Too Bad
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| devnet Mar 31, 2010 3:00 PM EDT |
Too bad she did so by stomping on freedom of speech...and backtracking on applying 'open source principals' in her own rules...and deleting comments that "belong to whoever posts them." She may be a voice on this subject...but she ran her site like it was China. For reference: http://linux-blog.org/groklaw-and-censorship/ follow up here: http://linux-blog.org/disagreements-groklaw-deletion/ I opt instead to go straight to the facts: http://scofacts.org/ which is a place where groklaw-ians get many of their info from. If anyone should be thanked, it's Al Petrofsky for his TIRELESS crusade to make sure all the facts WITHOUT CENSORSHIP are displayed on the case. |
| bigg Mar 31, 2010 3:23 PM EDT |
I'm not familiar with her comment system, but agree with you on the principle. It is completely dishonest to not state clearly that you delete comments on the basis of disliking what the comment says. It's implied that you are man/woman enough to allow an adult conversation on your blog if you have a comments section. Obviously you have to cut someone off for posting spam, or doing things that destroy the conversation, but bloggers should err on the side of deleting too few comments. I've had comments deleted on several blogs, even though all I did was present the other side of the story, and it definitely had nothing to do with my language being inappropriate. One of the sleazier things I've noticed is that there is a trend toward posting comments from the "loonier" of those who disagree, but deleting fact-based disagreement. That gives you the best of both worlds: you look as though you are strong enough to engage in debate, plus you get to make it look as though disagreement is purely irrational/emotional nonsense. I disagree with the word "censorship". That's done by the government. Deleting comments is old fashioned dishonesty. |
| tuxchick Mar 31, 2010 3:33 PM EDT |
Wah wah wah. If I ran Groklaw I would be tempted to delete way more than PJ did, for being idiotic, snotty, trolly, and too uninformed to be real. Some of these frea speach champions should spend more time figuring out something worthwhile to say, and if they think their words are so special they can put them up on their own blogs, and enjoy the pleasure of being a target for a change, instead of a pot-shotter. |
| bigg Mar 31, 2010 3:50 PM EDT |
@tc It would be difficult for me to disagree more strongly with you. If you say something and put up a comment system, it is implied that you will take comments that present an opposing viewpoint. It has nothing to do with free speech. It's a matter of honesty. If a blogger doesn't want disagreement, shut off all comments or else put a disclaimer "I'm a coward so I don't want to debate. I just want to present my side of the argument." That way it will be clear that the blog is not worth reading. Here's an example of why it matters. I post about how Windows 7 is more secure than Linux. I have a comments section, but do not allow fact-based counterarguments. Someone comes across the post, reads it, then sees the comments and concludes that Windows 7 must be more secure because all the Linux fanbois can respond with is name calling. It's dishonest, plain and simple. No different from doing 50 different polls and reporting only the most favorable results, without revealing your methodology. |
| gus3 Mar 31, 2010 4:25 PM EDT |
It isn't dishonest, or hypocritical, or anything else, to regulate the comments on your own site. And after being stalked by SCO lackey Maureen O'Gara ("Send a jab PJ's way"), and having people threatened via Groklaw, people whom PJ supports... plus being vindicated about SCO's lying, perfidious nature, in not one, but two courts... I have no problem with the way PJ has run Groklaw. I only hope I'm as brave when my moment of truth arrives. As for Al Petrovsky, he does admit to being a SCO stockholder, but I can't see that his site has been updated in over 3 years. Hardly a way to beat Groklaw at the "new media" game. |
| devnet Mar 31, 2010 4:26 PM EDT |
@tc, Al Petrofsky is a class act. I wouldn't say he's 'idiotic, snotty, trolly, and too uninformed to be real' and he's one of those that was silenced there. The moderators that disagreed with this were 'shushed' and gotten rid of as well..all this despite claims in the mission statement toward contrary principals... I am glad groklaw existed to bring more attention to the case...I'm just disgusted with the means in which they did it...very SCO-Rwellian of them which is pretty funny considering the subject matter they covered. @bigg I agree...censorship might be the wrong word there...dishonest is more fitting. |
| gus3 Mar 31, 2010 5:15 PM EDT |
aaaaaaaand Godwin's Law is vindicated once again. devnet, stop. You're talking about private property, and you're embarrassing yourself. bigg: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081114205538108 |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2010 5:43 PM EDT |
Guys - Censorship is a very fine word to use. Nothing about its definition restricts its use to government. Censorship is censorship wherever it appears and by whomever it is exercised. Whether or not it is offensive, and how offensive, definitely turn on who, what and where. Sometimes, it is justifiable, sometimes even appropriate. |
| Ridcully Mar 31, 2010 6:13 PM EDT |
And I am disgusted by the tenor of at least some of the above messages including the bitter lemons of "devnet". What a dreadful way to begin a thread which should be universally happy at the incredibly good outcome that has been accomplished after a very considerable amount of time. PJ ran her site. Note that word "her" ? Any of us have the right to do what we like with our property. PJ invited anybody to join in, but implicitly set her rules: you obeyed them or you were removed. And that is fine with me. But you are missing the point: PJ did it. She has managed, as Carla has indicated, to fire up an enormous community of interested people who will not be tromped on any more by spurious claims about Linux. The debts we and Linux owe PJ and her site (as well as the persistence of Novell) are staggering. I for one, thank PJ and that I believe is what this thread SHOULD be saying. And lastly, what will PJ do now ? Will there be a next juicy target at which she can aim her finely tuned and well honed arrows.............I certainly hope so. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2010 6:24 PM EDT |
Rid - Why so disgusted? If, as one presumes, on ojbective of PJ's work was to protect a degree of freedom from those who would usurp it, then criticism of her, especially when her actions seem to deviate from her words, should be a legitimate part of the package. Disagree? Super. Defend her? Great. Wonder how her critics can function without discernable brain activity? Completely all right. Disgust? Why? |
| Ridcully Mar 31, 2010 7:05 PM EDT |
Hi Dinotrac........I think the reason I was so "forthright", was that I too participated in Groklaw and I leap to defending both the site and the fantastic outcome. As far as I am aware, I never suffered from any editing by PJ..........I guess my gorge rose and disgust was mild compared to my original reaction. Would you settle for distasteful ? :-) The other thing was of course, that I was startled to see the immediate thread was a "bitter lemons" style rather than "general rejoicing, the witch is dead" style.........Oh well.........we need curmudgeons like me as well as level heads like you.........to soothe us I guess. :-) |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2010 7:50 PM EDT |
Rid - Worry not. As a recovering bitter lemon, curmudgeon, and all-around tsk-tsker, I've got too many glass walls to permit the tossing of stones. |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2010 8:08 PM EDT |
> Too bad she did so by stomping on freedom of speech... Well, yes. But then, there is no presumption of free speech on private property. The owner can censor speech pretty much however he/she wishes. To the extent that PJ claimed to allow free speech but then censored it, yes she was dishonest. That said, regardless of her honesty or lack of same, Groklaw has been an excellent resource for those who have opposed the SCO lawsuits. And given the media backing SCO had assembled, probably an essential one. I can't speak to the facts of the case devnet is discussing, so I'll leave it at that. |
| lcafiero Mar 31, 2010 8:54 PM EDT |
Sharpening the No. 2 editing pencil: You mean "principles," devnet, right? |
| tuxchick Mar 31, 2010 9:48 PM EDT |
What jdixon said, though her position on First Amendment rights is not license to fill other people's sites with rubbish comments. She spells it out here: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/ROSE-Blog-Rikki-s...
