|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.10.28.20
In Reply to: RE: Sign of the times we live in? posted by BubbaMike on July 21, 2017 at 20:23:35
I'll trust the Gorts at SHMF any day over a self-entitled ranter.
Amazing! So you trust some paid bozos to dictate which words your are not allowed to use? What meds are you on, if you don't mind me asking?
Follow Ups:
This is what the world is coming to.
Eventually there will be no criticism allowed whatsoever, even of a musical piece because it may offend someone who likes it. Like if I criticise rap, they will come out and get me because I offended someone who likes to hear "BOOM MUFUKA BOOM MUFUKA BOOM MUFUKA". And of course blowing the trunk lid practically off their car and sounding like shit.
But that is where we seem to be going, 1984 is coming. It is mostly here. Just a bit late.
There is also the other side of the coin. I am on a couple of fora that are unmoderated. People get nasty. People are nasty. They talk each other into suicide. (that girl recently who got charged with manslaughter because she told the guy to get back in his truck) But it is not her fault he did it. It is his fault, plain and simple, she did not touch a thing, it was all of his own doing. Personally I think she got tired of him threatening to do it and decided to call his bluff. But she is going on trial for it. I think, if she knew his condition well enough, which she didn't and is not a health care pro, by telling him to get back in the truck to finish the CO job would be reckless endangerment. And that is only if she knew him well and believed he would actually do it. If some broad on the phone tells you to kill yourself, do you do it ?
But this site that removed the posts, don't post. Traffic is what keeps these places alive. If you do not contribute monetarily to AA, their revenue comes from hits on ads, and traffic. Got to have that traffic. If you are not pleased with their terms of service stop giving them your traffic.
I am on one now that has an unmoderated section. One of the ex moderators is in there. She is no longer a moderator, and now I can tell her what a bitch she is. If you want REALLY unmoderated, try Usenet. Never has been moderated, most of it anyway.
With any luck, people (lawyers) will stand behind the first amendment, but that does no good in a privately owned forum. Pressure can be put on the owners of course, with threats of leaving and decreasing their traffic, but in the end it is their decision. Sink or swim.
This is what the world is coming to.
Thanks for the nice writeup, I tend to agree. I am not against moderating posts, and I am all for banning any ad hominem posts. Any personal attacks are troublesome, and should be moderated.
But that's different from expressing one's opinions on some topic. For instance, if I say that I hate eating beef, why should my statement be banned. It's my personal preference. I'm not attacking anyone, nor am I threatening any person.
So my thread contained the word 'worst'; but I didn't use that negative word to denigrate or belittle any particular forum member. I was using it to denote the sound quality. Like, 'the worst sounding recording'. And it got banned just because it contains the word 'worst'.
I think that's alarming to any civilized person.
First of all, how the hell did you get italics in here ? Does normal HTML code work ?
But the ad hominems need to be eliminated. I am on one, a kinky sex site, where one member calls people felchgobblers. Do you know what felch is ? It is the mixture of semen and feces after anal sex. He has no right to call people that, and I am convinced he owns at least part of the site because otherwise he should have been banned years ago. If calling someone a felchgobbler is not ad hominem I don't know what is.
I got posts pulled here over a technical issue. The PTB believe I am wrong, but I know better, and I am not going to bring it up again, think what you want. I got the experience and the knowledge to know I am right.
But I had in some posts "another one who doesn't know what he is talking about". Doesn't matter if it is true. We are all t the mercy of those who run the place. And the issue was not that important. If I wanted to pursue it I could break out some test equipment and a video recorder and prove my point, but why ? I have not been hired as a teacher.
"For instance, if I say that I hate eating beef, why should my statement be banned."
Technically, if it was a group all about beef, maybe it should. But that is apparently not the case. I can also see that posting pork recipes on a Jewish site might not go over too well.
"So my thread contained the word 'worst'; but I didn't use that negative word to denigrate or belittle any particular forum member. I was using it to denote the sound quality. Like, 'the worst sounding recording'. And it got banned just because it contains the word 'worst'. "
I agree with you on this. The only option you have is to stop going there. It is still their site and they can do as they please. The Constitution only stops the government from prohibiting free speech. If you don't like what someone is saying in your business or home or yard, you can throw them out. That is your right.
There are limits on what you can do about this. At your home you can get the people who bring the beer to not go to the other place. You can draw members from one site to another. You can get people to leave a bar and go to a different one. But a website is technically private property.
Do as thou wilt. If you can contact other members of that site you can invite them elsewhere. Cost them that traffic.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: