(1) David Olson of Speakeasy Productions has produced a provocative and well-crafted video regarding the President's excesses and abuses of power. Among many other things, the video includes a brief excerpt of an interview I did with him. I don't necessarily endorse all of the ideas in the video or agree with all of the individuals featured in it, but it is definitely an innovative presentation and, in my view, well worth watching. You can see it here.
(2) For those of you who indicated that you will not buy books from Amazon, How Would a Patriot Act? is now available from Barnes & Noble as well as Powell's. There are some exciting press and other media commitments regarding the book which are being arranged, and I will post about them as soon as they are confirmed.
Additionally, the book website from the publisher, Working Assets, will be ready a little bit later today, and will include (I believe today) the first published excerpt from the book. I will post that link when it is available.
(3) Many regular participants here -- including those whose contributions I value most -- have complained recently about what they believe is a degeneration of the quality of the discussions in the Comments section. Many have said that, as a result of this erosion of quality, they are considering no longer participating, and some have even said they no longer do.
One of the most valuable resources for me in maintaining this blog is the substance of the discussion in the Comments section. I'd consider it a real loss if there were an exodus of high-quality commenters who were replaced by hordes of anonymous insult-wielders spewing talking point cliches and cheap insults at one another.
When I began this blog, I believed very strongly in a laissez faire policy for comments, and for many reasons, I still do. Nonetheless, preserving the quality of the Comments section here is a higher priority for me than some abstract allegiance to that idea. I thus encourage anyone who feels strongly about this to leave suggestions in comments, or by e-mail to me, as to how the quality of the Comments section can be preserved.
I am likely going to enable the function (as soon as I can find it) that prohibits anonymous comments, which means that only those commenters with registered Blogspot accounts (which are free and very easy to obtain) will be able to comment. That will prevent anonymous comments and eliminate those drive-by anonymous attacks that have no value. I am open to other suggestions, including ones that require some mild amount of moderation, which I really, really don't want to do. But if the alternative is having the Comments section here transformed into some sort of childish, substance-free trash zone which I avoid at all costs, I am willing to expend some time and energy to preserve the quality, if that's possible.
UPDATE: To be clear, when I refer to people who drag down the quality of the discussion, I am not referring to people who come here and defend the Bush administration or who express other viewpoints that are the minority here. There are pro-Bush commenters here who contribute value and substance and anti-Bush commenters who contribute nothing but worthless invective. I affirmatively want the Comments section to be composed of all viewpoints. My concern is about quality, not ideological difference.
(4) Yet another poll, this one from CNN, shows Bush's approval ratings having plummeted to the humiliating 32% level -- just 7 points above the approval rating Richard Nixon had when he was forced to resign from office. A belief that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do is now officially a fringe position held only by pro-Bush radicals, "with 55 percent telling pollsters in the same survey that they believed the United States made a mistake by invading Iraq."
(5) In a story that must have killed Washingtonpost.com Editor Jim Brady to have to read -- along with the reams of other individuals eager to discredit the blogosphere because of the competitive threats they perceive it poses -- The Washington Post reported today on facts concerning the identity of blog readers which will come as no surprise to those familiar with the blogosphere:
Think the people who while away their hours reading and commenting on political blogs are slovenly twenty-somethings with nothing better to do?
Think again, said a survey last week by Blogads, a company that many leading political blogs have used for ad placements.
In an unscientific Web survey of 36,000 people, Blogads reported that political blog readers tend to be age 41 to 50, male (72 percent), and earn $60,000 to $90,000 per year. Two in five have college degrees, while just a tad less have graduate degrees. . . .
Blogads President Henry Copeland said the findings represent "the choir" of political blog readers, the most interested and most engaged, "the political geeks who are arguing over the nuances at a press conference or the latest Hillary Clinton pronounciations."
I am not one of those who believe that the blogosphere can or should replace the national media. Organizational strength and vast resources are always going to be necessary in order to provide a true adversarial and investigative check on the government. But when I want to find high-level and highly informed analysis of political issues and news events, I almost always turn to the blogosphere and almost never to the national media outlets.
One of the things I like about your comment section is that it does have some naysayers aboard and is thus more than an echo chamber. While the quality of discussion might be driven down at times, the fact that there is discussion is worth preserving. That said, I think requiring everyone to have a blogger ID will aid everyone by making easier to choose who to ignore.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the less appealing commenters would leave if they were ignored. When they receive the attention of others, it encourages them to continue their bloviating. Some blog comment lines so quickly descend into back and forth insults, that I leave the thread. I haven't found this to be true of your blog very often. Here, I usually lurk, since the quality of the participants' knowledge leaves me nothing to add, and much to learn.
ReplyDeleteGlenn wrote: I am likely going to enable the function (as soon as I can find it) that prohibits anonymous comments, which means that only those commenters with registered Blogspot accounts (which are free and very easy to obtain) will be able to comment.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably the best first step and may be all that's needed. I've seen this function enabled in several other blogs and boards; the effect is usually an immediate decrease of the "noise."
I often improve the quality of the commentary by not commenting at all. I recommend this approach to others.
ReplyDeletephd9 there would be plenty of debate about things even just among those of us on the left.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult for people to ignore a troll who's posting BS. Many of them cannot easily be reasoned with. And it sometimes does take away from serious debate among the non-delusional.
Very simple; this way anonymous trolls, sorry commenters, can't comment any longer - they need to register, thus post with a blogger profile.
ReplyDeleteThank you - I am going to do this tomorrow morning, to give everyone an opportunity to register for their Blogspot name.
I also added an Update to Item #3 in the post (about Comments) clarifying what I meant in resonse to phd9's comment.
I must have missed this in another comment thread, but why not buy from Amazon? Are other alternatives more "blue" in terms of contributions or is it something else?
ReplyDeleteRe: comment quality
ReplyDeleteKeeping these two decalogues in mind might help.
1. Nothing and no one is immune from criticism.
2. Everyone involved in a controversy has an intellectual responsibility to inform himself of the available facts.
3. Criticism should be directed first to policies, and against persons only when they are responsible for policies, and against their motives or purposes only when there is some independent evidence of their character.
4. Because certain words are legally permissible, they are not therefore morally permissible.
5. Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
6. Do not treat an opponent of a policy as if he were therefore a personal enemy of the country or a concealed enemy of democracy.
7. Since a good cause may be defended by bad arguments, after answering the bad arguments for another’s position present positive evidence for your own.
8. Do not hesitate to admit lack of knowledge or to suspend judgment if evidence is not decisive either way.
9. Only in pure logic and mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is strictly impossible. Because something is logically possible, it is not therefore probable. "It is not impossible" is a preface to an irrelevant statement about human affairs. The question is always one of the balance of probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more than abstract possibilities.
10. The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of policy, is refusal to discuss, or action which blocks discussion. - Sidney Hook, from "The Ethics of Controversy"
and
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth-while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your spouse or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than be latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. - Bertrand Russell, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell
Organizational strength and vast resources are always going to be necessary in order to provide a true adversarial and investigative check on the government.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious how people would characterize the role of blogs, relative to the 4th estate. Are blogs another 4th estate medium running in parallel to the MSM? Are they taking on some new role, because the 4th estate has abdicated their responsibility? Or are they simply a new forum for the traditional 3rd estate - the commoners - who are trying to reassert their power?
Perhaps it doesn't matter much. But I find it interesting that blogs have emerged at a time of dangerous collusion between the press and government. Purely a coincidence of technical progress and world affairs?
Eventually Glenn will want to consider a stand alone comments program, like Haloscan. And someday perhaps, swith to a different platform. The problem with Blogger is that anyone can register for multiple names with unverified e-mail accounts. You will just throw a stumbling block in their way, and one they may easily hurdle. When you have the ability to ban individual IPs, you have made some headway, (and a net savvy troll can still spoof IPs), but you have also invited yourself to the world of comment moderation, and hours of work you could spend elsewhere. Even at FDL, where jane has volunteer comment moderators, this has led to problems with overzealous and innappropriate bannings. Some people who post under "anonymous" have not done anything but add to the topic, while some, who have names, have basically been a waste of space. It's axiomatic in the blogosphere that real free speech, (the kind that allows the most unpopular kinds of speech) is found on the left side. While on the right, some of the very blogs you have mentioned here, like Malkin and Powerline, don't even allow comments at all.
ReplyDeleteGlenn says: I am not one of those who believe that the blogosphere can or should replace the national media. Organizational strength and vast resources are always going to be necessary in order to provide a true adversarial and investigative check on the government. But when I want to find high-level and highly informed analysis of political issues and news events, I almost always turn to the blogosphere and almost never to the national media outlets.
ReplyDeleteBlogs do serve another function, Glenn. That "high-level and highly informed analysis of political issues and news events" helps keep a perenially lazy media focused and honest. Consider this excerpt of an article from FAIR in 1994 and imagine what effect this medium may have had in an earlier time. Read the entire piece.
30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War[Media Beat (7/27/94)]
Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"
Daniel Hallin's classic book The "Uncensored War" observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account [of Tonkin Gulf events]; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."
What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."
In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam — sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."
The rest is tragic history.
Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."
Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."
And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
One of the more provocative investigations of the strengths and weaknesses of the blogosphere as a political forum, not to mention as a "place" for human interaction comes from Hubert Dreyfus. Dreyfus wrote the provocative book, What Computers Still Can't Do. He takes up his argument from there and applies it to the Internet in his essay, Kierkegaard on the Super Information Highway.
ReplyDeleteOne of his main points with regard to the Internet is that it is an abstract space. Something that seems to be here, there, and everywhere. For Dreyfus, at least, this gives an illusion of personhood that denies what it is that makes us human. That is, character, personality, and sense of who we are must come from being situated in a body in a time/place that involves all those problems/obstacles that being in a body is susceptible to. By giving the illusion that all these things can be overcome via an abstract space gives us a false sense of who we are.
In relationship to political dialog and interaction, the same problems apply. It's easy to come up with solutions and apparent "action," but until these are put into action realtime, they are just an illusion of action. The illusion is that something is happening when it's really not.
The nature of political struggle involves harship, sacrifice, painstaking confrontation/debate/consensus. Until these exigencies of everyday, real life are encountered and overcome, talk of a political dimension to the Internet is more talk than it is real action.
An extension of Dreyfus' ideas involves the idea that the Internet can add just one more source for the great manipulation machines of the propaganda units of both parties to work. Trying to sort out fact from fiction in the traditional media is hard enough; with the addition of the WWW you now have an ocean to swim in and to discern what's wothwhile reading/responding to and what's not.
I write this here, of course, recognizing that some might think that my confrontation yesterday with "the Dog" exhibits the type of "debate" that Glenn might wish to censor from this forum.
I'm not about to apologize for my remarks. Coming from a working-class background, I believe that it serves the purpose of constructive debate to hear the unvarnished voice the working man understands. Granted, that voice is rudimentary and rough, yet it cuts through much that passes for serious talk in polite circles but which really is simply missing the point.
Or are they simply a new forum for the traditional 3rd estate - the commoners - who are trying to reassert their power?
ReplyDeleteI find this the most compelling explanation. To paraphrase "Men In Black" People may act stupidly, but a person is pretty smart, and has a decent built in BS detector. This detector is not always precisely calibrated, but more and more people are being fed up with the bill of goods that the 'establishment media' has been selling between the lack of much substantive investigative reporting and the bizarre devotion to 'missing white girl' stories.
