Censorship by mob rule

[Angakuk]

I've been thinking about this issue, one that has been raised repeatedly by The Jesus Lawyer, Sweetie and Fencesitter.

As I understand it the argument goes something like this. When a poster posts an unpopular opinion and a lot of other posters dogpile on him/her with critical comments the volume of noise generated by those posters drowns out the original poster's voice, effectively censoring his/her opinion. This, it is asserted, constitutes a suppression of free speech.

My basic objection to this argument is that it is based on a poor analogy. Actual speech (as in a public oration) can certainly be drowned out by the protests of the mob. If the speaker can't be heard, then his/her voice has been effectively silenced. In an online discussion this is not possible. Anyone interested in the minority opinion can simply ignore the noise and focus on the expressions of that opinion. For the moment though let me disregard that objection and treat the issue as if it were a real problem.

What solutions are on offer? As near as I can tell the solution most frequently offered, by those who see this as a problem, is that the mob should restrain itself and let the poster have his/her say. Providing, in a sense, a zone of respectful silence. It seems to me that this is just replacing one kind of censorship with another. In this case it is a form of self-censorship. My grandmother would have approved. One of her favorite sayings was "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". Not saying anything at all sounds like a great recipe for killing a discussion board. I simply don't see the logic of replacing censorship by the mob with censorship of the mob, even if it is self-censorship. The only viable solution to the problem of censorship by mob rule on the internet is to reject the assertion that it is a problem. The beauty of an unmoderated free speech forum is that everyone gets to have their say, and they get to have it just as often as they like.

Am I missing something here? If so, what is it that I am missing?

Angakuk

[California Tanker]

You're not missing anything in terms of censorship, but there is an issue of being made feel that the opinion isn't worth anything. For example, by the standards of some of the boards I hang out on, I'm an evil left-wing socio-commie pinko. I say something about the merits of government-funded education or whatnot and promptly get blasted for my opinion. "Ah, your opinion is total bollox, is falsely grounded, etc etc etc." It becomes a big pile-on.

The overall effect is to lessen the enjoyment of that minority poster. It's not an issue of if the majority disagrees with him, because depending on the board, that sort of thing can be expected. For example, make a post stating that you are anti-abortion on Democratic Underground. The issue is over the tone of the response. Oftentimes the sheer number of contrary responses results in a number of posts of fairly mature content ("I think you are wrong, and here's why") and a couple of hostile ones ("You are a total idiot."), and of course, the latter are the ones which are most obviously recalled. The net effect is that the minority posters have such a negative experience from posting their contrary viewpoint that it becomes in effect the better course of action for them to just shut up if they want to enjoy the rest of the merits that whatever forum has to offer. Ultimately, of course, this is bad because it stifles discussion, and you just end up with a lot of people agreeing with each other as to how great they are.

The place that your real-world-crowd analogy falls is that there is a much smaller revolving membership on most fora. For example, I could go to SF Market Street for the next anti-Israeli demontration and call out something like "The Palestinians deserved what they got" or whatever, and I would be rather promptly shouted down, and likely obliged to leave by the anti-Isralei persons who are predominant. The difference is that the next day, I wake up, and I'm totally anonymous to everyone I interact with the next day. There is no stigma attached. On the other hand, on a web board, what you say is going to be remembered and used against you as it provides a point of reference. "Ah, he was pro-Israeli on that thread two weeks ago. Chances are that he's a right-wing Freeper type", and that perception will be extremely hard to get rid of, together with whatever other baggage which applies. Also, like in any community, a member wants to feel like he belongs. If he has a demographically (by forum standards) minority viewpoint, he may simply feel it is better for him to 'fit in'.

There are, of course, exceptions both in the case of minority-viewpoint posters, and various fora, depending on the maturity level of those which inhabit them.

NTM

[ms_ann_thrope]

Seems like sometimes people conflate "freedom of speech" with "entitlement to an interested and well-behaved audience." An axiom of the speaker's freedom to speak is the listener's freedom from speech. Or the listener's freedom to speak back. Ironic that anybody should argue so vociferously for the one but deny the other.

