So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
So, Tabibi mentioned in passing in a recent article that this is a big deal and may even be why Adelson is sitting out the race. He's focused on lawyering up for this, because he may have seriously fucked up by buying himself a newspaper in Nevada:
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
For instance - the BBC's website has no comments on anything, anywhere.
On the other hand, there are sites that have a good community (the comments on ArsTechnica for instance are fairly well moderated and responses from staff common).
But any comments without moderation are going straight to shit. I'd actually argue that there's a point where a site is too big to have comments anymore because the potential volume on a new story overwhelms the ability to moderate or carry on a discussion.
Doesn't BBC read comments on the air, which is at least as dumb, if not moreso?
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
An apt description of what Facebook proved to us all. Turns out anonymity is irrelevant to the phenomenon of internet fuckwadery.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
I think for the normal person the original theory is correct, but these sites have such high traffic that even if it's a small minority that doesn't care it still makes the site toxic.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
I think for the normal person the original theory is correct, but these sites have such high traffic that even if it's a small minority that doesn't care it still makes the site toxic.
I think it's not true for ALOT of people.
see - Facebook
As you know by now, my name appears on the weekend schedule for MSNBC programming from South Carolina this Saturday and Sunday. I appreciate that many of you responded to this development with relief and enthusiasm. To know that you have missed working with me even a fraction of how much I’ve missed working with all of you is deeply moving. However, as of this morning, I do not have any intention of hosting this weekend. Because this is a decision that affects all of you, I wanted to take a moment to explain my reasoning.
Some unknown decision-maker, presumably Andy Lack or Phil Griffin, has added my name to this spreadsheet, but nothing has changed in the posture of the MSNBC leadership team toward me or toward our show. Putting me on air seems to be a decision being made solely to save face because there is a growing chorus of questions from our viewers about my notable absence from MSNBC coverage. Social media has noted the dramatic change in editorial tone and racial composition of MSNBC’s on-air coverage. In addition, Dylan Byers of CNN has made repeated inquiries with MSNBC’s leadership and with me about the show and what appears to be its cancellation. I have not responded to reporters or social media inquiries. However, I am not willing to appear on air in order to quell concerns about the disappearance of our show and our voice.
Here is the reality: our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season. After four years of building an audience, developing a brand, and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced. Now, MSNBC would like me to appear for four inconsequential hours to read news that they deem relevant without returning to our team any of the editorial control and authority that makes MHP Show distinctive.
The purpose of this decision seems to be to provide cover for MSNBC, not to provide voice for MHP Show. I will not be used as a tool for their purposes. I am not a token, mammy, or little brown bobble head. I am not owned by Lack, Griffin, or MSNBC. I love our show. I want it back. I have wept more tears than I can count and I find this deeply painful, but I don’t want back on air at any cost. I am only willing to return when that return happens under certain terms.
Undoubtedly, television nurtures the egos of those of us who find ourselves in front of bright lights and big cameras. I am sure ego is informing my own pain in this moment, but there is a level of professional decency, respect, and communication that has been denied this show for years. And the utter insulting absurdity of the past few weeks exceeds anything I can countenance.
I have stayed in the same hotels where MSNBC has been broadcasting in Iowa, in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina, yet I have been shut out from coverage. I have a PhD in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nation’s top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars. I have hosted a weekly program on this network for four years and contributed to election coverage on this network for nearly eight years, but no one on the third floor has even returned an email, called me, or initiated or responded to any communication of any kind from me for nearly a month. It is profoundly hurtful to realize that I work for people who find my considerable expertise and editorial judgment valueless to the coverage they are creating.
While MSNBC may believe that I am worthless, I know better. I know who I am. I know why MHP Show is unique and valuable. I will not sell short myself or this show. I am not hungry for empty airtime. I care only about substantive, meaningful, and autonomous work. When we can do that, I will return — not a moment earlier. I am deeply sorry for the ways that this decision makes life harder for all of you. You mean more to me than you can imagine.
While i am sad to see her go.
I'm forced to give mad respect to her for leaving like she did.
Hopefully someone in MSNBC pulls their head out of their ass and fixes this shit.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
So how do we fix the debate system?