There are things that the so-called MSM still does well - the molecular building blocks of narratives are primarily harvested from traditional sources, but the narratives themselves are increasingly driven by bloggers because of the media's inability or unwillingness (a function of underestimating their readership, perhaps?) to link stories and provide proper context.
Glenn, re comments, I'd suggest a posted, somewhat comprehensive 'comment policy' covering such things as civility and language, followed by a time period of fairly ruthless enforcement, especially of drive-by anony-bombs. If there is one thing a troll knows, it's a soft target. Just the knowledge that tumorous posts will be excised is often enoug to prevent the post in the first place. (For an example of what I'm talking about, I'd suggest perusing the comment policy of Obsidian Wings.)
I agree that the blogosphere as we know it provides a valuable conduit for political opinion and energy at a time when traditional media has failed miserably at even providing a clear-eyed account of the state of our Republic.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm absolutely convinced that it's quite probable we will soon lose the blogosphere as we know it to the vast telecom outfits who seek to limit both choices we have and voices that can access the internet. And our elected representatives, pockets bulging with corporate swag and booty, fall all over themselves trying to kill the most vital and dynamic form of communication and source of shared information and even knowledge that any of us will experience in our lifetimes.
What I'm trying to say, and am to tired to say clearly, is that a day will soon come when we will look back at the first few years of the 21st century as a brief moment when speech was still free and an individual's voice could be heard world-wide. Pay-to-play is coming to the internets.
I write this here, of course, recognizing that some might think that my confrontation yesterday with "the Dog" exhibits the type of "debate" that Glenn might wish to censor from this forum.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any one clear marker that makes something a worthless comment or one that degrades the quality - profanity and even insult all have their place and I wasn't remotely thinking of your exchange yesterday or anything else specifically.
Ultimately, it's really more of a subjective determination, one that is difficult, perhaps impossible, to describe with any precision. I really, really, really don't want to start promulgating rules of conduct and guidelines and then having to enforce them, recieve complaints about how they are enforced, spend time engaging in debates over why this comment was deleted and this one wasn't. I just have a natural repulsion towards any of those concepts, let alone having to enforce them.
If there were to be any sorts of enforcement measures like that, I would make it one short and temporary burst of unilaterally applied comment deletion, with the hope that that would be sufficient to at least alleviate the problem. Hopefully, enabling the ban-on-anonymity function will suffice. Let us hope.
One other thing - someone who knows how to register for a Blogspot name, please leave some clear and simple instructions for those who do not.
ReplyDelete"One other thing - someone who knows how to register for a Blogspot name, please leave some clear and simple instructions for those who do not."
ReplyDelete1. Go to http://www.blogger.com/start
2. At the bottom-right, click the big orange arrow.
3. Fill out the info on the first page. Note that your Username and your Display name don't have to be the same - the Display name is what everyone sees, so choose that one most carefully.
4. If you don't plan on doing any actual blogging, fill out the next page with whatever nonsense you want, but be sure to fill in every box, and click Continue
5. Again, on the next page, click on whatever random template you want if you're not going to blog, and hit Continue.
That's it! Now whenever you want to leave a comment, just go to the Comments section of that blog, and where it says "Choose an identity", make sure Blogger is selected, then type in your Username and Password. Type in the random word verification, hit the blue Login and Publish button, and you've just posted a comment. Bravo!
the problem of the quality of the commentary -- the entirety of a line of comments --
ReplyDeleteis very important to a weblog.
that problem is also exceedingly difficult to deal with formally, i.e., by rules.
some web sites i admire greatly and visit from time to time, e.g., the next hurrah, carpetbagger, talk left, anonymous liberal, and brad delong
don't seem to have much of a problem.
others that i feel similarly about ,e.g., the left coaster, think progress, and uncharted territory
seem to have a real problem with commentary frequently degenerating into tediousness.
i emphasize "tediousness".
the attacks by the occasional "troll" who is not resident is far less of problem for me.
the real problem for me is what might be called "the regulars".
every weblog has them. and they are like a community of friends, say, guys and gals in a bar after work.
that is part of the humanness of the weblog world.
but
in my view ,
much of the decay of discourse in a given post can stem from the actions of those "regulars".
i liken it to a kind of verbal hatfield -mccoy quarrel.
one group of temporary allies stands on one side of the creek
and
an opposing group of allies stands on the other side of the creek
and
the two groups throw rocks and insults back and forth at teach other.
sometimes this is just going to happen.
but at uncharted territory it happens more often than i would like to see.
a post is put up. there are some interesting comments back and forth.
the commentary is interesting
alliances develop,
arguments are posted,
citations appear.
so far so good.
but, sometimes,
just beyond this point
the discourse turns petty.
i emphasize
the DISCOURSE turns
PETTY.
i am never bothered by individuals who miss a point or get off track.
i am never brothered by people who get a little too excited or verbally rude.
particular words or phrases may offend me,
ethnic and religious slurs
or
really filthy language,
but i would not ban them.
i just prefer not to use slurs or scatological invective publicly.
my opinion is:
it's not the individual comment that is the serious problem
it's the deterioration of the commentary -- the diversion of the stream of discourse -- that i find discouraging and really off-putting.
at this point
the commentary is no longer interesting to read.
the citations -- something i really love about this site because i can learn something new -- stop coming.
thoughtful comments give way to an adult form of "nhah nhah nhah nhah" and "so's your old man".
so
what to do?
well mostly nothing (first, do no harm).
regulations and rules get in the way of discourse for those genuinely interested in discussing a political topic because they lead to inhibition and worry about violating the rules.
on the other hand, the rule,
"ignore the trolls", is a good one.
but human group behavior does not always respond well to that sensible admonition.
plus,
it is clearly fun for some folks to arm-wrestle with trolls.
but most importantly,
trolls are not always or even mostly the problem.
i would modify that rule to
"ignore the fools" -
that is,
ignore those whose comments are so debased in logic and fact that they cannot stand equally with the other comments being made.
this is not a matter of subject matter of a comment;
it is a matter of style of argumentation.
one suggestion that i will make -- and i am glad i am able to hide behind a router and a pseudonym for all the rocks that will come my way for saying this --
is
how about a group of "regulars" who agree to be monitors for the site.
maybe
just maybe
a gentle reminder from someone who is not involved in a decaying thread
might be enough to bring everyone back to focus.
i am not talking about "taking names" and issuing citations. anyone would be free to ignore a monitor's comment.
the whole point would be not to discipline individuals
but to get the group currently engaged in the commentary
back up onto less trivial, less tedious ground.
some weblogs are just for silly fun or letting off steam or chatting about life.
but uncharted territory is not one of those.
the topics discussed here are really important for the future of our society
and
the continuation,
or discontinuation,
of that little experiment
in representative, shared-responsibility democracy.
just some thoughts.
I have a feeling that once the book is released and you begin making appearances not only will your traffic in general increase greatly but the level of discourse in the Comments section will become more angry and partisan. I agree, disallowing Anonymous posts will prevent the "hit-and-run" poster but with Blogspot registration so easy that might not be much of a preventative. A moderated forum may be in your future.
ReplyDeleteThere's no easy way. A completely open comment thread will inevitably lead to the problems you are currently seeing. A moderated one has its own set of difficulties -- the moderator has to invest some time, and those who don't make it through the net will be annoyed. That's just how that goes.
ReplyDeleteI had completely open comments for quite a while on my blog, although I warned people that if they were openly abusive to me or my other commenters, I'd delete their comments and block them from the site. That worked fine for a while, but Blogspot doesn't seem to have a feature that lets me simply block a particular user from my comments. (That utility is limited anyway; it basically blocks a unique ISP number, but techno savvy trolls can always find ways to get around that if they're obsessed enough... and trolls are very obsessive sorts; tell them they can't come in, and they'll build a siege engine to prove you wrong.)
So, with blogspot, I once again went to a completely open thread policy, with the same warnings. It worked for a while, but I finally wound up afflicted with a pretty virulent troll who simply wouldn't take a hint, and who apparently found enough validation in having his comments appear ever so briefly in my threads (before I deleted them) that he was never going to go away and leave me and my few regular readers in peace.
So, now my threads are fully moderated. And it's a pain; the troll has succeeded in stinging me a little. I get a great deal more traffic than is ever reflected in my threads; I have to assume that if I weren't fully moderating comments, some of these people might give me some feedback... good or bad, it's all better than indifferent. But I can't have some idiot upsetting my girlfriend by graphically suggesting violent manners in which I could commit suicide in my own damn comment threads. I believe in freedom of speech, but people who have nothing positive to offer can hire their own hall.
Anyone out there putting forward opinions of any weight or merit is going to attract the loveless and the forlorn, the hateful, hurtful, and mean spirited, those who can only get attention by prodding their betters with a stick. My various blogs have had, at best, a few dozen readers over the years, yet I have attracted trolls, simply for expressing negative opinions about frickin' superhero comics. How much more negative attention are you going to attract, with a readership in the thousands, and a blog that expresses intelligent, thoughtful, analytical opinions about a topic like politics?
You can put up with it, or you can invest some time in weeding out the time wasters. Either one has its drawbacks. Choose wisely. ;)
Glenn, one of the features of your blog is that you write long and detailed posts at infrequent intervals. The good news is that people with too-short attention spans are less likely to participate in the comments. The bad news is the threads themselves then go on for a long time which allows time for feelings to get hurt and conversation to degenerate. Perhaps following the Atrios habit of restarting the threads at certain intervals would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteGlenn: "I thus encourage anyone who feels strongly about this to leave suggestions in comments, or by e-mail to me, as to how the quality of the Comments section can be preserved."
ReplyDeleteYou asked. . .
Suggestions
Suggestion 1. If you have a request for information, then make it clear that you are serious and are willing to be open to novel ideas. Be clear whether you permit links to other sites; or whether the length of the comment must be confined to your blog without any outside links.
Suggestion 2. If you want ideas, and support those who provide comments -- with open appreciation, then your request might be taken as serious. The issue is not, "We need feedback." Rather, your job is to communicate -- with your actions -- that you are truly open to the ideas and suggestions; and will accept the many links, ideas, innovations, comments and feedback. Again, if you "limit the tolerable number of comments" to a small number, then you're saying, "I only want you to answer this if you do so in X-way." if that is what you want -- to have a very narrow range of comments over time -- then be clear with that: What is acceptable, the maximum number of comments per day/time; and the maximum number of links, and the range/number of novel suggestions that are permitted over x-period of time. Again, if you "don't care," then that's fine -- but if you are "upset" that many are or are not commenting, but you're sending mixed signals saying, "Hay, I really want ideas" while at the same time saying, "I really don't want these suggestions, links, ideas, contributions, or feedback. . ."then that's something you're going to have to clarify over time. The solution is to "let things go" for a while, then get clear on what you really are accepting -vs.- expecting. The real issue may be that the performance standards/expectations are not consistent with what the public believes. Requiring others to register doesn't solve that issue of vagueness.
Suggestion 3. If you want quality comments, then make quality something that is rewarded. Encourage anonymous bloggers to provide other views, perhaps be showcased on your blog as a "guest blogger".
Suggestion 4. Create a "free for all zone" where anything goes -- within limits -- and encourage all people to post these "less than stellar comments" in the "free fire zone". Look at the AmericaBlog/Atrios/C&L examples: They have "open threads" where people can wander into new areas; define your rules on what is or is not allowed; and provide a clear discussion on what you will permit by way of links/other supporting information. If you will not allow links, then you really don't have an "open board." Make that clear whether other links to other sites/ideas are or are not going to be the basis to ban people.