My observation is that incidences of "mob rule" or "the girlie-gang" on actually have more to do with the style and manner in which a poster expresses him or herself than with any controversial content of their posts. Some posters take a great deal of care in composing their posts, others seemingly do not. In my experience it is the latter sort that gets "dogpiled." And in a way, I think that's totally fair: a well-reasoned, neutral-toned, and articulate post shows a certain level of consideration and respect for the other forum members, whereas semi-coherent, vitriolic, and non-proofread ramblings are basically a big "fuck you" to the community.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

My observation is that incidences of "mob rule" or "the girlie-gang" on actually have more to do with the style and manner in which a poster expresses him or herself than with any controversial content of their posts. Some posters take a great deal of care in composing their posts, others seemingly do not. In my experience it is the latter sort that gets "dogpiled." And in a way, I think that's totally fair: a well-reasoned, neutral-toned, and articulate post shows a certain level of consideration and respect for the other forum members, whereas semi-coherent, vitriolic, and non-proofread ramblings are basically a big "fuck you" to the community.

I think we're both on the same track, but I do not believe it is required to be exclusive to the original poster. Oftentimes one sees replies that are far more vitriolic than the original post. When this happens, the 'mob' tends not to smack down the vitriolic poster because overall they agree with his sentiments. On the other hand, the 'mob' usually will come down on a vitriolic minority post, even if he is only being vitriolic in reply to a vitriolic reply to his original, civil post.

One example I know of over on DU, for example, was a chap who posted a fairly reasonable argument against gun control. Don't know if he was a troll or just a gun-owning Democrat. A number of argued responses ensued, and one or two calling him, in one case, a "fucking lunatic", and other such terms in other cases. To which, the original poster responded in similar fashion. Guess who got piled on, and then banned for being antisocial?

NTM

[ms_ann_thrope]

When you are advancing an underdog position, you may have to be extra-squeaky-clean-and-beyond-reproach while fighting your uphill battle. That's the same online as IRL.

Even if someone from the majority camp starts the campaign of vitriol, that doesn't mean that the person in the minority position has to respond in kind. In fact, doing so would only seem to stoke the mob fires. "So-and-so did it first!" wasn't an acceptable defense when we were kids fighting IRL; it should be even less acceptable as adults online.

As you pointed out, what you write and post on a forum may well be remembered and get "used against you" in the future. I submit not only is that all the more reason to not come off like a jackhole when posting, but that it is perhaps also why some posters might seem to get piled on (even when making what appears to be a "civil" post): their past behavior could have been such that they long ago used up whatever patience others once had for them. As relative n00bs here, we might not know the whole story.

Or, you know, maybe the majority here are just oppressive bullies and the minority poster has just wandered into a pit of vipers. I suppose that is an alternative explanation.

Totally unrelated: I am watching something on the History Channel right now and they just said that the first cell phone, the Motorola "brick", cost $3900 back in the day. Damn!!

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Seems like sometimes people conflate "freedom of speech" with "entitlement to an interested and well-behaved audience." An axiom of the speaker's freedom to speak is the listener's freedom from speech. Or the listener's freedom to speak back. Ironic that anybody should argue so vociferously for the one but deny the other.

Amen.

As one of the 'vitriolic', I've been on both sides of this fence. I've written some stupid things. I've usually apologized for them. Those who expect a quiet and attentive audience in a free thought forum are, in my mind, greatly misguided. I appreciate the allowances made at ff precisely because I don't feel constrained to be particularly 'tactful'. To have that artificially hedged about by directives as to how I could treat any given poster....well....I don't think I'd be around here any longer than I was a IIDB. I wonder at the rather intelligent and amusing material is produced at ff on an ongoing and pretty sustained basis, without significant "static". That's impressive. I started out on alt.atheism on Usenet. Damn... Talk about static. Bulletin boards have come a long, long way since then. But still, I think it's the personal dynamics which make the board sustainable over time; the people you have participating make all the difference in the world.

Sweetie, by the way, has been advocating for one form of moderation or another since arriving here. I hardly think of her as a ffreethinker any more (as if I ever did). She needs to start her own board, so she can moderate it like she wants, and give up trying to moderate this one.

I'd say the alternative to mob rule at a site like ff is less appealling than mob rule itself. My perception of this community is that it has developed self-moderation amongst its members and new members come here because they see that in action and stay because they like it. If they didn't like the frankness and openness that stimulates an occasional flamewar, then there is no need to linger and try to change it to suit your personal tastes by imposing new behavioral rules.