If she did treat some commenters unfairly, I have to admit I mostly don't care, given the immense value of the work on Groklaw. So yeah I'm biased. bigg, if all comments were on-topic and tried to present coherent opinions and arguments with factual bases, then I would be leaning towards agreeing with you. But the reality is a lot of comments are pointless rubbish, hostile, or trollish, and I can't think of single reason to tolerate them. I don't let people talk that way to me in person, why would I put up with it online? |
| gus3 Mar 31, 2010 9:52 PM EDT |
Going back to the comment that started it all:Quoting:TIRELESS crusade to make sure all the facts WITHOUT CENSORSHIP are displayed on the case.Like PJ hasn't done that with every single (unsealed) filing and every transcript in every SCO case? As this latest ruling shows, public statements don't matter to the outcome of a lawsuit. The facts that come out in the courtroom are what counts. Strike 1. Judging from the massive self-contradictions from SCO that PJ has pointed out, time and again, from court evidence and SCO publicity, it seems SCO can never make up their mind. Ball 1. I have been censored by PJ, so it isn't only the trolls that get to meet Mr. Delete Button. Fanbois and fangurls can get it, too. Strike 2. Posters own the comments, but PJ owns the space. Strike 3, you're out, devnet. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 01, 2010 10:00 AM EDT |
Rid..., If you can say this: Quoting: [...] we need curmudgeons like me as well as level heads like you [meaning dinotrak] ...I can use the mindless word sequence seen all too often on slashdot, i.e You Are New Here. Do some searches of the older threads and you can only conclude that your name does not belong in the curmudgeon class even by LXer standards. Even at a novice level, if you were admitted, dino would rank so high above you his visage would lost in the lofty mists ranking him among the gods*. So go back to where you anger will suffice to produce illogical tirades, even then you might not reach the level necessary to allow to you join. YBT * Obvious on a LXer standard of measurement. We are all failures when measured against Fox News. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 01, 2010 10:06 AM EDT |
gus, I am not a sports fan, however, whenever devnet comes up to bat I am putting you behind home plate. YBT |
| devnet Apr 05, 2010 5:17 PM EDT |
@gus3 well, the mission statement said comments were the property of their owners. To me, that means you shouldn't be able to alter them or remove them without explanation. Especially where 'open source principles' were applied. I guess it happens all the time...large chunks of information in projects where open source principles are employed just disappear and everyone is ok with it...wait what? I'm not embarrassed either...nor should I be. |
| devnet Apr 05, 2010 5:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well, yes. But then, there is no presumption of free speech on private property Yes, but you don't tell everyone that they own chunks of said private property (comments) and then revoke that right after they've come onto your private property and shouted something you don't like (opposing opinions). You have the RIGHT to do that...but employing open source principles means that you SHOULDN'T do that IMHO. If FOSS projects did that they wouldn't have anyone contributing. PJ is lucky she silenced everyone quickly when it happened and no one paid any attention to them afterwards...probably because they were so happy with what she was doing...it's easy to ignore the small things right? @TxtedMacs and @gus3 You'd strike out too...Godwins law means that someone mentions Hitler or Nazi's...I did neither. I guess you're trying to lump in my George Orwell slant with it? |
| herzeleid Apr 05, 2010 6:40 PM EDT |
IMHO since it's PJ's site, she can edit and manage content as she sees fit. If she chooses to keep cranks and trolls from adding noise, strife and confusion to the discussions, more power to her. Could it be that some posts which were not approved, maybe should have been? Could be. Nobody's perfect. But remember, you can always go start an anti-PJ site, if that's what floats your boat! |
| caitlyn Apr 05, 2010 8:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:IMHO since it's PJ's site, she can edit and manage content as she sees fit. If she chooses to keep cranks and trolls from adding noise, strife and confusion to the discussions, more power to her. That's precisely my view. When I expressed that view in my blog (that I have editorial control) all hell broke loose, if you remember. http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/11/strange-... http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/12/legitima... |
| jdixon Apr 05, 2010 8:56 PM EDT |