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
Just give them to C-SPAN and share the feeds with whoever wants them.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
That's cause we have better things to do in real life than argue. "Dude, I know you're mad at me for that tweet, but I just bought this hemorrhoid cream and really need to get to rubbing it around the inside of my anus as fast as possible, so can we please wait until we're back at our computers so I can multitasking arguing with you and jerking it to several other tabs of pit fetish videos"
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+11
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
Just give them to C-SPAN and share the feeds with whoever wants them.
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
I don't know that it's broken. The GOP debates are a shitshow because it reflects the current state of the party. They did this to themselves.
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
I don't know that it's broken. The GOP debates are a shitshow because it reflects the current state of the party. They did this to themselves.
I actually think C-SPAN's moderators would do a much better job. They take live calls and bring on both guests and audience panels with an insane width of views. They have far, far more experience dealing with and settling down irate conservatives alone and in groups in a respectful but firm manner than anyone on the major networks.
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
I don't know that it's broken. The GOP debates are a shitshow because it reflects the current state of the party. They did this to themselves.
I actually think C-SPAN's moderators would do a much better job. They take live calls and bring on both guests and audience panels with an insane width of views. They have far, far more experience dealing with and settling down irate conservatives alone and in groups in a respectful but firm manner than anyone on the major networks.
Plus C-SPAN doesn't really care about ratings. Putting someone in charge that doesn't have the ulterior motive to keep you watching in order to sell you shit would go a long way as well. They just want to to be informed.
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
I don't know that it's broken. The GOP debates are a shitshow because it reflects the current state of the party. They did this to themselves.
I actually think C-SPAN's moderators would do a much better job. They take live calls and bring on both guests and audience panels with an insane width of views. They have far, far more experience dealing with and settling down irate conservatives alone and in groups in a respectful but firm manner than anyone on the major networks.
Plus C-SPAN doesn't really care about ratings. Putting someone in charge that doesn't have the here ulterior motive to keep you watching in order to sell you shit would go a long way as well. They just want to to be informed.
Yeah. No Purge commercials during a C-SPAN debate.
I still can't believe that. That was some Idiocracy shit.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
You know I think this is a far better explanation for the phenomenon then any I have seen before.
Ultimately people are terrible on the internet because even the people who know them personally won't bring it up in real life. It's just, like who would think of even doing that? I don't think I'd ever considered it.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
You know I think this is a far better explanation for the phenomenon then any I have seen before.
Ultimately people are terrible on the internet because even the people who know them personally won't bring it up in real life. It's just, like who would think of even doing that? I don't think I'd ever considered it.
You know what it is? I think it's not anonymity, it's asynchronicity. When you can just throw something out and walk away and not have to deal with immediate consequences, it's super easy to be a dickhole. If you can say "Obama is a secret muslim" and press send and walk away, that's key. If you say "Obama is a secret muslim" to someone at work, you don't get to unilaterally decide whether that conversation continues.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
You know I think this is a far better explanation for the phenomenon then any I have seen before.
Ultimately people are terrible on the internet because even the people who know them personally won't bring it up in real life. It's just, like who would think of even doing that? I don't think I'd ever considered it.
You know what it is? I think it's not anonymity, it's asynchronicity. When you can just throw something out and walk away and not have to deal with immediate consequences, it's super easy to be a dickhole. If you can say "Obama is a secret muslim" and press send and walk away, that's key. If you say "Obama is a secret muslim" to someone at work, you don't get to unilaterally decide whether that conversation continues.
That's an interesting idea, and now I think we need psych studies on it. If you compare it to say, training a dog - feedback has to be very proximate to an event or it isn't associated. If we don't subconsciously link cause and effect with asynchronous communication (it may be that asynchronous broadcast is the needed combination, since this doesn't seem like it would be an issue via mail?)...
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
You know I think this is a far better explanation for the phenomenon then any I have seen before.
Ultimately people are terrible on the internet because even the people who know them personally won't bring it up in real life. It's just, like who would think of even doing that? I don't think I'd ever considered it.
You know what it is? I think it's not anonymity, it's asynchronicity. When you can just throw something out and walk away and not have to deal with immediate consequences, it's super easy to be a dickhole. If you can say "Obama is a secret muslim" and press send and walk away, that's key. If you say "Obama is a secret muslim" to someone at work, you don't get to unilaterally decide whether that conversation continues.