Suggestion 5. Define what you mean by a troll. Some use "troll" to point at those who merely have "other views". It is curious how quickly the "troll"-name gets thrown around, when the real issue is -- some are not used to having their comments taken seriously, and getting responded with direct comments/questions.
Suggestion 6. Encourage your bloggers to open their own blogs, and start communities elsewhere. Encourage bloggers to provide summary links to their suggestions and comments to other blogs. Conversely, you should discourage commenters from "sniping" at those who link to other comments and information that relates to the topic.
Suggestion 7. Define what you mean by a "fair comment" -- that someone is "upset" at having their comment examined, reviewed, debate, and explored is not something that is an "unfair comment." Rather, it is a fair comment. Remind those who are "regular posters" that if they want to snipe at those who are "making comments" and labeling this an "unfair" comment, they need to come up with a reasonable basis to believe that the comment was "unfair." Until they meet a fairly high burden -- that the comment was "unfair" -- the public should be encouraged to dialog, comment, critique on what people are writing, thinking, and discussing. It's one thing to make a bonafide comment that someone's comments are/are not abusive; quite another for those -- who have poorly crafted arguments -- to shift attention from their defective argument crying, "Troll" or "unfair comment." It shows their argument/points cannot stand scrutiny/questions; that is not something to be ignored -- but explored, discussed, and well understood.
Suggestion 8 Provide a list of example comments that are "troll" and those that are "fair". This might help others get an idea of what you are talking about. If the rules are too restrictive, we can go elsewhere. At this point its really vague what the real concern is. Perhaps pointing to some specific comments -- "we can all agree" -- then we'll have information: Is the standard/level of oversight unreasonable; should we take our comments elsewhere; or should we open up a competing blog to permit reasonable/needed/desired comments that might otherwise be banned/prohibited under the new restrictions.
Suggestion 9. Encourage those who have questions to make it clear that they are serious about the issues that the want to have solved. If they do not communicate they are serious about looking for novel solutions, then people are not likely to take their request for feedback, comments, or "new ideas" seriously. Those who may have ideas, suggestions, plans, and novel approaches are more likely to find "other forums" to share their ideas; as opposed to providing information to a community that simply throws it back and says, "Well, we've heard enough from you", all the while milking them for ideas.
Suggestion 10. Have this attitude: You're building a community that will last as long as your blog lasts. And people will remember how they are treated. Many people will still be alive for many years. What may or may not happen in a single day could dramatically affect whether they believe you are or are not serious in the years to come. Who know, one day we may find that the President of the United States once blogged here anonymously; or that a future Attorney General may have stopped by. There's no reason to treat others with disrespect; nor ask them for ideas, only to treat them poorly. You may never find out what real power they have, nor understand many years from now how a pattern of abuse comes back to haunt you when you have a novel solution. If you abuse others now, then you need to realize you subject yourself to some later consequences in other forums. People aren't stupid and aren't going to forever spend time with a community that refuses to truly be open to novel ideas and solutions.
Suggestion 11. Impose the standards of your blog on those you interact with and publicly comment on. If you ere serious when you say, “I will work with anyone who shares these goals,” then do that. However, there is an issue of integrity when we say – that we will work with anyone – but our pattern of conduct is to do the opposite: Require those who are less than perfect to meet some idealized level of civil discourse that we ourselves – through our open choice of interacting and associating with those who, through their inaction foster the very abuses were might decry in others. If we are going to have a standard of civility that is here, clear, and enforced, then all you associated with should have that same standard of civility on their blogs. The issue is: It doesn’t appear this “standard of civility” is a bonafide standard in that there are people many associate with who do the opposite; but they rely on their “popularity” to act clueless about a clearly abusive situation. The standards that are imposed on this blog also need to be applied to other blogs and members in your community; there can’t be two standards – one for those who are making comments; and a different/non-standard on those who are well known, but refuse to support – with the same standards, demonstrated track records – with the same objectives you publicly advocate.
Suggestion 12. Turn off your comments for a specified period of time: Have a “cooling off period.” And then publicly say, “These are the rules”. Then when things get heated again, have another time out for everyone. Perhaps a week or a month.
Suggestion 13. Allow people to anonymously comment. If they are required to register, or identify themselves that doesn’t mean that quality will increase. Rather, those who are “not capable of putting together a coherent argument” will simply use the “mandatory name disclosure” as the means to identify – with an ad hominem attack – that the issue is “something else than the issue” and change the debate form the topic to, “Woe, is me – that person is causing all this problem.” No, the real issue: Those who make failed arguments will use their reaction as the basis to say, “They are causing my reaction.” Actually – that’s not the case – nobody can make you react in anyway: You choose that. What the real issue is, they’re shifting attention from their failed argument/or refusal to accept that they are choosing to react that way, and changing the focuse form their inability to coherently express a point/accept what they ask for – and make “the issue” their reaction. That’s not a real argument and shows signs they want others to “cater to their reaction” as oppose to reward those who can credibly challenge those who like to shift attention from their failed arguments with whining.
Suggestion 14. Don’t be afraid of others “looking better” than the blog – this means in comment quality; comment length. Look at their time they spend with your blog as a gift; it is not an effort to “tear you down” rather it is to help. If we fall into the trap of saying, “Wow, they really had a long comment, we need to ignore that” then you’re defeating yourself: You’re not communicating – by actions – that you’re truly going to be open to those who have another view, are attempting to broaden the discussion, and find a common basis to interact. This is not a competition – rather it is a means to solve problems. If you have “an issue” with those who may already have solutions – yet, your conduct and associations with others indicate you are not serious about new solutions – then perhaps we need to examine what the blog is trying to accomplish; and whether we are truly serious about pursuing goals and methods that will win support from all parties, not just those who may already agree with your view. Bluntly, this nation – if it really “got it” – would have already lawfully removed the President; the way forward is to speak to those who, for whatever reason, are not changing their position. I find it ironic at the very time that people may open up and reach out to those they oppose, that there could be a barrier to understanding what really makes “other tick.” Shutting them out and banishing those by requiring identification may in the short run “stabilize things” but doesn’t communicate that you’re willing to truly “be open” to the full spectrum of people who you are trying to win over. Obviously, what you choose is up to you as this is your blog. Others who want to reach out to everyone – even those who are “not getting it” – can find another forum and mechanism. There is still six months before the election, and plenty of other options and approaches to protect this country’s systems of laws. That solution may or may not include you and your community. There are other options.
Suggestion 15. Remember this, “Leaders don’t know everything. They find those who are willing to do what it takes, and get them to work with those who are not on our side . . . yet.” This means not worrying whether you are or are not getting outshined. It means whether you can see there are many different paths to the same general goals. Sometimes your greatest ally may be from those who openly oppose you: They are giving you feedback. If you fight them, you may simply find that you are training them to defeat you. You have to choose whether you are more concerned with the solution; or more concerned with looking good among peers who may not be able to see the larger picture or strategy. Those who are truly inspired to achieve a goal may let you fail just to make a point; even if the goal is not reached because of your failure and the setback, they know there are other options to victory. Choose whether you want to solve problems, or simply win a battle. Those more committed to a goal may choose to destroy all that you value, your support, and undermine their alliance with you simply because they know there are another routes – other than working with you – to achieve that outcome. You have to decide whether you are going to contribute with solutions; or stand aside while others – who may appear to be bungling idiots – are simply testing you to see if you are committed to the larger goal. They have the solutions; they test you to see whether you are going to support the larger strategy, or spend time on trifles. There is much that that goes unspoken.
Suggestion 16. Let your peers in the other communities know that they are also on probation: Are they serious about rising above the issue and truly being open to novel ideas. Again, it makes no sense to impose a system of order and discipline in one section of the blogosphere; while the many others that are working on your goals; only to find that others are openly – through their inaction or poor leadership – undermining what you are trying to accomplish. You may through a desire to impose discipline actually crush the very fruit which might be the source of new seeds. The public watches: Whether you devoir the fruit to satisfy what might be a short term hunger pang; or permit that idea to ferment, and let the seeds blossom into a larger meadow. This means being willing to let things take its course, as oppose to trying to mandate a few meet a standard, which many others are not held, or openly defy thus defeating your well placed objective and plans in one narrow section of the forest.
I haven't often left comments here, but when I do I always use the address of my blog, blog.althippo.com.
ReplyDeleteI won't be registering for a blogspot address as a result of a bad experience I had with google/blogger about one year ago.
I had generated a good deal of traffic, mostly because of my coverage of the ANWR drilling debate.
Imagine my suprise when my blogspot address was sold to an advertiser for some software product (see althippo.blogspot.com). I'll add that Google might some day decide to sell Unclaimed Territory (of course, I hope not).
FWIW:
ReplyDeleteMay 1st has been "Law Day" for quite a few years now. I agree that hearing the words come from GWB's mouth does give one pause...and provoke a gag response.
I was very happy to see Glenn address the comments section in his post today. Although I came here because of Glenn's posts, I have learned a staggering amount of information from the comments section.
ReplyDeleteCynic librarian's links alone have provided me with a crash course on many different subjects and as I respect Cynic, as I do a number of other regular posters, those are the links which I open.
Additionally, there are some with very charming personalities and engaging, often amusing personal styles which make reading the views of those posters very enjoyable.
I agree that recently the rather hateful, vicious-spirited trolls have made it an endurance test to go through the comments until one comes to the comments by those one has come to respect.
That said, I don't think a person should have to have one of those official blogger accounts. If that's the only way to do it, then so be it.
But I would never get one, and perhaps there are others like me who feel the same, maybe the same type of person who doesn't like to order things from online merchants for a variety of reasons.
Doing so usually exposes a person to an onslaught of various types of invasions which are neither wanted or appreciated.
I also believe that Big Brother is as alive on the Internet as anywhere, perhaps even more so.
I deliberately never use Google for a search because I view Google as another arm of a Big Brother type of government.
Google has aided the Chinese Government in stifling free speech and imprisoning innocent individuals whose only crime is holding a position which the Chinese Government finds objectionable.
They have done this for personal profit.
Those who say that the benefits of opening up the Internet to a repressive nation make this trade-off worthwhile are, in my opinion, similar to John Yoo who says there are times when crushing the testicles of an innocent child is necessary for security reasons.
I do not approve of that so therefore I do not patronize Google.
I don't know who blogospot is and I don't care to know.
I know who Glenn Greenwald is.
I would suggest that if Glenn decides to go the blogger account route, if it is possible to expand that he might want to include a
"registration" fee for those who have no interest in opening those accounts, perhaps with a registration fee (maybe something modest like $100 per year so as not to be exclusionary on a financial ability basis) and require that the fee is paid by a personal check so Glenn knows with whom he is dealing and no poseurs with bad intentions infiltrate and attempt to destroy his blog.
I applaud Glenn's efforts to balance his desire to be a laissez-faire blog host who welcomes serious posters with different policital and other positions with his desire to not allow his intellectual property (this blog) to be taken away from him with no compensation by those whose only goal is to undermine his efforts.
Finally with regard to Glenn's comment I almost always turn to the blogosphere and almost never to the national media outlets
I would agree and add that I too now turn to the blogosphere first, but through various posts and links by hosts and commenters I am then directed to those national media stories which capture my interest.