> ...but you don't tell everyone that they own chunks of said private property (comments) and then revoke that right after they've come onto your private property and shouted something you don't like (opposing opinions). Devnet, PJ's says they own their own comments. She doesn't say she'll publish those comments for them. There's quite a bit of difference there. What she's saying is that she doesn't claim ownership or copyright over the comments (save for the implied right to publish them on her site, granted by submitting them to same). Now, if she were publishing those comments in book form and profiting from them, you'd have a valid point. But she's not doing that. She's merely rejecting comments she doesn't find appropriate. |
| devnet Apr 06, 2010 1:37 PM EDT |
I'm not arguing that she doesn't have the RIGHT to remove them and to make her blog a police state. I argue that she says 'open source principles apply' and then ignores this in her own mission statement by making sure opposing comments aren't published and ideas that disagree with her own never see the light of day. Disagree with me all you want...the bottom line is that anywhere where they only point of view that counts is a single point of view is a bad place to be and definitely not how open source projects operate where so many points of view contribute toward a single goal. What I despise most is that people try to remove the guilt from her for this by touting how much she's done in pursuit of SCO. What's a few civilian casualties in a war of this magnitude right? For some of us, ANY casualties are too many. For others, I guess you have the ability to overlook shortcomings with your rose colored glasses. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 06, 2010 7:06 PM EDT |
Everyone, Now we know the real reason* devnet's undies are tied in several painful knots: Quoting:Groklaw has been selected by the Library of Congress for inclusion in its web archival project, in the category of Legal Blawgs.The Pain and Injustice ... PJ is asking those owners of their comments to give their premission or not to having their contributions included. See for yourselves: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100406141939511 Be warned, I will ignore all attempts to disprove these assertions, because facts carry no weight, people who might validate devnet's character are to be ignored**. As always, YBT * He/She/It must have had inside information that this was about to happen. We all know that whatever devnet might be, it is well connected. We have been spun again using spurious appeals based upon inherent human rights and the evils censorship. But behind it all was mundane self interest. ** This passes my tickle test, I accept no other criteria. Time to Lock & Load against all dissenters. |
| Koriel Apr 06, 2010 7:18 PM EDT |
@TxtEdMac If Dino is now ranked as a god, then god save us all or should that be Dino :) I wouldnt trust Fox News to do my horoscope let alone pray to them. |
| jdixon Apr 06, 2010 9:22 PM EDT |
> ...by making sure opposing comments aren't published and ideas that disagree with her own never see the light of day. And how is she doing that? She's not allowing them on her site. Nothing prevents the authors from publishing them elsewhere. Simply put, you're overstating the case. Calling PJ dishonest is enough, and you may even have a valid point in that regard. It's not like anyone (except for Dino, of course) is perfect. |
| gus3 Apr 06, 2010 9:51 PM EDT |
"Open Source principles apply." Which means, I may reject your input, but I can't prevent you from publishing your own patchset for my source code. And all authors retain copyright, unless specifically transferred to another party. Change "patchset for my source code" to "opinion on this topic", and the philosophy is pretty much the same. |
| dinotrac Apr 06, 2010 11:16 PM EDT |
jdixon - Sorry to disillusion you, but I am not perfect. The phrase "I'm only human" encapsulates the fact that to be human is to be fallible. A human being is, by definition, flawed. As a mere human, perfection is my flaw. |
| tuxchick Apr 06, 2010 11:47 PM EDT |
Dino, you are the best straight man ever. Do you have any idea how tempting it is to write "Of course Dino is perfect! A perfect [fill in the blank.] But as I am classy and brimming over with graciousness, I shan't. |
| tuxchick Apr 06, 2010 11:48 PM EDT |
Oh, and let me express my admiration for your courage in admitting your flaw. Brings a tear to me eye, it does. |
| dinotrac Apr 07, 2010 12:05 AM EDT |
tc - I'm touched. I'll stop there. |
| tuxchick Apr 07, 2010 12:58 AM EDT |
Just what I was thinking! ;) |
| jdixon Apr 07, 2010 8:49 AM EDT |
> As a mere human, perfection is my flaw. We'll forgive you such a minor flaw, Dino. :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!