It's effective anonymity, there are no consequences so having your name attached doesn't matter. Particularly for things that aren't Facebook where you don't even know who you are talking with, a real name vs a handle is really the same thing
I think it would be more effective to mechanically mute the mics so that there's no power dynamic between the speaker(s) and the moderator. Moderator asks a question and says- "You have 30 seconds to reply." And that is exactly what is meant, because the mics only switch on for those 30 seconds and then automatically switch off after that.
If you don't take out the bully element, it won't improve. There are too many superiority/respect games to be played otherwise.
I don't think that's desirable either, though. This isn't a game show. If you think politicians are bad now at ignoring the actual question and slipping into a more comfortable talking point, imagine how it'll be when they've got an enforced time limit.
I don't think that's desirable either, though. This isn't a game show. If you think politicians are bad now at ignoring the actual question and slipping into a more comfortable talking point, imagine how it'll be when they've got an enforced time limit.
And mechanical solutions can and will be adjusted by the moderators anyways. If you don't have moderators willing to stand up to the politicians, nothing will change. And with Trump sinking Fox News to the ground, good luck with that.
Melissa Harris-Perry is officially gone from MSNBC. I guess she should have just covered the elections instead of trying to call their bluff, she seemed pretty upset about having her show bumped.
I always had her show on, I'll miss it.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Melissa Harris-Perry is officially gone from MSNBC. I guess she should have just covered the elections instead of trying to call their bluff, she seemed pretty upset about having her show bumped.
I always had her show on, I'll miss it.
She handled this poorly.
Yes, if your show airs during a time slot that will be bumped by actual news happening, expect it to be bumped. Negotiate and ask for a repeat time slot - one less hardball broadcast and your show can air then.
But she pulled the race card when that really truly was not what was happening - it's the primaries and cable news networks are gonna run coverage of those things when they are happening. Shit, Maddow's show gets bumped by election results coverage. Sure, she is part of their anchor team of that coverage but she has also been a public face of the network for significantly longer.
She had a good show but she is the one looking bad coming out of this. Networks are going to be hesitant to give her a job after taking what really should have been an internal conversation public and used that public discourse to call the acts of her bosses racist.
It's a shame.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't think so at all. They told her what to focus her show on, which they have every right to do. If she didn't like those rights, she shouldn't have signed a contract with them for that show of hers.
She openly defied them, so they bumped her show for the coverage they wanted. Then she whines about not having her show, and whines about not being invited to the election coverage that she refused to focus on to begin with, then whines when she gets her timeslot back and refuses to host, and then instantly plays the race card saying she won't be their "token mammy", and when asked "Why do you think this was about race" she instantly walks that back saying "I never said it was" which come on. You don't say "I won't be your token mammy" like there's no implication there as to what you mean.
I liked her show, but I always suspected she's the kind of person it would be really grating to work with, and this just confirms that.
So, The Guardian has announced a stricter moderation policy for comments of contentious issues, including politics. This is applicable to all of their branches, including the US.
Honestly, this is a long time coming. Unmoderated comments are the cesspools of the internet.
Honestly, I feel the best thing any news site could do, is to straight up kill the comments section. It's one of the dumbest ideas anyone has come up with for news sites. I'm at a news site reading up on the story, I don't want to see some inane comments from some random fucker that is almost brain dead. Worse, we know there are groups that intentionally go to news sites with the intent of dropping a bunch of misleading shit in the comment section, to further their rat fucking agendas. At least now someone is attempting to moderate their shitty comments section, maybe they'll make that last mental leap and nuke the thing altogether.
I mean, if they want people to interact and comment on stuff. Put together a forum and moderated to the point that it can't become a cesspool. If a company can't do that, they shouldn't bother with a forum. I mean people can't go elsewhere on the internet to discuss things and I think a company is irresponsible if they allow a cesspool to masquerade as a comments section.
I loved that brief period when newspapers thought that tying the comments to Facebook accounts would improve the quality and tone of discourse. Turns out that, nope, plenty of people are willing to be shitheels on Facebook too.
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
I think that's the kicker. It's not that people don't care that everyone in the world could possibly discover their horrible thoughts and comments, it's that they think the only people that would care enough to do something about it outside of the comments/forums/etc are either people that they will never meet outside of that medium, or friends and family who are probably aware of their views already.
So it's more like Person + perceived lack of accountability = Fuckwad.
I don't think so at all. They told her what to focus her show on, which they have every right to do. If she didn't like those rights, she shouldn't have signed a contract with them for that show of hers.
