posts being deleted in a SELF MODERATED thread, when in practice, only the OP gets to decide what that criteria is, it is not an objective matter.

Not sure what you mean by "politically motivated", really. I'm an anarchist by philosophy and in principle.

When it's for the discussion purposes only, self moderated thread is good, but for business purposes, I think it should not be self moderated.
I like an ANN thread for exchange and gambling sites that are not self moderated so if we have complains that will certainly stay in the thread and I think the OP should not worry because if it's a spam post, we have the mods to take care of that as long as it's reported timely.

You could easily state that negative thing about waffles anywhere, including in your own forum signatures, or in another post.

Yes it can be censorship. If you post is ontopic , relevant and has observable and undeniable instances that corroborate and support your argument or opinion then the post should NOT be deleted.

Of course groundless opinions or statements that are NOT corroborated or substantiated with observable instances that are independently verifiable should be deleted as you wish on your self moderated thread.

These types of groundless opinions with no supporting independently verifiable instances or SOLID argument that follows a logical path should be deleted from ANY post and the poster should have 3 strikes then get a warning.

The entire board is crushed to a super sub optimal levels by this bogus posting of ill thought out self serving politically motivated garbage.

No, creating self-moderated threads is not censorship but it can become a tool to censor someone else. In OP's example, if another person says something negative thing about waffles and the OP deletes it, then that's also censorship in my view.

It's not necessarily to reduce spam, as the OP wrote, it allows the three starter to personally moderate his/her post based on their own rules which may be different from forum rules.
Reason why you are advised to start your own thread if you do not want to be moderated by a forum member.

Self-moderation is to prevent spam and of-topic posts (one of main usages of self-moderation), but yeah it might be compromised by scammers (whom open scam ANNs, then try to manipulate their scam ANNs). However, there are some serious boards, in which OPs can not self-moderate their threads, like this one, Meta board.

I don't think self moderated threads are censorship, contrary to what most people think.

Censorship would imply that the OP is going around deleting your posts from your own thread. It does not mean someone controlling what is written in their own thread. For example, if I make a thread about waffles, I don't want some guy coming in and chiming about pancakes, even though it is perfectly within forum rules to do so. That's where self-moderation comes in. It's not censorship, because the pancake guy can simply make his own thread about pancakes.

Censorship would be if I deleted my own threads about pancakes.

What do you guys think, is making self-moderated threads censorship?