Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Matt Brown who wrote (17539)	5/24/2003 2:37:42 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32883

Matt, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer your first amendment question. I can tell you, though, that I am not interested in participating in an online forum that practices censorship. SI has been one of the few places that keeps the spam and personal attacks under control, while at the same time remaining free of content-related censorship. I can see where SI is now going, and it is a sad sight. :( Personally, I never supported the notion of moderated forums here. Their use has been fairly limited, though. In some cases, moderation has been used to limit participation to people who have demonstrated expertise in specific areas. While I don't favor that, I see it as the most noble use of moderation. I can understand, for example, a group of people interested in a particular branch of technical analysis, who may each have years of experience, wanting to avoid constantly having to answer "dumb questions", putting forth "hare-brained theories" with no basis, etc. While I think it's better handled with some diplomatic steering of the conversation, and I'd rather see that than moderation, I can at least understand why some desire moderation in such cases. In other cases, moderation has been used to ban people who disagree with the moderators. This has occured both on non stock-specific boards (MDD was a good example of this until they recently apparently lifted the bans) as well as stock-specific boards that have been set-up as "longs only" or "shorts only" boards. I'd have thought you'd have figured out by now just how much you've been used as a patsy by such individuals on iHub by now. I absolutely disagree with the idea of moderated boards as the primary board for any stock. That has been the big problem that I have with iHub. Whoever swoops in and "claims" a particular stock symbol first effectively sets themselves up as God. It's a completely unfair and deceptive process. Cersorship is pretty easy to define, Matt. You should be able to figure this one out without my help. It's selective deletion of content in order to supress specific viewpoints. IMO, it's been widely practiced where ever moderated stock boards have been used. I really doubt that it is possible for a moderator who has a position in a stock to moderate fairly. The problem you have, of course, is to police the boards in a cost effective manner. I'm not sure it is possible. I don't know the details of the SI sale, but I imagine it must have been bleeding money from what was seen as excessive personnel costs. I imagine you've been able to keep those costs under control at iHub through the moderation system. But that it makes good business sense for you does not make it desirable to users. I am opposed to moderated boards, period. The only kind of moderation that I would feel comfortable with would be private boards that are not publicized. That is, if somebody wants to essentially rent space from you, or the advertising revenue would justify providing such space, I don't see any problem with that. Keep the unmoderated primary boards for each stock, or, IMO, you will lose most SI users.

To: Matt Brown who wrote (17539)	5/24/2003 12:00:51 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32883

The one fatal flaw on ihub, IMO, is that there is a form of censorship. The rule that only one thread can exist for a given stock, coupled with the thread being moderated with no effective control on the moderator makes the stock threads biased toward the moderator's views.

To: Matt Brown who wrote (17539)	5/24/2003 3:06:32 PM
From: mmmary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

RE: Matt: questions 1. SI and IHUB are private communities. You must sign up to post here. You must agree with TOU to sign up. You must agree than anything "offensive" in any way can be removed. Admin can choose what is offensive or not. They are not open public forums which encourage freedom of speech, quite the opposite. Bob doesn't find the word "bit-slapping" to be offensive but others might. You find the word "hypocrit" to be offensive but I don't. These boards are ruled by the whims of admin. 2. I personally feel there should be no moderated boards. The moderating should be up to admin. Admin must be fair and objective in their moderation. I do feel that anyone who uses obscene language, honestly attacks someone personally (i.e. jane, you common ignorant ****), posts confidential, private information or spams should have his offending posts deleted, put on suspension. If he does it repeatedly, booted after three suspensions in a year. 3. There definitely should never be any moderated boards for stocks. It just encourages scammers. Look at agoracom. Two promoters run the npct board. They have a bunch of losers corralled in there like sheep that they shear daily with their bull. Moderated stock boards encourage, aid and abet fraud. 4. No boards should be moderated. As long as admin is enforcing the tou, there's nothing wrong with an open forum. I never deleted posts from my otcbb scam board. I had no problem with people not agreeing with me. 5. Censorship is interfering with any speech that is not illegal (yelling fire in a theater, obscenities in front of minors), harassment (calling someone negative names repeatedly in public with no basis) or completely untrue (saying someone is a child molester when they are not). If someone goes to a private forum such as ihub and si and they have tou, people must follow them but admin must be fair. p.s. I actually read that it's legal to lie. Lying is freedom of speech. Lying which causes emotional or monetary damages which can be proven in a court of law is not legal. I don't believe we have the freedom to lie. I'm against this.