It saves time and gives one the best of both worlds, both os which worlds are vital.
I think it was Dave Barry -
ReplyDelete"Deep down, we all believe that we are above average drivers."
I know I had the thought, and I doubt it was unique - "yeah, if it wasn't for that other guy..." - only to be followed by the trailer thought - "well ... if I am completely honest, I've been pretty damn boring and degenerative myself in here at times..."
I think a "call to arms" will serve for me and many of the folks who I have read in here joyfully these last few months to temper our own comments - not with an editor's red pen of censorship, but with a citizen's fountain pen of judgement.
Or, as notherbob2 put it above:
I often improve the quality of the commentary by not commenting at all. I recommend this approach to others.
Am I contributing to the consistently high level of discourse which is the reason i turn to this blog day after day? Or am I full of shit? (Isn't there a Blazing Saddles quote in there somewhere?)
I'll ask myself that more carefully before I post, knowing that it has reached a level of concern.
Also, I think Phd9's point about the length of time in between your main posts and the direct relationship to the corresponding length of the commentary is worth noting. Although, now that I think about it, sometimes the best posts seem to come towards the end of some of those exchanges, after the venom has had a chance to die down a little.
And, apropos of nothing -
OrionATL - sometimes I enjoy your commentary, but the ee cummings thing has just gotten really annoying - I would ask if you could post normally, but that's not really my place. I just figured I would let you know that it has entirely distracted at least one person from even reading what you write sometimes. But that is just me.
Oh, and great, a new username and password - just what i need in my life.
I am probably in the minority here but the trolls don't bother me at all. I generally come here to read more than to comment and it has been fairly easy to figure out what's worth my time and what isn't.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of the post rating system used at Kos primarily because it has a tendency to produce "false positives", i.e., newcomers who have a different point of view but who are not trolls, are dismissed (and damn quickly in some instances) as such. More often, they are simply newcomers either to Kos or to the blogosphere itself.
Responding to a troll just encourages them ... but if someone wants to spend their time that way, it's often educational for others.
What is a waste of time is debating whether or not we "should" respond to trolls, or if we are "fair" to trolls.
But if someone wants to have that debate, it's easy enough to pass right by it for those who are not interested.
Having said that, I do think it would be useful to eliminate "anonymous" as an option for posters. Easier to know who to skip and who to spend time on.
What's the matter little boy, do you dislike being called-out on your circle of links?
ReplyDeleteYou know, the crowd that proclaims to be "advertise liberal" while silencing discussion and mocking anyone that talks about socio-economic issues that define liberalism?
Is it really a disruption to point out the you link constantly to a couple of sites with no expertise qand that are constantly wrong on virtually all of their speculation?
Your "high quality commentators" are really just more of the circle of links?
LOL
Pretty lame, Glenn, but then, guess you showed us what you stood for when you hooked up with the circle of links!
the cynic librarian @ 4:11 PM ,
ReplyDeleteIntersting. But it's just another example of the difference between theory and practice. Information, like philosophy, is information. I like philosophy too, but I don't think it solves anything all by itself unless put into practice, and practical applications start when information is transmitted, provided the information is worthwhile. Given the very topics we are discussing, and the lawlessness of the law enforcement agencies in this country, documented going back before Bush was even born, I can see why many folks would prefer to remain anonymous. these folks are still alive because they exercised the privilege. In our cases, it's just an audit, and constant hounding, even trumped up charges perhaps... How would you know? because "the press" does it's job?
Law Day 2006 Theme:
ReplyDeleteLiberty Under Law: Separate Branches, Balanced Powers
Due to unfortunate circumstances beyond our control, Law Day 2006 has been cancelled.
Its replacement:
Lawless Day
May 1, 2006 has hereby been proclaimed “Lawless Day” – a day where we mourn the loss of Constitutional provisions regarding checks and balances and the separation of powers.
It is a day where we recognize that the Supreme Court no longer determines what is or is not “constitutional” – that is a function of “the decider” who, if he believes a law is unconstitutional doesn’t veto it and see what the court says, he just signs a “finding order” which means that the issue will never go to the Supreme Court, since it already has been decided.
It is a day where we acknowledge that “the decider” has decided he can ignore laws that have nothing to do with “national security” – he’s decided he can ignore laws about affirmative action, immigration, protections for whistleblowers and now, he says, he can interfere with federally funded research that doesn’t correspond to his political views.
It is a day where we concede that “the decider” may be directing his subordinates to refuse to enforce laws without the public being aware. How would we know?
(How can the Courts and Congress hold him responsible for ensuring that “the laws be faithfully executed” under the Constitution when the administration operates in secret? The obvious answer is that it can’t, so there is no accountability to the public, the courts, or Congress. We don’t know what laws are no longer being enforced.)
Yes, “Lawless Day” is a day to admit just how far from the Constitution and basic American principles we have strayed – and how we have lost our way and veered from the path required for a healthy democracy.
It is not a day of celebration, but of sober reflection. It is a day of sadness. But the worst part about “Lawless Day” is that it is not a “one-day” event.
Once “lawless” principles are accepted, it happens every day.
Sohei...Flame wars and trolls are a fact of life on the Internets. It is better if commenters learn to deal with them. It's not like they're unique to this particular blog.
ReplyDeleteNot only are they a fact of life, they are the only way some differences may be aired and discharged without violence. Let's not be namby-pamby about it. It's even happened in our own halls of Government. Duels, fights, fouls language. The internet is better than many of you give it credit for. If you are looking for perfection and harmony, politics is probably not the best place to look.
I would prefer it if all the genteleman would wear a tie and sportcoat and some appropriate slacks. No jeans. And have the ladies wear white gloves and a bonnet of some sort.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea, glenn, turn into a "thought police" and publish books that you have all the answers and only allow your "kool-aiders" to post here.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea, not that you are a world famous author, It just makes sense, be a thought cop too.
Morpheus, I agree that profanity ia most often used in a vulgar way and therefore is either mildly offensive or actually cheapens the discourse.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a blog host I would probably force myself to never use a curse word. The disadvantages of using certain words would probably outweigh the benefits.
I don't agree that every single 'curse word' should be disallowed in the comments section. I specifically am thinking of one seven letter 'curse word' which I personally view as both an indispensable adjective and, when used in a certain way, very amusing and quick to the point.
It's a curse word which could be inserted, for instance, in a statement such as "Are you out of your mind?"
Sometimes a person has a position which indicates the person is merely out of his mind, and some times a person puts forth a position which cries out for the use of that particular adjective :)
Herding people into getting a blogspot account seems to me a terrible, Orwellian thing for those who, like me, do not like to be herded.
I really relate to Glenn's comment that if deleting is to be done, he would do it unilaterally and not submit it to committee action or vote.
It's his blog. Chop off those heads he doesn't like the looks of and be done with it :)
Usually there isn't enough time in life to both get anything productive done and still abide by every "apres-vous Alphonse" type of carefully considered civility imaginable.
BTW, I have really missed hypatia in the last few days. I hope she is not someone who has decided not to post here.
Her posts were among my very favorites in the comment sections.
It is truly refreshing that this blog does not have the proportion of hateful energy that many comment threads do, or the silly "I'm here first" comments, as well as the "I'm commenting second," or "Fitz!" that others sport (although those ones make me laugh, not frown).
ReplyDeleteBut I don't like the idea of having to create a fake blogger identity just to comment somewhere.
HowEVER, I do agree that of paramount importance is how you feel about the flow of comments at your blog. Thus, I await the final outcome with calm. Because after all, it's not that important if I comment. I come here to read, personally.
Hmm . . . now I'm having second thoughts about whether to do anything, even as mild as imposing that anonymity ban, since several people seem unwilling to register for a Blogspot account (for reasons that, quite frankly, I don't entirely understand, but I don't need to - and, one of the real values of the Internet is that people can participate anonymously, without "registering" for things).
ReplyDeleteWhen people first started complaining that the quality of the comment section was degenerating, I actually disagreed, saying that I thought it seemed more or less constant, just more volume. But I have developed the ability to skip over commenters I dislike and ignore others who I think offer nothing. But it took me a long time to develop that ability; I still don't do it perfectly all the time; and I know many people can't.
But then more and more of the commenters I value most here began complaining more vocifieriously, which caused me to look a little more carefully at the comment section, and conclude that there was some degradation of the quality. So I thought doing something was warranted.
But now these comments today - in this thread - have really inflammed my aversion to intervening in the conversations which other adults have. And ultimately, I really agree that if there is someone who makes particularly annoying comments with great frequency, ignoring them is the best solution. They only get encouraged and only have impact if they are given attention and responses.
I'll think more about this, but for now, I'm inclined to do nothing, at least for the moment, but I'm still listening if other people have things to say about this.
When you read a current story about poll results, check the date of the poll.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lim - You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be more attentive to the dates. I've actually made that mistake a couple times before. They publish articles about their polls days or even longer after the poll is commissioned, and one just naturally assumes they are writing about a current poll.
Jane @ FDL today (in reference to bloggers and the trolls they are, like Dog, or the morons who read them). I'd still fear Bush and the people he has opening your mail illegally.
ReplyDeleteI fear no one on the right. Ever. All they are capable of is wavering between ham-fisted brutality and self-righteous pecksniffery. They are outrageously pretentious and their bubbles so easily burst. I think it emboldens the entire left side of the blogosphere, knowing that those on the right are completely incapable of coming back at them with anything other than unimpressive, humorless thuggery.
And it’s not a matter of different political affiliations not appreciating the humor of the other; I’m perfectly capable of recognizing talent in people I can’t stand. They aren’t funny. Ever. About anything. Humor is always an outgrowth of truth, something the right — as it stands now — has abdicated in favor of authoritarian cultism.
And we all know who has gone whining to Glenn. To his credit, it's not Bart, or even Dog, but those fascists on the right who it has finally dawned on that it is fascism when we do it. No one on the left gives a rat's ass. We've been dealing with trolls for years.
That FDL quote is a joke, but then there is just a tons of tons of BS over there --- year right, they don't care....
ReplyDeletePost something at FDL that jane doesn't agree with, it will get wiped off that comment board so fast your head will spin!
Just more of the lying liars...
The ones that bug me the most are not the rightwingers, at least I know where they stand and they don't try to hide who they are.
The faux "liberal" crowd that will not tolerate real liberal or progressive views are the ones that are silencing discussion and maintaining the great divide across people that share common interests.
>documented going back before Bush was even born, I can see why many folks would prefer to remain anonymous.<
ReplyDeletePoint taken. In my darker momnents, its easy for me to imagine ending on some no-fly list for nothing more than comments posted on a blog. But then I remind myself that this is America.....
Glenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteHmm . . . now I'm having second thoughts about whether to do anything, even as mild as imposing that anonymity ban, since several people seem unwilling to register for a Blogspot account (for reasons that, quite frankly, I don't entirely understand, but I don't need to - and, one of the real values of the Internet is that people can participate anonymously, without "registering" for things).
Glenn,
You must do what you think is best. For those who are afraid of Blogger, I suggest you just get a dummy free e-mail account at Hotmail or Googlemail. Then go here and register. Not only will you get an account for commenting, you will get your own Blog. Free. Requiring a Blogger account will help, and it's not as bad as some might think. OTOH, this is the price you pay for being the hottest blog on the blogosphere right now. This too shall pass, as you level off with your still numerous and loyal readers here long after the buzz and trollbait has gone.
