unsustain'd
connor promised that there would not be any censorship on sustain'd unless it was blatantly anti-mormon or offensive, and said that the vitality of the post would solely depend on its 'sustainabliltiy' on the site.
well... i just found this on the top of the site today:
Note: You can now bury a post if you think it shouldn't be here. One bury per person, and three buries removes the article from Sustain'd.i can't help but see this as a response to several posts bryant, steve m., and i have submitted to sustain'd today. now if three people decided that they don't like your post it is banished for good - censorship at it's best.
and to think that this all arose from mormonstories.org being banned from a blog aggregate for a single post.
36 comments:
From Sustain'd's blog:
If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, [Sustain’d] seek[s] after these things.
Is this going primarily faith-promoting sites veering away from the controversial/progressive? I was excited for it- since it did come from a suggestion from John Dehlin, but It appears it may not be very interesting, afterall. Let's do your suggestion, though and seek out the honest and true to integrity and vote for them.
why did my post come out jacked like that?
Narrator, where did I say that Sustain'd would not be censored at all?
On Mormon Stories, I said: "I’m hoping I can let the community drive this." (link)
That's exactly what the "bury" feature enables. Same as on digg. It's a democratic content process. If enough people think your post sucks, then why should it make the front page?
Yeah, but if 20 people "sustain" the post, then only three people shouldn't be able to "bury" it. I think as long as the post is "sustained" by more people than it is "buried" it should be able to stay.
Sorry that last one was in reference to Connor's comment.
kid fantastic:
i have the feeling that this will pretty much go the way of conservative warm fuzziness. that's why we need lots of progressives to register, submit, and sustain.
i didn't know you had a blog. you really should sit in on the mormon theology class.
connor:
it's one thing if the post is spam, pornographic, etc. it's another thing if enough people get together to decide they don't want a certain idea or thought being heard.
burying (especially with such small numbers) makes it too easy for people to censor other peoples thoughts, because they subjectively found it not in their own tastes or disagreeable with their views. this was the very thing that mormonstories was running up against, the very context of my initial question about censorship on mormonstories, and the very thing that initiated sustain'd.
Narrator,
Are you ignoring my question? Where did I allegedly say that Sustain'd would not be censored? Either I cannot remember having posted such a thing, or you are lying to promote your own desires. Got a link?
...and the very thing that initiated sustain'd.
It may have been why John suggested a Mormon version of digg, but it is not what initiated Sustain'd. Please don't pretend to know all my reasons for creating such a site.
connor:
i'm not ignoring your question. i alluded to it in my last comment. at the beginning of the mormonstories discussion (which you provided a link to), i asked about censorship on sustain'd. you replied: "I’m not going to censor anything. Post what you want. It’s up to the community to determine what stays and goes." while i see now that you were referring to your own personal authority to censor anything, i read it on the context of mormonstories censorship on ldsblogs.org, which was censored by a community of sorts.
so perhaps i read you wrong, but what i am arguing about still stands. a quota of three buries will become quick censorship when merely three people are needed to remove a post that they decide they don't want other people to see.
even a proportional amount of sustains/buries will have this same problem. it's one thing enabling people to remove spam and pornography (or just a 'dumb' post), it's another thing allowing a few people to censor the views of another just because they disagree with the content of the post.
It may have been why John suggested a Mormon version of digg, but it is not what initiated Sustain'd. Please don't pretend to know all my reasons for creating such a site.
my bad. this is just how mormonstories introduced it. and my false assumption that came from noticing you reference moderation on other aggregators, as well as your decision to do it the day after mormonstories wrote about the censorship. i should have gone to you first. my deepest apologies. i hope you have not come upon any hard due to my mistake.
i'm hungry. we should get a bite to eat. my treat.
"i have the feeling that this will pretty much go the way of conservative warm fuzziness. that's why we need lots of progressives to register, submit, and sustain."
Narrator, what if Sustain'd wants to be a "conservative warm fuzziness"? What is the moral purpose behind getting lots of progressives to go do stuff in Sustain'd? Do you really need to put together a Digg Army to go screw up the site for those who put it together? I don't see any purpose for it other than hostile vandalism.
Aside for the response to your direct challenge on your blog earlier on, I find little moral value in going to sites just to be the "dissonant" tone. I am guilty of doing that a couple of times, you've made a career out of it. Have you accomplish anything?
"it's another thing if enough people get together to decide they don't want a certain idea or thought being heard."
So you think Digg is immoral too? Burying a story in Digg takes it out of the front page. The site is also driven by a mass of people that share several characteristics in their views. Of course, there are is a line of articles that will hit the front page easily, while others will starve and never make it. You see that as censorship, I see it as a democratic content paradigm.