To: Matt Brown who wrote (17539)	5/24/2003 4:02:21 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 32883

1. Do you believe iHub and SI are open, freedom of speech places, governed by the First Amendment? Or do you see them as private communities dictated by whatever the owners put in the Terms of Use? I see them as private communities, where rules and rights originate first from owners' decisions, and second, within the power allowed by the owners to the various threads that can be moderated, etc. The First Amendment doesn't factor in. 2. Do you have a problem with Moderated (delete and ban features) boards for off topic discussions, like politics...[F]or boards related directly to stocks...[F]for boards related to the stock market, but no specific stock? Not at all. Again, the decision to offer such derives first from the Constitutionally-guaranteed private property right of the owner of the site, and then to the private rights afforded by the owners to various site participants. 5. How do you define censorship? Censorship is when government, whether federal, state, or municipal, bars or interferes with the content of speech. In this environment - where individuals are permitted to post on the privately owned and maintained property - the concept is moot. LPS5

To: Matt Brown who wrote (17539)	5/27/2003 12:12:59 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Matt, 1. Do you believe iHub and SI are open, freedom of speech places, governed by the First Amendment? Or do you see them as private communities dictated by whatever the owners put in the Terms of Use? SI and IHUB are private business firms. They offer a fee-for-services based business model. Use of the service is voluntary, based upon the users' whims. A contract (in legal terms) is voluntarily entered into by the user of the service when s/he signs up and pays for the services. The contract terms vary by user, with some accounts purchasing a monthly plan and other having purchased a lifetime membership. The terms of the contract are expressly defined in the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use may change in the future, changes solely determined by management. Freedom of speech is NOT a right inherent to or incumbent upon the message board operators. 2. Do you have a problem with Moderated (delete and ban features) boards for off topic discussions, like politics? Only my opinion, but I very much dislike moderated forums. However, I can live with moderated forums if the powers that be have determined that moderating forums is in the best interests of the management and the thread participants. 3. How about for boards related directly to stocks, like INTC only? Same answer as above, but my opinion is much stronger when the moderated thread is a stock thread as opposed to a religious or political thread. 4. How about for boards related to the stock market, but no specific stock? Like Zeev or LG boards? I don't follow the "gurus", but my opinion is the same. I see moderated threads as not in the best interests of all participants, especially lurkers. 5. How do you define censorship? Justice Potter Stewart, of the United States Supreme Court, once said <paraphrasing> "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it!"... I would respond in much the same way regarding censorship. It's not an action that is singularly definable, but more like a series of events which ultimately leads to a predetermined result, which is exactly what the censor had in mind when s/he first practices censorship. In the case of stock threads, the censor has predetermined what "matter" will or won't be included on the thread, and anything else is "anti-matter", therefore irrelevant and ultimately censored. KJC PS - Matt, one of the reasons why I am only an infrequent visitor to IHUB is the IHUB policy of permitting only one thread per stock. If I were to be moderated off of a particular stock thread (rightly or wrongly), I have no recourse open to me to offer an opposing viewpoint. Therefore, theoretically anyway, the whole thing becomes a race to be the first to start a thread on a new stock, so that (as moderator) the thread starter can determine the tone (long or short) of the thread before anyone else can participate. For this reason alone, (if asked) I would recommend against buying a membership from IHUB if the purchaser intended to discuss a stock (or stocks) on existing boards. S/he could be moderated off from discussing with others the very stocks that are most important to her/him.

To: Matt Brown who wrote (17539)	5/28/2003 5:50:18 AM
From: StockPro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Do you believe iHub and SI are open, freedom of speech places, governed by the First Amendment? Well clearly, in my opinion, that is not the case at any privately owned for profit company ... the owners can do (almost) whatever they please with their company. I say "almost", because the owners would still be subject to Federal statutes. Or do you see them as private communities dictated by whatever the owners put in the Terms of Use? You better use your dictionary (and apply some common sense) to this second part of your question. The two terms "community" and "dictate" do not work together, in my opinion. Although perhaps not a dictionary definition, a "community" is just the locale where people live and congregate. But in a stock discussion forum, a "community" is a group of people bound together by a common interest. In either context though, I would assume a "community" to be a (more or less) DEMOCRATIC entity which SHOULD be governed for the common good and by the common interest of the whole. How can such a comunity be "dictated" by a TOU, or anything for that matter? As soon as you start DICTATING (your word) you are a dictator and not a moderator. Check the dictionary definition of moderate/moderation/moderator. Generally moderate means NOT extreme or excessive, medium, etc. I certainly see censorship (in this case, removal of posts) as extreme and excessive. Furthermore, in a formal debate (such as a high-school or presidential debate) a moderator enforces the ground rules in a fair, unbiased, and judicious manner, but they do not censor or prevent one side of the debate from being heard. A moderator should GUIDE debate, not CONTROL it. At iHub when "moderators" remove posts posts they are controlling the debate and NOT moderating it. When they dictate the rules they become dictators not moderators. Now that you are one of the new owners of SI, please do not ruin it here like you did at iHub.