Wilson said...
ReplyDeleteThe faux "liberal" crowd that will not tolerate real liberal or progressive views are the ones that are silencing discussion and maintaining the great divide across people that share common interests.
This guy is some bizarre variant of a concern troll. (The Wiki entry on internet trolls is one of the longer entries there). I find it's best to treat all trolls as theater. That is what they are, and some theater is better than others. If you have ever been treated to the genius of the parody troll named MERKIN PATRIOT over at Eschacon, you have seen a new form of art. He has many imitators. Some better than others. Also I suggest that folks treat this like what it is, Glenn's place. If someone came into my place and started telling me how to arrange the furniture and who to let in and who to ask to leave, that's first guy I would ask to leave.
Chimpy's 32 percent approval rating isn't due to backwash. Some that indicated they support bush think that they are being asked about REGGIE BUSH!
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you yourself never discuss any of those issues - not once.
ReplyDeleteYou are a liar or a moron, but which it is doesn't matter to me.
All I wish to point out now is 2 things:
1. The endless circle of links that promotes a limited set of blogs with no real expertise and a very poor record of being correct about their predictions.
2. That liberalism used to stand for socio-economic issues that related to equity and a society that allowed people of all races and socio-economic class to raise their families with some level of dignity.
Anything else, as I have posted here MANY TIMES is nothing less than a war on children and families.
Liberals used to stand for these issues, but the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links doesn't.
But feel free to disagree, but don't lie about things you either choose not to recognize or just are not ready to address.
You must be one of these idiots that thinks if Kansas just did what they were told...
Suggestion: Since Glenn's rethinking the policy about the anonymice, might I suggest they, at least, assign themselves numbers, eg, anonymous1, anonymous2, etc.?
ReplyDeleteAt least that way, I'll know whom to address my responses to. Thanx...
phd9: its easy for me to imagine ending on some no-fly list for nothing more than comments posted on a blog.
ReplyDeleteJust don't write a book about Bush's brain. But then, again, you could be right, what with the vacuum cleaner programs installed by the NSA at AT&T.
But I have developed the ability to skip over commenters I dislike and ignore others who I think offer nothing.
ReplyDeleteThat’s difficult to do with “anonymous” because you have to read what they say before you know if they are one of those “anonymous” who make valuable contributions, or just one of those whose comments are a total waste of time reading, and leaves you feeling like you need to wipe something off the bottom of your shoe.
Like Glenn, I don’t understand why someone would refuse to register for blogger (you still are anonymous, no one here really knows who you are and your e-mail is not published if you don’t want it to be). Perhaps “blogger” should not be required, but at least some sort of identification so that we can skip over the obvious disrupters.
Now that this blog is more successful there are a lot more comments and it takes an effort to keep up – that effort should not require wasting time reading comments that don’t pertain to the issue at hand and that you have no interest in reading. If I want to hear what the radicals at Little Green Football are saying I’ll go there, not here.
I don’t know enough about monitoring comments and what is required to go farther than that, and doing so does present problems - especially for Glenn, and I want his time spent writing posts, not shooing away stray mongrels, flies and persistent pests (one is disrupting even this thread).
I finally got around to watching the video you linked to. What makes it so poignant for me is the fact that I'm just the right age (48) where the anti-despotism film is exactly the sort of thing we were shown in grade school. At that time, we were all being taught all the reasons that America was better than the Soviet Union. We learned about the importance of a free press and how that contrasted with Pravda which, by virtue of being state run, could be relied on to only spout the "party" line. We were taught about the advantages of the two-party system in our country and how that contrasted with the Soviets who only allowed one party to rule.
ReplyDeleteAnd the kick in the ass is that I believed evry word. And I still do.
I still believe that a free press that is indepenent of the government is vitally important. I still believe that it's impoortant that we have two parties participating in governing our country. I still beleive that I should be able to express any opinion I care to without fear of reprisal.
So does anyone wonder why I'm so nervous about the current state of our Nation?
This is sort of off topic, but anyway since I may not be posting after tomorrow, I'll get in my last two cents worth now....
ReplyDelete"Fox News Slams Colbert: ‘Inappropriate,’ ‘Over the Line,’ ‘Not Very Funny’".
This headline confirmed to me a truth which it is hard to express or find anyone to agree with, but it is a truth which I firmly believe anyway.
I.Q. is a huge factor which is rarely discussed but it is one which in some significant ways lies behind almost everything that happens in life.
Obviously values are more important than I.Q., but being smarter can be important in terms of evaluating things in terms of connecting the dots logically.
I spent a lot of time reading the various accounts on right and left blogs and MSM accounts about Colbert's performance.
The single thing which astounded me the most was how frequently the observation was made that the audience didn't laugh at Colbert's
"jokes" and therefore he was not either 'funny' or 'successful'.
The very idea that Colbert's motive was to get "laughs" is one that just amazes me.
The second idea that the audience did not "like" or relate to his performance because they didn't laugh at his "jokes" is equally amazing.
There is no single issue which, to me, better illustrates all of the points about which Glenn has been writing than the realization that the live audience couldn't laugh or applaud in support of what Colbert was saying even if they had wanted to.
There were cameras on them.
They were being watched.
And there is hardly a climate in this country now where any dissident to the Administration's actions can freely do what he wants and not have to worry about reprisals of some sort.
Hardly.
As for Colbert himself, I think it is more than clear that he was not there just get "laughs" or to "entertain" or to merely further his career.
He risked his career as a matter of fact, but he did that because he was acting out of principle.
Colbert, a person I never saw before but will try to never miss again, is above all a Patriot.
He acted as Patriot would act.
The fact that he could be dismissed as "over the line" just shows how very few Patriots there are around who have been 'acting' until very recently.
Colbert saw an opening, had guts enough to take it, and accomplished something, in my own opinion, that was in some ways more important than anything anyone else has done up until that very moment.
He forced the President and the President's family to sit there and be humiliated simply because the President's policies have forced the nation to be so humiliated and the President has, through his actions, seriously and perhaps irrevocably betrayed this great nation.
No leaving the room, no looking aside, no hanging out with a bunch of sycophantic "home boys" at the ranch or seeing yourself through the eyes of some Machievellian yes men who tell you how great you are as they use you for their own diabolical purposes.
It was a public moment of the type of monumental accountability that has very little precedent in this or any other country.
Glenn saw that and posted about that. Glenn is, of course, quite brilliant, and I don't think that is unrelated to why Glenn realized how significant (partisanship and fun and games aside) a moment Colbert's appearance at that function was.
The President was "trapped" and forced to publically endure something both humiliating and unprecendented.
Someone got into the "bubble", acted as a prosecutor, and indicted the President's policies publically and in front of the nation while the President was forced to sit at the defense table and listen to all the various counts of indictment.
There was "no exit" for the President which was magnificent, because the only reason President Bush and Laura Bush were "humiliated" was not because of any ad hominem attacks or attempts to degrade because of personal animosity on the part of their prosecutor but because the President's policies themselves are so humiliating, and
far, far worse.
This government, both parties but led by Bushco, has been taken over by a group of people, their consultants included, who have lost all ability to identify with the humiliation and abuse of others except their own immediate circles.
The humiliation medicine is indeed bitter, but it's about time they were made to taste it to find that out for themselves.
The idea that Colbert was there to be funny is one of the stupidest ideas I can possibly imagine.
PS. Was he also funny? Well, as one who has always laughed loudest at the types of humor which contain the most truths, I personally almost busted a gut laughing.
LOL, y'all :)
I'm afraid comment quality and volume tend to be inversely related. Glenn is a victim of his own success and there may be no way back, other than waiting out the 15 minutes of glory, or however long it lasts.
ReplyDeleteI don't even bother to look at comments on sites like Kos anymore. I used to post on FDL, but even that is getting to be too much. They also delete dissenting posts there, unless they are the level of dissent even Bush would tolerate. There's something about a small community of readers and regular posters (even the 'trolls') that is lost once the crowds show up. Requiring registered accounts will at least cut down on the annonymous click-by's, but if this blog keeps drawing a wider audience the character is going to change.
i'd hate to see you make the Brady mistake, Glenn, and allow invective and stupidity of individuals to detract from overall truth and quality of any given discussion. i've harped on this here before, so sorry if i sound like a broken record, but if your "high-quality" commenters can't take some losers in the mix, that's really their problem.
ReplyDeletethey should get over it, and themselves. idiots, after all, do all sorts of things in our society--some of them even run it. you can't get all weak at the knees just because some people are irritating.
Personally I consider any commenter not using their real name to be anonymous, but that's just me.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with orionatl as most every message board/blog comments degenerate into the true-believers and the stupid newbies at some points, with the extension that this is pretty common when something new and good starts. When the new, good thing goes big time, the people that found it first often hate the newcomers and abandon the original with compaints that it changed. A prime example of this would be Husker Du signing with Warner Brothers, or really any underground band that went major label in the 80s.
as your blog gets more popular even if the "good" comment fraction increases it will feel like it's decreasing due to the greater number of "bad" comments in the mix.
As far as how to fix the problem if there is one, I have no great ideas. I will not register with a third party to have access and I don't know if this would really help the issue anyway, as it really depends on the specifics of the issue, but I hope you keep the comments as open as possible because I think the give and take in the comments is an important aspect of the Unclaimed Territory Experience.
Glenn writes: Hmm . . . now I'm having second thoughts about whether to do anything, even as mild as imposing that anonymity ban
ReplyDeleteGlenn, wouldn't a resonable compromise be to strongly request that people chose a name and not post as "anonymous"?
As one who reads most comments every day, I find that the vast, vast majority of objectionable activity is on the part of those who post as "anonymous."
Considering how easy it is to make up a name, any name, to associate a person with his comments, isn't it logical to assume that those who continue to post as "anonymous" are here primarly to attack and disrupt and thus specifically do not want to be identified with their positions or be held accountable, in a sense, for their posts?
So this suggestion is for you yourself to tell your commenters to simply check off "other" and pick a name when they post a comment. You could then strongly advise your regulars to never respond to any anonymous post or address any point contained in such a post.
Their words would appear in print, true, but no regulars would read those words and those who visit this blog, if you state some place that is the policy of this blog, will also scroll right by them.
That would be a reasonable first step in my opinion. It could work, may not, but is worth a shot.
It's the response to the "anons" by other "anons" which has most disrupted this site.
If you tell people to scroll by any "anons" who don't select a name, which they could even change as their mood suits them but others here will begin to recognize and read certain names, then if you wanted to start deleteing people you could start deleting all the responses to the "anons."
In short, it's the endless responses to the "anons" which is being employed as the mechanism by those who seek to disrupt so that may be a good place to start in an attempt to maintain order.
I have done my own analysis of the comments, and it's not the "why do you all hate Bush so much" or "the President has the right to break all laws" type of posts which are the problem.
It's the "notice how this has become bart's blog because he gets more responses to his posts than Glenn does" and the "don't respond to the trolls" and the "don't respond to the people who respond to trolls" type comments that really start to fray the nerves.
If those were all posted by some "other" who calls himself "Einstein", people would know to scroll by Einstein at least without wasting time reading his comments.
PS. I also have my suspicions about E=mc2 but that's another story :)
EWO:
ReplyDeleteYou’re paranoia about government monitoring is misplaced. If they want to, they can already track you from your “eyes wide open” moniker. It has a specific address where it comes from, and with enough work, they can find out who you are.