She openly defied them, so they bumped her show for the coverage they wanted. Then she whines about not having her show, and whines about not being invited to the election coverage that she refused to focus on to begin with, then whines when she gets her timeslot back and refuses to host, and then instantly plays the race card saying she won't be their "token mammy", and when asked "Why do you think this was about race" she instantly walks that back saying "I never said it was" which come on. You don't say "I won't be your token mammy" like there's no implication there as to what you mean.
I liked her show, but I always suspected she's the kind of person it would be really grating to work with, and this just confirms that.
They over reacted, and were being dicks by bumping her show to punish her for speaking out. That is not how a company keeps loyalty and obviously she was having problems with them and this was what broke the camel's back with her. Don't be to dismissive about her bringing up racist complaints either - and the company isn't as friendly to progressives as it used to be. The new management have a history of firing anyone who dares to openly defy them, this is not a good strategy for a network. Their staff are people, not race horses. This is a black eye for the network, and another sign that liberals aren't their priority audience any longer.
edit: Meanwhile Scarborough hasn't got a peep from management when he got caught trying to not be to soft on Trump with Trump himself.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
"People won't be horrible if they have to tie their names to it! "
...
"Holy fuck people will admit to saying really horrible shit."
There's almost nothing else on the Internet out there on it. So who knows?
An apt description of what Facebook proved to us all. Turns out anonymity is irrelevant to the phenomenon of internet fuckwadery.
God, I remember that idiotic line when Activision-Blizzard tried going that route with their forum. Funny thing is assholes are going to be assholes, whether they are anonymous or not. Plus, it's still on the internet, so I would be surprised if the shitheads that had to worry about being burned for reprehensible shitty comments, just made up an alias or impersonating someone (hell, some of them would probably try the false flag shit). I suspect it was a really lazy and chickenshit way to get out of having to pay for moderators because they cost money and shitty individuals will get butthurt and probably call for boycotts because "how dare someone make them follow the ToS."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Nah, people genuinely believed a lack of anonymity would solve alot of problems with how people interacted on the internet. Remember that Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory specifically calls that part out. And it's for a reason. It's like the key element.
It's only pretty recently that it's really begun to be accepted that people will totally tell the entire world how horribly stupid and bigoted they are using their real name to people who know them personally, just because it's over the internet.
We are basically getting to the point where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory can be reduced to:
Normal Person + Internet = Total Fuckwad
I think for the normal person the original theory is correct, but these sites have such high traffic that even if it's a small minority that doesn't care it still makes the site toxic.
I think it's not true for ALOT of people.
see - Facebook
I'm forced to give mad respect to her for leaving like she did.
Hopefully someone in MSNBC pulls their head out of their ass and fixes this shit.
Just smh at that Fox news one. They can't even admit that it's offensive because it's sexist.
we aren't yet to the point where we will say in person "hey I saw what you wrote on Facebook, and I think that was fucked up. You really upset me with that comment and I think less of you now."
I mean, have any of us challenged a person in real life yet for something they wrote on Facebook? Explicitly tying the comment to them? I think I might have done it once... our standard advice is to ignore or block these people, or to respond in that medium... carrying it over to real life isn't done much or at all.
I suggest handing the process back over to non-partisan groups. Let them be broadcast on a rotating schedule of major networks and PBS, let the groups in charge supply their own moderators, maybe with mixed moderation teams from the groups hosting the events. The current debate system is such an embarrassing joke, I feel like fixing it would actually help a lot.
Also, give the moderators a panel with mic mute buttons. You go over the time, you're muted and don't get to answer the next question. You talk out of turn, you're muted and don't get to answer the next TWO questions. If it happens three times you're muted for the rest of the goddamn night.
Just give them to C-SPAN and share the feeds with whoever wants them.
That's cause we have better things to do in real life than argue. "Dude, I know you're mad at me for that tweet, but I just bought this hemorrhoid cream and really need to get to rubbing it around the inside of my anus as fast as possible, so can we please wait until we're back at our computers so I can multitasking arguing with you and jerking it to several other tabs of pit fetish videos"
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oh. Yeah.
That sounds way simpler.
hehehehe
I don't know that it's broken. The GOP debates are a shitshow because it reflects the current state of the party. They did this to themselves.
I actually think C-SPAN's moderators would do a much better job. They take live calls and bring on both guests and audience panels with an insane width of views. They have far, far more experience dealing with and settling down irate conservatives alone and in groups in a respectful but firm manner than anyone on the major networks.