And, Angakuk? Thanks for the really interesting topic. Your musings are almost always worthwhile. I appreciate that.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Or, you know, maybe the majority here are just oppressive bullies and the minority poster has just wandered into a pit of vipers. I suppose that is an alternative explanation.

Well, my post was more related to fora in general, not FF in specific.

Sweetie, by the way, has been advocating for one form of moderation or another since arriving here. I hardly think of her as a ffreethinker any more (as if I ever did).

FWIW, I don't think freethinking requires 'anarchy', some form of moderation to enforce civility or remove blatant trolls is not mutually exclusive to a board.

NTM

[TomJoe]

I have seen, on more than one occassion, members who would reside in the majority opinion, defend those in the minority opinion, from vitriolic attacks by others in the majority. Overall, I would say there is a sense of fairness here at that you don't find at other MB's. In part, this is probably due to the familiarity we all have with one another. I'm more likely to refer to the people here as "friends" than as "acquaintances". I would imagine many others feel the same way.

Though, I agree with your premise Angakuk. One cannot get 'drowned' out on a MB, because people can go back and read what was written.

[wei yau]

Good discussion here, I'm glad this thread was started. Thank you, Angakuk.

Another thing to consider is that not everyone who is quiet is necessarily part of the majority opinion. That is, there are a lot of posters who simply don't get into some discussions (particularly religion and/or politics). Therefore, they might not be around to object to the dogpiling or the vitriol, but this certainly doesn't mean that they approve.

As for having a minority opinion, it is harder. That's a fact and one that's not likely to change no matter what moderation policies are introduced. Those in the minority will probably have to have thicker skin and better control of their temper.

Finally, I think another thing to consider is how certain types of threads/posts creates an environment in which a minority opinion might not even try to be heard. Threads that negatively paint all conservatives or all Christians with a broad brush are likely to cause some posters from voicing anything. Furthermore, a series of "me too" and "yeah!" posts supporting such generalizations only make things worse.

I'm not saying that this can or should be controlled in anyway, but I can certainly appreciate how such things makes for an environment that's difficult for minority opinions.

[D. Scarlatti]

What do people expect when they trash the board, its administrators, and its membership as a whole and as individuals? "Thank you for your fruitful contribution"? Spare me.

[Sock Puppet]

Also, minority opinions aren't so much what gets dogpiled here. Several posters here have voiced minority opinions and been treated fairly by the majority of respondents. What gets a multiple smackdown is more likely to be a ridiculous opinion. I spent a couple years on message boards with heavy moderation, and I got heartily sick of having to pussyfoot around posters who were obvious nutbags and/or assholes. So when I encounter one or the other here, I really don't care how many other members are lambasting them. I'll still call an ass an ass, and the only consideration I make regarding what others have said is to make sure my post is original.

[Tanda]

Originally Posted by SP

Several posters here have voiced minority opinions and been treated fairly by the majority of respondents.

I'm willing to bet that those particular posts were written by members who had developed a healthy reputation at FF. Maybe not in every case, but certainly in most, no?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by wei yau

Threads that negatively paint all conservatives or all Christians with a broad brush are likely to cause some posters from voicing anything.

Interestingly, those are precisely the sorts of threads and posts that are most likely to elicit "moderation" on the part of the admins and a few other members of the "mob," in the form of pointing out the baseless generalizations or asking for some sort of logical support for the conclusions.

So, so much for the negative accusations of "mob mentality" in those instances.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by wei yau

Finally, I think another thing to consider is how certain types of threads/posts creates an environment in which a minority opinion might not even try to be heard. Threads that negatively paint all conservatives or all Christians with a broad brush are likely to cause some posters from voicing anything. Furthermore, a series of "me too" and "yeah!" posts supporting such generalizations only make things worse.

To my knowledge, I don't give that sort of thing a free pass. And vm and liv strike me as even more likely to object to dumbassery directed against theism than to that aimed at atheism.

Put me down as one who finds that dogpiles tend to result from insulting posts (including those that insult through stupidity or misrepresentation) rather than from mere perspectival disagreement.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Tanda

I'm willing to bet that those particular posts were written by members who had developed a healthy reputation at FF. Maybe not in every case, but certainly in most, no?

I have no idea how to calculate a percentage either way, but I've certainly seen newbies post minority opinions without being pecked to death. Generally, most cases of so-called dogpiling have involved outrageous statements, or at very least, posts that were actively antagonistic to begin with. I've also seen alleged martyrs respond even to reasonable, respectful disagreements with insults and vitriol, and then expect to continue to be taken seriously.