I made a call to the Attorney General’s office here in Chicago about an e-mail I received. There is all kinds of information on an e-mail that enables them to track them down. I had no idea that e-mails can be stolen, but they can, and they can determine if it came from that specific account, or if it is bogus. I was amazed how quickly they could do it too. The assistant AG called me back within two hours.
Similarly, each post to this blog has a specific IP address too, from which it can be tracked. If you are that worried about the government, you better not post from your own computer. Are our trolls going to go to that trouble?
In short, registering for blogger doesn’t make a damn bit of difference in tracking you down – they can do that already.
shargash, People with blogspot accounts are still anonymous, in the sense that you don't need to reveal actual personal information.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't see that as true. Tomorrow, Google could sell a lot of information about each blogspot account to any marketing company, give it to the Government, or do anything it wants to with it.
A blog host (I think) has the ability to find out, if he wants, who posts on his blog other than through a blogspot account, but if you trust the host you do that volitionally and if you trust the right host you know he wouldn't do that.
Eyes Wide Open said... As one who reads most comments every day, I find that the vast, vast majority of objectionable activity is on the part of those who post as "anonymous."
ReplyDeleteThis is patently false. Those who take issue with you on certain topics often post as anonymous. Many who ignore you altogether post as anonymous. You find the fact that certain people who post as anonymous take issue with you as "objectionable". There is one anonymous who everyone takes issue with, the faux liberal concern troll, and he has no idea what you are talking about, anymore than he knows what he's talking about. Quite a few here, anonymous or otherwise, take issue with much of the carry-on delusional baggage you and a few others bring with you.
>In short, registering for blogger doesn’t make a damn bit of difference in tracking you down – they can do that already.<
ReplyDeleteAnd they've always had that ability. The internet after all was born under the DOD. But I think that touches on how this whole NSA scandal got started in the first place. Bushco got caught with its pants down on 911 and upon doing the port-mortem, they discovered that they had a whole bunch of data that had been captured by the NSA which IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY READ, could have warned them of what was up. Thus was born the idea of TIA under Poindexter. When the public outcry over that program hit them, they then threw in the towel and said, "let's do it anyway and just not tell anyone."
There's no doubt in my mind that every byte of data that's transversing the phone lines or the internet is being subject to robotic scrutiny. I'm not even sure I have a problem with that. The problem comes from the complete bypass of the American political process in oprder to reach this decision.
That's why what is going on is nothing less than a Constitutional crisis which if allowed to stand could lead to the loss of the USA as we know it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletezack, I am hardly paranoid. I am suspicious with good reason.
ReplyDeleteBeing rationally suspicious of government and questioning both the motives and activities of an out of control government (amok, one might say) strikes me as what this blog is all about.
If someone's out to get you, they are going to get you, granted.
You don't have to make it even easier for them.
Resist the beginnings, I always say. It's not easy. Walter Williams no doubt has less to hide than almost anyone in America.
Still he hasn't taken a plane flight since the Patriot Act was passed and people started getting searched when they boarded planes.
Paranoid? I don't think so.
Besides, I don't like either "groups" or unfairly created "monopolies."
Hasn't blogspot become sort of a monopoly of sorts? If so, it has done that with the huge assist and cooperation of a supportive government.
That's my opinion.
This is not to say that I cannot, if I feel like doing so, actually be paranoid in limited situations which is why I now leave here musing whether or not you work for Google or blogspot or some affiliated organization.
Maybe the Big Bad Wolf himself :)
Peace.
Eyes Wide Open said... I have done my own analysis of the comments, and it's not the "why do you all hate Bush so much" or "the President has the right to break all laws" type of posts which are the problem.
ReplyDeleteRiiight... it's those who laugh at that tortured rigormortis of your moral absolutism and refuse to kiss Ayn Rand's... ring. Just as we thought. Let's suggest that all criminals not use handguns. I, for one am glad you are here, and will continue to poke you with a stick so all can see the hilariously confused logic inherent in your brand of anarcho-capitalist political evangelism and cultish adherence to Rand's faux philosophy. You just want to have people who think like you here. How democratic of you.
>for one am glad you are here, and will continue to poke you with a stick so all can see the hilariously confused logic inherent in your brand of anarcho-capitalist political evangelism and cultish adherence to Rand's faux philosophy<
ReplyDeleteI think this represents the lowering of the discourse level we're all so concered about but I could easily be wrong.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeletezack, I am hardly paranoid. I am suspicious with good reason.
Being rationally suspicious of government and questioning both the motives and activities of an out of control government (amok, one might say) strikes me as what this blog is all about.
Bwahahaha! Coming from someone who voted for this moron, that's rich. When did you first become suspicious? Bwahahaha! Are you going to blame us becuase we nominated Kerry instead of Zell Miller? Yanno, if you did just go away, you and a few others, like you threatened, we wouldn't miss you that much. We'd get over it.
PhD9 said...
ReplyDelete>for one am glad you are here, and will continue to poke you with a stick so all can see the hilariously confused logic inherent in your brand of anarcho-capitalist political evangelism and cultish adherence to Rand's faux philosophy
You could be. How familiar are you with Rand, Objectivism and the American brand of anarcho-capitalism that calls itself Libertarianism. It's the backwash that put Bush in office. I'm all for the debate, as long as it adresses the root causes of how we got here, with an eye to seeing that it doesn't happen again.
anon.
ReplyDeleteMost of what I know about libertarianism is based on what I read at LewRockwell.com. There I find an intresting mixture of people, some of whom hold strong consistent principles, some of whom are a bit too theocratic for my taste, and some of whom are thinly but insufficiently veiled racists.
Glenn,
ReplyDeletethe serial abusers will get blogger ID's. People like me will stop showing up.
Don't restrict access. I love your blog, but you take everything seriously. That's good on world affairs, but what happens in your comments really isn't important. I don't think restricting access is the right way to go. Better is to come up with ways to make your regulars disciplined and fanatic about changing the tone.
Cults are for weakminded knuckleheads, be they the Bushista cultists or the Randonistas. If you want to join this cult, be my guest, but please go peddle your religion somewhere else. This is a political blog, and we all know that politics and religion don't mix. Just ask the kool-aid drinkers from Jonestown.
ReplyDelete"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
James Madison
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteHmm . . . now I'm having second thoughts about whether to do anything, even as mild as imposing that anonymity ban, since several people seem unwilling to register for a Blogspot account (for reasons that, quite frankly, I don't entirely understand, but I don't need to - and, one of the real values of the Internet is that people can participate anonymously, without "registering" for things).
I don't think that requiring Blogger accounts will help. There's plenty of people who might be considered "disruptive" (or at least easy prey for trolls), such as me, who have Blogger accounts, and there's certainly plenty of people that read your blog (or will read your blog as your book gets more notice) who are casual visitors, and might have something useful to contribute even if they don't want to spend 5 minutes signing up just to say it.
I do think that a Kossack type scheme (rating and de-rating) might be appropriate ... the more egregious posts just sink from sight through lack of appreciation.
My two cents worth.
One thing I haven't seen here (which, sadly enough was about the only thing I sam on my own blog comments) is spam ad posts. I enabled registration, and most of those went away, but some still sneak through from "registered" spam-bots. Dunno how you've managed to avoid this. Lucky you. Maybe the "word verification" does it; how do I install that, do you (or anyone else here) know?
Cheers,
There are probably many people who are like me... people who read your blog everyday but rarely comment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'll be happy to post with my blog name if that's the only way to do so in the future.
Suggestion: Since Glenn's rethinking the policy about the anonymice, might I suggest they, at least, assign themselves numbers, eg, anonymous1, anonymous2, etc.?
ReplyDeleteThat is what timestamps are for, but maybe you are really just interested in saying, "POOR ME!"
get a grip, like your handle, or most of the rest of them here, mean squat...
Just amazing...
if your "high-quality" commenters can't take some losers in the mix, that's really their problem.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of self-important, narcissistic moron posts here, essentially all with anonymous, cute handles, and thinks their remarks are golden nuggests of inspired genius!!!!
If some morons think their comments are so much better than everyone else -- DON'T WASTE THEM HERE!!!! START YOUR OWN LITTLE BLOG!!!!!
I can just hear it now, "Mommy, mommy, people can't see how smart I am because my greatness is surrounded by boobs!"
BOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
...vast majority of objectionable activity is on the part of those who post as "anonymous."
ReplyDeleteWell, suit yourself, guess someone made you the blogogod...
I think the really moronic comments are always done by those that post as "Eyes Wide Open", but I don't hear anyone calling to ban that handle.
anon at 9:26 - glad you speak as the "true" anonymous and you seem to find "ojectionable" everyone you disagree with.
ReplyDeleteThe circle of links is an objective, measureable fact. Those that proclaim to speak for liberals while putting down traditional liberal ideas are just stealing that heritage for their own good. Just like the current set of "conservatives" have stolen that legacy.
You are a hypocrite that wants to judge everyone that has a different perspective with contept while spewing BS to make yourself sound important.
As far as comment policies go, sometimes just articulating one (with a little enforcement) is enough. My own policy gives me carte blanche, but I've only had to delete one non-spam comment ever. Of course, you get more comments in a day than I've gotten in the existence of my humble soapbox.... still, there's something to be said for making it clear that commenters are guests. For a much more restrictive (to the host, not the commenters) policy, there's these which seem to work reasonably well.
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeleteIt's my blog.
Anything which I think is a commercial solicitation or self-aggrandizement through comments on my posts which does not in my opinion relate directly to the matter at hand will be deleted at my earliest convenience. Note: "IN MY OPINION" means just that: I decide what is or is not spam, what is or is not relevant.
It's my blog.
Civil discourse -- i.e. significant disagreement and vigorous discussion -- is a good thing, but it's my blog. Post that are in my opinion trollish will be deleted at my earliest convenience. Note: "IN MY OPINION" means just that: I decide what is or is not trollish, what is or is not worth responding to.
It's my blog.
I reserve the right to delete comments for other reasons, at any time, and to do so without explanation. I may delete comments by people who I don't like; I may delete comments with language I don't like; I may delete comments with arguments I find offensive, troubling, or simply too wrong to bother with; I may delete comments that are poorly written; I may delete comments that are unkind or unnecessarily vulgar or otherwise offensive; I may delete comments which attack myself, my friends, relations, colleagues, heroes or admirers without extremely good grounds.
It's my blog.
I reserve the right to alter this policy at any time without notice, and to delete comments covered under new policies ex post facto. I disavow responsibility or approval of any comments which I have not made myself.
It's my blog. Comment at your own risk.
Well, guess you said it all, you are an all-powerful person in your little meaningless corner of the net.
Maybe the "superblogs" can get away with that groupthink, but that is not why most people come here.
I am grateful Glenn is not the pompous ass that you are.
Speaking of the news, political correctness, and the power of the media, it's nice to consider what Simon Cowell of American Idol think of the Fox network:
ReplyDeleteThe whole Fox network operation impressed Mr. Cowell because there was never a hint of an attempt to censor him or to turn him into a sweetheart of a guy. Fox seemed to him to be bravely acknowledging that the American audience, like the British audience, was ready to rebel against what Mr. Cowell called "the terrible political correctness that invaded America and England." [my emphasis]
I figure it's Mona that doesn't want to register (referencing Glenn's reservations about changes) -- I can finally sympathize with her. I'm not a joiner either. I doubt it is ewo, since that one stated an ultimatum the other day -- something like "I'll keep posting x until you recognize y."