Plus C-SPAN doesn't really care about ratings. Putting someone in charge that doesn't have the ulterior motive to keep you watching in order to sell you shit would go a long way as well. They just want to to be informed.
Yeah. No Purge commercials during a C-SPAN debate.
I still can't believe that. That was some Idiocracy shit.
You know I think this is a far better explanation for the phenomenon then any I have seen before.
Ultimately people are terrible on the internet because even the people who know them personally won't bring it up in real life. It's just, like who would think of even doing that? I don't think I'd ever considered it.
You know what it is? I think it's not anonymity, it's asynchronicity. When you can just throw something out and walk away and not have to deal with immediate consequences, it's super easy to be a dickhole. If you can say "Obama is a secret muslim" and press send and walk away, that's key. If you say "Obama is a secret muslim" to someone at work, you don't get to unilaterally decide whether that conversation continues.
That's an interesting idea, and now I think we need psych studies on it. If you compare it to say, training a dog - feedback has to be very proximate to an event or it isn't associated. If we don't subconsciously link cause and effect with asynchronous communication (it may be that asynchronous broadcast is the needed combination, since this doesn't seem like it would be an issue via mail?)...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It's effective anonymity, there are no consequences so having your name attached doesn't matter. Particularly for things that aren't Facebook where you don't even know who you are talking with, a real name vs a handle is really the same thing
If you don't take out the bully element, it won't improve. There are too many superiority/respect games to be played otherwise.
On the point raised, most people don't want to start a conflict on real life over dumb shit that someone said on Facebook.
And mechanical solutions can and will be adjusted by the moderators anyways. If you don't have moderators willing to stand up to the politicians, nothing will change. And with Trump sinking Fox News to the ground, good luck with that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's a big part of it, but no company is above political bias. Especially news networks.
It's funny because it's a gag ripped out of The Office and also a comparison The Simpsons made over a decade ago.
I always had her show on, I'll miss it.
She handled this poorly.
Yes, if your show airs during a time slot that will be bumped by actual news happening, expect it to be bumped. Negotiate and ask for a repeat time slot - one less hardball broadcast and your show can air then.
But she pulled the race card when that really truly was not what was happening - it's the primaries and cable news networks are gonna run coverage of those things when they are happening. Shit, Maddow's show gets bumped by election results coverage. Sure, she is part of their anchor team of that coverage but she has also been a public face of the network for significantly longer.
She had a good show but she is the one looking bad coming out of this. Networks are going to be hesitant to give her a job after taking what really should have been an internal conversation public and used that public discourse to call the acts of her bosses racist.
It's a shame.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So she directly defied them, then wants to whine when her show gets bumped.
Then when they give her time slot back, she refuses to host like a petulant child.
Really makes her look awful.
She openly defied them, so they bumped her show for the coverage they wanted. Then she whines about not having her show, and whines about not being invited to the election coverage that she refused to focus on to begin with, then whines when she gets her timeslot back and refuses to host, and then instantly plays the race card saying she won't be their "token mammy", and when asked "Why do you think this was about race" she instantly walks that back saying "I never said it was" which come on. You don't say "I won't be your token mammy" like there's no implication there as to what you mean.
I liked her show, but I always suspected she's the kind of person it would be really grating to work with, and this just confirms that.
I think that's the kicker. It's not that people don't care that everyone in the world could possibly discover their horrible thoughts and comments, it's that they think the only people that would care enough to do something about it outside of the comments/forums/etc are either people that they will never meet outside of that medium, or friends and family who are probably aware of their views already.
So it's more like Person + perceived lack of accountability = Fuckwad.
This strikes me as a touch excessive.
They over reacted, and were being dicks by bumping her show to punish her for speaking out. That is not how a company keeps loyalty and obviously she was having problems with them and this was what broke the camel's back with her. Don't be to dismissive about her bringing up racist complaints either - and the company isn't as friendly to progressives as it used to be. The new management have a history of firing anyone who dares to openly defy them, this is not a good strategy for a network. Their staff are people, not race horses. This is a black eye for the network, and another sign that liberals aren't their priority audience any longer.
edit: Meanwhile Scarborough hasn't got a peep from management when he got caught trying to not be to soft on Trump with Trump himself.
This is the story, of a lovely lady....