[Dingfod]

At least we don't have a "troll rating" system.

[Tanda]

I imagine everyone has their own.

[Dingfod]

Yeah, but I give amnesty once in a while just in case the offenders might have changed their tone. So far, not a single one has.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by CT

The overall effect is to lessen the enjoyment of that minority poster. It's not an issue of if the majority disagrees with him, because depending on the board, that sort of thing can be expected. For example, make a post stating that you are anti-abortion on Democratic Underground. The issue is over the tone of the response. Oftentimes the sheer number of contrary responses results in a number of posts of fairly mature content ("I think you are wrong, and here's why") and a couple of hostile ones ("You are a total idiot."), and of course, the latter are the ones which are most obviously recalled. The net effect is that the minority posters have such a negative experience from posting their contrary viewpoint that it becomes in effect the better course of action for them to just shut up if they want to enjoy the rest of the merits that whatever forum has to offer. Ultimately, of course, this is bad because it stifles discussion, and you just end up with a lot of people agreeing with each other as to how great they are.

So, have you got any suggestions as to how to go about making a board more user friendly for those who express unpopular opinions (or express their opinions in an unpopular manner), suggestions that do not amount to some kind of censorship? I am very familiar with the phenomena of being the odd man out, both in RL and on MBs. I can't say that it is a particularly pleasant experience, but it has never stopped me from stating my case or caused me to resign from the community. It has, on occasion, caused me to tone down my rhetoric, at least for a little while. Actually, this has been much more of an issue in RL than online.

Originally Posted by wei yau

Good discussion here, I'm glad this thread was started. Thank you, Angakuk.

Thanks, wei. This issue has been on my back burner for awhile. A couple of recent threads have provided the catalyst to turn it into a post. It seems like this discussion always takes place in the context of some heated debate on some other topic. I thought it might be a good idea to devote a thread to it away from the heat generated by an unrelated debate. In retrospect, I think I should have left the reference to TJL, Sweetie and Fence out of the post. The last thing I want is for this thread to turn into a discussion of particular personalities.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What solutions are on offer? As near as I can tell the solution most frequently offered, by those who see this as a problem, is that the mob should restrain itself and let the poster have his/her say. Providing, in a sense, a zone of respectful silence. It seems to me that this is just replacing one kind of censorship with another. In this case it is a form of self-censorship.

I think it's a time and a place kind of thing. It's one to respond to a strongly-worded statement with ire, and another to get on someone's case just because they've engendered ire in other topics. That's far more mobby to me, and more damaging to the free exchange of ideas.

In that case, I think the principle of free speech is better served by self-censorship so the people who wish to have a discussion on topic x don't find themselves mired in leftover hostility from topic y.

[Dingfod]

How much of a mob mentality can there even be on an online message board? We're just a collection of individuals, each expressing our thoughts. I just don't see much of an incitement to riot or enticement either. If a bunch of people actually colluded offline to gang up on someone online it would be a different matter, but I don't see that happening here. Anyone controversial or outrageous is going to illicit responses from more than one individual, as individuals are want to have their voices heard, so to speak. I cannot see how that can be censorship by mob.

[TomJoe]

Quiet beeotches!

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, have you got any suggestions as to how to go about making a board more user friendly for those who express unpopular opinions (or express their opinions in an unpopular manner), suggestions that do not amount to some kind of censorship?

No. I think it's pointless to strive for a perfection in a situation where it just isn't feasible.

The issue exists, but it's the least evil outcome. People with either determination or thick skins can get around it.

NTM

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Am I missing something here? If so, what is it that I am missing?

If the majority can be made to believe lies about the "odd man out", the effect is essentially the same because anything he says is easily written off. Further, once you believe a lie about someone and hold him in contempt on that basis, your ego won't let you admit the mistake, wherefore the effect continues long after the original attack.

[Angakuk]

If the majority can make you believe lies about anyone, then you are not doing your own thinking and there ain't much hope for you anyway. In which case, any opinion you might form about the "odd man out" is pretty worthless anyway.
ETA:
One of the real benefits of this type of communication is that one's words can stand on their own and are there, in black and white, for anyone to read and analyze. You don't have to rely on the reports and opinions of others.