What I've learned is that if an online community doesn't fit my needs or is not a good match, I simply move on. I don't see a moral need to forcefully reshape that community to fit my views (and those of my Digg Army). But that's just me.
H's:
It's not "forceful", "hostile", or "screwing up" the site if the site itself is set up to be controlled by the community.
In my opinion, group efforts to stifle unwanted opinions or dissent are a real impediment to the progress of the Church and the happiness of its members. Sustain'd is unfortunately facilitating the Mormon tradition of collective mind-guarding.
I've already been on this soapbox too many times.
Connor knows that the entire LDS religion is based and founded in censorship. Back in the days of Joseph Smith if a man refused to give up his wife for plural marriage he was then castrated. Today LDS members just delete your comments. Same difference. Mormons have not changed in 150 years.
Well i heard that they used to paint everyone purple and make them stand on their heads for hours on end... and then they were forced to eat chocolate chip cookies and watch re-runs of Gilligun's Island.
Oh yeah and nothing has changed since.
There is no one as blind as he who will not see. You have earned my pity, Mad Dog.
anon... i have asked you time and time again for some kind of credible referance to your claims. As of now you have delivered none, all you do is repeat the same nonesense over and over again.
Pity me all you want, but it apears that it is you who is blind.
I love Gilligan's Island. And paint-chip cookies. I like being Mormon!
Mad Dog you would not believe anything short of a video of Brother Joseph nailing one or more teen-aged girls. Rest assured Brother Joseph had thousands of sexual encounters with girls as young as your 13 year old sister. History never lies. I really have no problem with Brother Joseph nailing as many women as he wanted. I just with Joseph had waited till they were 18 years old before he stole their virtue. Brother Joseph was indeed a dispicable human being. Or as Joseph would say, "Im only human."
anonymous coward:
i don't know who you are and i really don't understand your point. i don't tow the party line and don't shy away from the ugly aspects of church history.
i however am not an idiot like you and have actually read up on church history. your rediculous and stupid comments are factless and mere religious hate.
i know all about joseph smith's sexual escapades, i don't condone them. you however obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about. i'm all for historical facts, you however are merely projecting your own desires of pedastry onto joseph smith.
Thank you Mr. Know-it-all. We shall now call you "Brigham Jr." from now on. You are not going to believe what Brother Joseph and Brother Brigham had to say about Black people either. Needless to say both men had some rather vile and discusting things to say about them. Im sure you will poo-poo them away like most "God-Fearing Mormons do. Like I said - History does not lie. Then again you could be like Connor and just delete the comments that you dont like. Like I have always said, "No one runs faster from their past than a Mormon does." How true! How true! Confront them with the truth - then watch them run faster than Jesse Owens at the Olympics.
Hey Loyd,
I was just thinking about you so I checked in on your blog. Politics is more my thing than religion so I left a comment are your 9/11 post. I hope you're doing well.
Anonymous: History never lies??? I certainly hope that's not true, in case an idiot like you ever decides to write a history book.
Anonymous,
Have you read ANY of Lloyd's posts?
Ok, I take it all back. I admit that I made up everything that I said and that I am a complete moron.
I also admit that I'm not quite intelligent enough to keep from repeating my past mistakes, and too big of a jerk to try.
Could you help me reform by preventing me from posting anonymously? That way I'll at least need to stand up for my idiotic and hateful comments the next time I make them by signing my name to them.
Anonymous' name is Steven. I'm not sure why he posts anonymously here and openly on my blog, and BoJ, but now you have a name by which to call him.
connor: is the enemy of my enemy my friend? ;)
Just call him "Connor The Narc."
Rebecca - Go back under your street lamp. It misses you.
guys im really sorry for everything i just realized that i am a real jack ass
"i can't help but see this as a response to several posts bryant, steve m., and i have submitted to sustain'd today"
Don't flatter yourself. It was added because people were submitting their own sites (otherwise known as spamming).
thanks for your insults kim. i don't claim that this was the sole reason for it's implementation, but the history of mine and conner's interactions as well as the reaction to my previous posts leads one to speculate in this direction.
Hey kim stopped being connor's best buddie long enough to pay us a visit
...the history of mine and conn[o]r's interactions as well as the reaction to my previous posts leads one to speculate in this direction.
Loyd, rest assured that the oppose/bury function had nothign whatsoever to do with you and your quest to see progressive content on Sustain'd.
I had tried to implement this feature before the launch unsuccessfully. It was quite complex and I decided to launch before completing it. A few days after launch I was able to finish the code and released it.
It had nothing to do with you, your buddies, or your submitted posts.
connor:
i stand corrected
I completely agree with Heather. Group censorship is fine and all- but being able to bury something with only three votes to do so seems absurd. How is that democratic at all, and how does it accomplish Sustain'd's goals?
Post a Comment
Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.