It is indeed important that the creeping censorship on line is not legally endorsed and is resisted. Even here on Unherd increased levels of censorship are imposed by automatic algorithm on particular words and comment that does not meet the moderators approval and questions the accuracy of one of their author’s statements is deleted without appeal.
This is an outstanding publication and I have emailed Freddie Sayers asking him or one of his editorial team to write an article explaining their policy as it is an important issue.
I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties they face as unmoderated comment often descends to an unreadable mess of flame wars and moderation is not cost free but recently the moderation here has appeared to become too restrictive and Guardian like.
Amen to that.
I have written the same email, some weeks ago now, but for now… nothing.
Jon Hawksley
2 years ago
A very difficult issue for publishers and legislators. Not helped by whether the publisher is the person posting or the platform it is posted on. I think a reference point is needed for the platforms to rely on and it could be independent fact checkers that document the evidence they have assessed and allow a moderated dialogue to improve that assessment. Trans issues would certainly benefit from that as the polarisation is not helping either biological females or trans women.
It certainly smacks of censorious propaganda when views that would have been uncontroversial 5 or 10 years ago are no longer permitted to be expressed on line on some platforms – given that most people are still of the view that a man can’t change his sex although he ought to be able to present as a woman without harassment, but should not be able to compete in woman’s’ events or enter space reserved for exclusive use by women. The matter should be capable of rational discussion.
The problem with fact checking is that throughput history views that were widespread and regarded as unassailable facts have turned out to be totally incorrect.
It may not be all that difficult, given that, in your post above, you have given a neat summary of current views that are “widespread and regarded as unassailable facts” by the majority. I would settle for this, while still leaving future generations the right to disagree.
Comment whilst you still can!
It is indeed important that the creeping censorship on line is not legally endorsed and is resisted. Even here on Unherd increased levels of censorship are imposed by automatic algorithm on particular words and comment that does not meet the moderators approval and questions the accuracy of one of their author’s statements is deleted without appeal.
This is an outstanding publication and I have emailed Freddie Sayers asking him or one of his editorial team to write an article explaining their policy as it is an important issue.
I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties they face as unmoderated comment often descends to an unreadable mess of flame wars and moderation is not cost free but recently the moderation here has appeared to become too restrictive and Guardian like.
Amen to that.
I have written the same email, some weeks ago now, but for now… nothing.
A very difficult issue for publishers and legislators. Not helped by whether the publisher is the person posting or the platform it is posted on. I think a reference point is needed for the platforms to rely on and it could be independent fact checkers that document the evidence they have assessed and allow a moderated dialogue to improve that assessment. Trans issues would certainly benefit from that as the polarisation is not helping either biological females or trans women.
It certainly smacks of censorious propaganda when views that would have been uncontroversial 5 or 10 years ago are no longer permitted to be expressed on line on some platforms – given that most people are still of the view that a man can’t change his sex although he ought to be able to present as a woman without harassment, but should not be able to compete in woman’s’ events or enter space reserved for exclusive use by women. The matter should be capable of rational discussion.
The problem with fact checking is that throughput history views that were widespread and regarded as unassailable facts have turned out to be totally incorrect.
It may not be all that difficult, given that, in your post above, you have given a neat summary of current views that are “widespread and regarded as unassailable facts” by the majority. I would settle for this, while still leaving future generations the right to disagree.
The wording fact checks need a redefinition. Unqualified opinion is rarely factual. Partisans see facts the way they wish.