ReplyDeleteI have read this blog since Glenn *sigh*ed his disappointment in the very old Michael Moore/OBL/DVD "gotcha" crap spooned out in the comment threads. No, I didn't comment then.
I suggest, Glenn, that you handle the comments as you see fit. Weigh the imput and who it is from and make your own decision. You have paved one new way, why not pave another?
BTW, for an example of how really valuable it can be to read blogs and other Internet sites, I include links to two interesting articles about Dafur that really changed my own mind about that situation.
ReplyDelete“Out of Iraq, Into Darfur”?
Just Saying No to Imperialist Intervention in Sudan
and
What About Darfur?
The case against intervention
Both of those sites are ones I discovered in comment sections on other blogs.
ewo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the links. They really keep to the topic. As per usual, you simply react to what you read.
Why am I not surprised that you linked to that topic instead of responding to the topic at hand. I'm sure there are any number of blogs that have comment sections regarding Darfur. You insist upon bringing it here now, just like you slipped in that "no one here comments on race relations" thang this past weekend. The "shiney" thing doesn't mean much.
Your problem seems to be that you don't get the fact that some people can think and act upon more than one thing at a time.
I heard the conservative spin on Darfur this morning. What you linked to is nothing new.
Try to stay on topic, please.
FWIW -- Somewhere is this mass of comments someone suggested using HaloScan for the comments and I want to second that motion. I don't believe that it would eliminate posters that come here with subversive intent. Those types, whether they do it by mandate, or of their own volition, are here for better or worse, and it is quite instructive as to what the latest Rush Limbaugh talking points are without actually having to listen to his show.
ReplyDeleteOne of my main reasons for advocating HaloScan is the ability to have a window open for the post and a seperate one for the comments. This makes it handy to reference the post for quotes, etc. I also think that HaloScan has to ability to block abusive users by IP address so that the worst offenders can be kept off of the board.
A major complaint I have against the Blogger comments is when you want to refresh the page. The refresh always takes you back to the default location, which is the Leave your comment textbox. This makes it hard to pick-up where you left off in the comments if a lot of people have posted during the time that you were reading.
Thanks for allowing me to share my inflation adjusted 2 cents worth.
I have a suggestion for a compromise. I always post here under the name Gris Lobo, that name is not available to me to register under because someone else has already taken it. So if I am required to register I will also have to change my name.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did do was to e-mail Glenn and I told him what name I post under. I am more comfortable myself in having Glenn have my e-mail address than I am Blogger.com.
If Glenn doesn't object to keeping a record of who posts here under what name by e-mail address, mabe that would be an acceptable compromise. For those that post under anonymous mabe you could pick a screen name even if it's just anonymousA anonymousB etc.
Just my 2 cents
Never really have time to read the comments, sorry to hear that it is filling up with worthless namecalling etc. Love the comment on the average blogger demographics. I am right near the middle of the demographic....Keep up the great work. Lots of great minds like those exhibited here will ultimately prevail...I hope.
ReplyDeleteej:
ReplyDeleteThanks, that did the trick. Now if I can only get people to post real comments....
Cheers,
marcus alrealisu alrightus:
ReplyDeleteOne of my main reasons for advocating HaloScan is the ability to have a window open for the post and a seperate one for the comments. This makes it handy to reference the post for quotes, etc.
Right click on the comments link; it will let you open in a separate window (or perhaps tab, if that be your wont).
Cheers,
Just some thoughts about pseodonymity. Someone mentioned my pseudonym, along with others. I don't know about them but I spent some time choosing this one. I've explained the cynic part in other comments on another of Glenn's postings.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the possibility of being anonymous or creating personae is what attracts many to the Internet. In my first attempts in chat rooms and blogs, I loved creating a pseudonym and the anonymity that that brought with it.
There can be several reasons that people choose a psedonym. In literature, for example, Rabelias first wrote under the pseudonym of Alcofrybas Nasier. He did so because the scandalous, raucous, scatalogical humor of his writings cut so many ways and chafed so many sensibilities.
But note the name and think of the connotations that easily come to mind: alcohol, food, and Arabs. The combination, of course, is ridiculous. And hilarious. But its very suggestiveness is the point, and the connotations reflect Rabelais' ideological, philosophical, and religious humanism.
Stephen King writes under various pen-names for different reasons. There's very little danger that the church will burn him at the stake as Rabelais could suspect. Instead, King writes so to see whether he can tell a good story and whether it'll sell without his label attached to it.
So, the reasons for pseudonymity are diverse. The writer Kierkegaard--known for using dozens of pseudonyms--suggested several reasons for doing so. One is that people don't want others to know that the ideas are theirs. Some do so to evade detection for espousing various views--for honest or dishonest reeasons.
Another reason that someone might use a pseudonym is to create a character that expresses views that the author does not necessarily believe but does understand the power of.
The perncious aspects of the blogosphere arise from the very possibility for remaining anonymous. It breeds a form of irresponsibility that destroys the principles of what can be termed true selfhood. Publishing views without running the risks of having to actually stand up for them in realtime creates a hypocritical and superficial attitude to the world and others.
I am not unaware of the philosophical ramifications behind some people's desire for anonymity. It denotes for some, I think, a belief that there is no real self anyway. The ability to take on and discard anonymous psedonyms reflects the very emptiness and nothingness of life itself. It's a form of nihilism that the blogosphere promotes but whose potential damage for political reality have yet to be assessed.
My two cents.
ReplyDeleteFirst I will steal from a post I made here the last time this stuff came up.
"The problems are 98% technical and organizational. Blogger.com is very rudimentary as far as "discussion" software goes. Some of the missing features are:
1) Collapsable Nested Discussion This is the ability to group responses to a parent post. Example:
Post #1
---Response to Post #1
---Response to Post #1 (Post #2)
------Response to Post #2
---Response to Post #1
The benefits of this approach compared to the "long piece of paper" approach from blogger.com are huge. Readers don't have to search or read a whole discussion to follow one conversation and posters can reply to the exact comment they are interested in. This approach works with human nature instead of against it. Sub topics naturally become grouped together and information becomes self organizing within a particular discussion. The ability to collapse whole "off topic" threads or view just comment subject lines encourages more discussion and ideas by allowing quiet conversations in the corner that don't shout over other people.
...
I really don't think you need anything more than #1 right now. Nested comments would solve 95% of the issues. It is the difference between a dinner conversation and a cocktail party."
The number of comments being posted is becoming very hard to deal with using blogger. Nested comments will solve many of the issues. I get into more detail in my original post.
Glenn,
My advice would be to sign up for a slashdot account. It is a tech oriented website, but they also cover some stuff relevant to this blog. Read and post a little bit, but get the idea of their approach to online discussion. But most importantly read the FAQ on comments and moderation, it explains many things and will give you insight from people that have been through this before. They are light years ahead of what blogger offers.
This might blow your mind:
ReplyDeleteHigher ed fears wiretapping law
Oral arguments to be heard this week in ACE vs. FCC petition over CALEA.
A petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia could determine if higher-education networks - and perhaps private corporate networks - will be required to allow wiretapping by law enforcement agencies as soon as next year.
ahistoricality, I love the policy you have on your blog.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, it's your blog. I haven't heard of it before but because of that policy and how you state it, I will be reading it from now on to see what what you have to say about various topics.
Daphne, what's eating you? If you don't like my posts, my name is on them which gives you the ability to scroll by them and I heartily encourage you and everyone else who doesn't like them to do so.
As for my writing "I'll keep posting x until you recognize y.", I doubt I ever said that.
I may have said that as long as people keep twisting and misreprensenting the ideas and the words of some thinkers I greatly respect and admire, I will post their own words here so others not familiar with their thinking can read what those writers have to say in their own words.
Have away at those people daphne. The "attack Ayn Rand" brigade, comprising all "conservatives", all leftists, most libertarians, all racists, all fascists, all communists and all advocates of a theocratic form of government is a cottage industry in itself. No single thinker has been more vilifed on the Internet than she has.
Her books will always continue to always find their audience. She is one of the best selling authors of all time.
As for As per usual, you simply react to what you read, I dismiss this as being spoken with absolutely no facts behind it.
This isn't a place for people to write everything they would in a personal diary. If I were to do so I could write three hundred pages on my thoughts about Dafur. But however conflicted my views were until recently, I just kept getting back to one issue: yes, but it's genocide and if something can stop that, it must be done.
You may read more newspapers and magazines than I do, but thus far I haven't read one article that suggested that many of those arguing to intervene in Dafur are not advocating doing so because true concern about "genocide" is what is motivating them.
These articles present facts, statements, and information that I had not yet read anywhere else.
I very often change my positions on particular issues based upon new facts of which I become aware.
Sue me.
You (imply that you) consider Justin Raimondo a "conservative"? That is the quality of your own ability to analyze peoples' positions? If you don't, why use his article to say you have seen that "conservative" position on Dafur being circulated?
Maybe it's an anti-neocon position instead? And maybe the leading neo-con foreign policy positions are high among the "various items" with which this blog has concerned itself.
As for telling me to stay on topic, there is only one person who can do that: Glenn.
(BTW, were you ever a hall monitor in high school?)
I addressed my suggestions about the comments section to Glenn who himself invited readers' comments about the matter.
I didn't tell anyone else what to do. I left that to you as it appears to be a specialty of yours.
Thanks for attaching a name to your posts, however. Makes it easy for me to scroll by them from now on so don't waste your time responding to me. Not reading any "anon" posts today was such a pleasure it encourages me to add others to that august group as a time-saving device.
By the way if Glenn decides to have only blogger accounts here, as is his right, I am glad that armagednoutahere has switched to a blogger account because I always really enjoy reading and look forward to reading his comments.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteThis might blow your mind:
Higher ed fears wiretapping law
Oral arguments to be heard this week in ACE vs. FCC petition over CALEA.
A petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia could determine if higher-education networks - and perhaps private corporate networks - will be required to allow wiretapping by law enforcement agencies as soon as next year."
It should be mind blowing. I wonder if it really is though, or if people are just numbing out with an "Outrage a Day" President and administration.
I got no reaction at all the other night to a post that Bush had approved the sale of a company that supplies our Defense Department to a company in Dubai. Right after the ports deal was scuttled due to security concerns. They can't manage our ports but they can supply our Defense Department?
Outrage over the first none over the second. Outrage overload?
It's true that the moderating system at DailyKos quickly weeds out the type of comment(er)s which Markos doesn't want (classic trolls + people who'd work against the Democratic party). I see no reason to fear that the same system here would afect those same comments, the ones Kos doesn't want. Rather, trusted readers here could be trusted to 'disappear' comments which Glenn doesn't want.
ReplyDeletemichael birk said,
ReplyDeleteThose into "trolling as theater" should check out adequacy.org. The site is no longer active, but existed solely to perpetuate the "art" of trolling.
Like an old photo album, you have brought a tear to my eyes.
cynic librarian: Yes, that is an article that would have blown my mind a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteThat was before I read the other articles about how it's not too far in the future that everyone applying for a driver's license or renewing a passport will have to submit to a brain scan administered by the government to see if they have "proclivites" toward being a criminal or a propensity to lie, and the article about how the IRS has now approved (it's apparently either the law now or about to become the law) that an individual's tax returns can be sold by his accounting firm to marketing companies, other individuals, business competitors or anyone who just wants to see how his neighbor is doing.
