Skip to main content

Online Forums Controversy

I've posted extensively over at my personal blog here.

I believe in open discussion, I believe in free speech. And I believe that free speech has limits, as does the Supreme Court. That said, I was disappointed yet elated to see LNP take the forums down. Disappointed because the forums could at times be very valuable and a lot of people enjoyed them. Further, there was a compromise, and I think taking them down entirely was an overreaction.

Elated because the people--including kids reading articles--no longer have to see the racist and bigoted comments that characterize so many of the forum threads. That kind of crap poisons the community and brings us all down, and the online community was not moderating itself.

It will be interesting to see the newspaper's online strategy going forward. Hopefully it includes an online discussion forum and excludes the racism and bigotry.

Comments

  1. Wow, what a childish thing to do by LNP. And to throw you under the bus to justify their removal of TalkBack functionality from the website is just cowardly. If you are truly that powerful to make them run in fear, then dude, you are awesome. However, I feel that there is something in the background that has driven their decision, and that they have conveniently used your openness and willingness to put your name to the issue as the excuse to deactivate TalkBack.

    This act in itself captures perfectly the growing problem with social discourse that we have in our society today. We find it harder and harder to engage opposing viewpoints, to debate, to consider, and yes, even to compromise. Our society has become one of zero tolerance in the name of protecting “good”, whatever that means. But action without debate, enforcement of rules without context is nothing more than a thin veil hiding the underlying moral cowardice that spawns such actions. But I digress…. LNP appears to have chosen the easy way out – ending TalkBack – rather than the harder, more responsible path that leads to discussion and engagement with all sides of this issue.

    I agree, most of TalkBack is nothing more than the inane chatter of faceless masses, more emotional release than considered thought. It captures the outbursts of the jeering crowds as the criminals are paraded past their virtual windows. I don’t blame that on the members though. I believe that it has a lot to do with the nature of LNP’s reporting and the way in which they have deployed TalkBack.

    First, LNP emphasizes crime. Crimes, and even disciplinary problems at local schools, ALWAYS are in the section “Local News” despite there being a section dedicated to “Crime”. Crime makes me upset. And LNP’s placement of crime coverage reinforces negative stereotypes of Lancaster and its residents. It also displaces positive stories, reinforcing the negative cycle. I feel this is wrong and contributes to the problem.

    Second, LNP enabled TalkBack for ALL stories, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Not all stories warrant a discussion. TalkBack was at its worst when comments were made on the crime stories. There was no discussion, no exchange of ideas. TalkBack in this case captured the emotional responses of members and in many, many cases this was just plain ugly and had no redeeming quality. However, TalkBack was at its best when members used it to discuss highly charged issues like local politics, the downtown convention center or city finances. I learned a lot, read many different opinions, and felt that in many cases TalkBack provided better coverage than LNP reporting.

    A case in point is the New York Times. Their comment feature is turned on only for selected articles. They control it, and they monitor it actively. They don’t turn it on for crime articles. They don’t allow it to become a forum for haters. And they certainly haven’t shut it down because of complaints – they have an ombudsman whose job it is to deal with complaints and work out solutions.

    So I challenge LNP to engage the community on this issue rather than to stand by this cowardly decision. They should bring back TalkBack but turn it on only for those articles where DISCUSSION is called for. LNP, you have done some good investigative reporting recently on issues other than crime – focus TalkBack on these types of stories. When you focus your reporting on daily crime to the exclusion of other issues, you too are playing a role in poisoning our town and reinforcing stereotypes of Lancaster and its citizens. I think we’ll find that even the haters out there want to discuss things.

    Bruce Hudson

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beta Signup

I've been working for quite a while on a new search concept, though the further in I get, the closer the rest of the world gets to what we're doing. So today I'm inviting you to sign up for the rather modest beta, which will be ready soon if we can nail down a few difficult  details. Jawaya is a way of navigating the web and getting better results. And that's as much as I can say right now, because we're not a funded startup, and things are moving really fast in this space--it's going to be very competitive. I predict there will be about 10 funded startups in the next 6 months doing something similar. One of them will be mine, and we aim to make it the best. We're raising a round of capital to fund the team, and are shooting for early sustainability. This is my fifth company; my fourth in the tech space, and my third software company. I think it will be the biggest and can possibly have a positive impact on the world by reducing the amount of time it takes

Where Innovation Happens

As I get closer to a go/no-go decision on a project, I've been thinking about the difference about my vision for the project and the supportive innovations to enable the core innovations The vision combines (in unequal parts) product, core innovation as I imagine it, the application of that core innovation, design, marketing,  developer ecosystem, and business development. The core innovation enables everything else, but it's the application of the innovation that makes it meaningful, useful, and in this case, fun. This week we're testing initial approaches to the implementation for our specific application, and that's where we'll develop the enabling innovations, which is basically where the rubber meets the road. The difference is that the enabling innovation happens at the source of real problems only encountered in the making of something, and in a project like this just getting the essence of it right isn't enough; it also has to be safe, the compone

The Real Jobs Problem

It's the economy, stupid.  Well, yes, it always has been, if you're in the distortion field of politics.  But whose economy? The pundits, the White House, the Republican candidates all miss the mark. They keep talking about debt, taxes, and monetary policy. None of those things tell the real story behind today's economy.  The Old Economy Keynes was right--in the old economy. Economy gets weak, pump some money into the economy through public works projects, which  1) puts people to work, which  2) boosts the economy and  3) generates new tax revenue, while  4) leaving us with another generation of reliable infrastructure to support  5) more growth (for growth's sake, which is another post).  The Beach Ball Imagine a beach ball, partially deflated to represent a recession. Got it? Now imagine the govt pumping that beach ball back up through sensible public investment (which we haven't seen for decades). The New Economy Same beach ball, same pum