Cynic, I have to admonish you for bringing up something which is not on the topic of "comments" when you didn't get the required pre-permission from daphne to do so.
But since you did that, allow me to follow suit :)
Here is a review of the book Anthem in which the teenage reviewer concludes with this sentence:
I enjoyed reading this book. It has opened my eyes to a lot of important issues. I would recommend Anthem to everyone, although I believe that certain people will take it differently, like a Democrat and a Republican, because of the different political views.
Ah, the innocence of youth. This poor teenager apparently doesn't know yet that partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats will "take it" pretty much the same. They'll both hate it.
I just saw Madelaine Albright on TV saying "The world is in terrible turmoil right now. Worst I've ever seen it."
And she was alive during WW2 and the Cold War.
Anyone notice that many of the ideas most of the world has now accepted as truisms have not produced such great results?
Michael Birk said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo:
"I always post here under the name Gris Lobo, that name is not available to me to register under because someone else has already taken it. So if I am required to register I will also have to change my name."
Not quite. Your "display name" -- which is what we see next to your comments -- needn't be unique.
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. If it comes down to having to register here I will try again with the info you have given me if I decide to keep posting here.
As I also stated I have some concern with releasing information to Blogger.com which is why I offered a possible compromise.
Yet another outrage for the outrage overload list:
ReplyDeleteUS "Allowed Zarqawi to Escape"
By Chris Evans
The Age, Australia
Monday 01 May 2006
The United States deliberately passed up repeated opportunities to kill the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before the March 2003 US-led invasion of that country.
The claim, by former US spy Mike Scheuer, was made in an interview to be shown on ABC TV's Four Corners tonight.
Zarqawi is often described as a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, whose supporters masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
Mr Scheuer was a CIA agent for 22 years - six of them as head of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit - until he resigned in 2004.
He told Four Corners that during 2002, the Bush Administration received detailed intelligence about Zarqawi's training camp in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Mr Scheuer claims that a July 2002 plan to destroy the camp lapsed because "it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers".
"Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq," he told Four Corners.
"Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."
During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi's presence in the north of the country was used by US officials to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism.
MSNBC confirms: Outed CIA agent was working on Iran
ReplyDeleteOne more link. Bush in ‘ceaseless push for power’
ReplyDeleteabout the Cato organization, a "leading libertarian think tank"'s statement (among others) that “The constitution’s text will not support anything like the doctrine of presidential absolutism the administration flirts with in the torture memos.”
I think that Ruth Bader Ginsberg would agree with this and other statements in the Cato Institute's critique of Bush's
adoption of the Nixonian doctrine that if the President does it, it's not illegal.
Amazing how the great decider is also such a great uniter.
Accountability.
ReplyDeleteExample:
comment ratings on dKos
translate to
no inane "First!/Frist!/Fitz!" comments.
the cynic librarian @ 2:37 AM
ReplyDeleteThe ability to take on and discard anonymous psedonyms reflects the very emptiness and nothingness of life itself. It's a form of nihilism that the blogosphere promotes but whose potential damage for political reality have yet to be assessed.
I doubt Publius, (all 3 of him, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) would agree with you.
You spend far too much time in your head, my friend. And cassettes tapes, and then CDs will destroy the music business... Better yet, and this is more timely since this load of crap, the Trustees Report, with newly massaged facts, figures and creative assumptions, has finally been released, late, by the administration that no one trusts anymore.
1935: Social security will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1944: The G.I. Bill will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1965: Medicare will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1994: Health care will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
Conrad (editorial cartoon), July 1994
It's a modern version of the Masquerade ball, and they had their opponents as well...
Its prominence did not go unchallenged; a significant anti-masquerade movement grew alongside the balls themselves. The anti-masquerade writers (among them such notables as Henry Fielding) held that the events encouraged immorality and "foreign influence". While they were sometimes able to persuade authorities to their views, enforcement of measures designed to end masquerades was at best desultory.
... except the only thing that gets assassinated here is a person's character, unlike poor Gustav III of Sweden. The capacity of humans to fear the silliest and most innocous changes in our lives, while ignoring the really great dangers is monumental, and will be the undoing of us all, and it's not moral relativism, or postmodernism, or anonymity on the internet.
Glenn--
ReplyDeleteSomething has to give, either the quality or the laissez-faire. Since your break to write the book, I've mostly stuck to reading your posts, whereas before I was a careful reader of the comments.
Non-anonymous commenting will cut down a little but I imagine not too much. Hope I'm wrong.
A moderation scheme is bound to end with unfairness to some, but degeneration of the comments is more unfair. It's clear you've been pushed to it, and not because you're a power-mad blogger who can't take criticism.
I can tell within 5 words if a post is about something I want to follow or not.
ReplyDeleteI can usually tell within five words if I have seen the person post before, under anonymous, or any other name. I never worry
about being mistaken as a fake ember of the ring of anonymous aux liberal links.
Gris Lobo said...
Yet another outrage for the outrage overload list:
I'm not saying Sheuer isn't correct, he probably is. Nor am I suggesting he's knowingly spreading disinormation. I would always take any information about Zarqawi with a bushel of salt. His background is too murky. And didn't he only recently pledge his allegiance to OBL. Before that he was a bit more of an independent. The Wiki entry on him is full of weird stuff, and links to article from Bill O'Reilly for some of the background stuff. Hardly a credible source, that reference.
This is the most interesting bit from Wiki.
0 April 2006, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military has indeed been conducting a major propaganda offensive designed to exaggerate Zarqawi's role in the Iraqi insurgency. Gen. Mark Kimmitt says of the propaganda campaign that there "was no attempt to manipulate the press." In an internal briefing, Kimmitt is quoted as stating, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." The main goal of the propaganda campaign seems to have been to exacerbate a rift between insurgent forces in Iraq, but intelligence experts worry that it has actually enhanced Zarqawi's influence. Col. Derek Harvey, "who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," warned an Army meeting in 2004 that "Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will -- made him more important than he really is, in some ways." While Pentagon spokespersons state unequivocally that PSYOPs may not be used to influence American citizens, there is little question that the information disseminated through the program has found its way into American media sources. The Post also notes that "One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war."[23]
Professor Foland said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn--
Something has to give, either the quality or the laissez-faire.
Communist.
Eyes Wide Open said...
One more link. Bush in ‘ceaseless push for power’
about the Cato organization, a "leading libertarian think tank"'s statement (among others) that “The constitution’s text will not support anything like the doctrine of presidential absolutism the administration flirts with in the torture memos.”
What a stunning reversal for Cato.
It was just a few years ago...
Sometimes, however, [Cato] has proven willing to set aside its libertarian principles - such as supporting a Bush administration move to restrict civil liberties as part of the war on terror. In 2002, a Cato news release endorsed new Justice Department guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions. "As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present no serious problems," declared Cato legal affairs analyst Roger Pilon, a former Reagan administration official who writes frequent Cato commentaries defending property rights and opposing affirmative action that have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. Pilon added that "law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one."
I think Cato is just angry that couldn't deliver the goods, Social Security privatization.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteProfessor Foland said...
Glenn--
Something has to give, either the quality or the laissez-faire.
Communist.
I'm confused. Does regulation of the free market of ideas improve the quality or not?
Testing to make sure my profile "took"
ReplyDeleteGlenn, please re-think forcing commentors to have blogspot accounts.
ReplyDeleteThat software is incompatible with my Macintosh OS. There should be another way you can accomplish the job of preserving comment integrity and quality.
nick (6:28p)
ReplyDeletethanks.
your criticism is apt.
the style was ok for putting down short thoughts when i began 6-8 months ago.
but i have come to realize that it is irritating and distracting when applied to longer comments.
nonetheless,
the problem for me is similar to the experience of wearing sandals
after having worn dress shoes or boots to work all your life.
it's reaally hard to force those feet back into shoes or boots.
still something needs to be done.
there is some shit
i really must write
in this loopy style
which reminds some
of eecummings
h
e
l
p
.
ggr:
ReplyDeleteit's probably better to do nothing for the moment.
i think that's the conclusion most sites who reflect on this problem come to.
the responsibility for the comments section rests with the commenters as a group.
in a sense
a weblog is two distinct sites:
-- a posting by the weblog owner
and
-- a set of comments that has a life and direction of its own.
p.s.
i got another good cite here today (to a description of the cato institute).
that makes the trip here worthwhile for me.
when i can learn something new
i'm happy
(even if a bit frustrated with the commenters above who insist on using the work "liar" and other common pejoratives as if they were salt and pepper.)
Pilon added that "law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one."
ReplyDeleteThere's a way a reasonable person could read this quote and find it unobjectionable.
Read in context of other statements in that Cato Press Release
Cato news release endorsed new Justice Department guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions. "As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present no serious problems."
and you are looking right into the familiar, fascist and increasingly recognizable face of Big Brother himself.
Nevertheless, the recent Cato release about the abuse of Presidential Power is on target.
Sometimes referencing a particular action or statement coming from a "group" is to point out that at least someone in that group sees an issue in the proper way. I don't see how it can ever be an endorsement of the group itself, but it can be a recognition that as there are many people in this world who associate themselves with one group or another, many groups themselves do have an impact on a society.
To me it is futile and irrational to become a member of any group. Groups rarely speak with one voice and they often hold antithetical positions on different matters.
I do however acknowledge that if a person thinks horses moo, he'll love being a member of a "group."
To their defense, it's not much different than most democrat's reactions to all the Clinton scandle revelations.
ReplyDeleteI can usually tell within five words if I have seen the person post before, under anonymous, or any other name.
ReplyDeleteSounds like colbert's "truthiness". You know what I mean, not worrying about facts and truth, but FEELING that you know everything.
Yup, it sure is powerful stuff and so much easier than critical thinking!
And the best part of it is, you can choose to believe whatever you want with no real information or facts at all!
There should be another way you can accomplish the job of preserving comment integrity and quality.
ReplyDeleteHow about we make YOU a "Blog God"
Michael Birk said...
ReplyDelete"Gris Lobo:
"As I also stated I have some concern with releasing information to Blogger.com"
As ej pointed out earlier, Blogger doesn't send a confirmation email, so you really don't have to give Blogger (Google) any valid info at all.
While it looks as though Glenn is rethinking his no-anons policy, registering carries some benefits for the user in any case. For example, you don't have to type in your user information for each comment. In addition, you can delete your own posted comments."
Thanks again for the info. You have really been helpful. I need to think about it a little but I may go ahead and register. :)
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"I'm not saying Sheuer isn't correct, he probably is. Nor am I suggesting he's knowingly spreading disinormation. I would always take any information about Zarqawi with a bushel of salt. His background is too murky. And didn't he only recently pledge his allegiance to OBL. Before that he was a bit more of an independent."
I'm not full of info about Zarqawi other than what I've read in the press. So it is quite possible that I too have been fooled by some of the propaganda. If he wasn't originally an LT of Osama's there may have been no concern about hitting him. I do believe that Bush and his crew of Neo-Cons believed that the whole thing in Iraq was going to be a cakewalk.
Anyway thanks for the link and the info. Interesting and somewhat thought provoking. Wouldn't I have liked to be a fly on the wall when all of those discussions were going on in 2002. :)