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 - Legacy Interface Discussion (2004-2011) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (4860)	9/25/2006 8:49:50 PM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6035

I do see it as largely an issue of exalting associational rights over speech rights. What "rights"? This is a commercial site. The owners can run it any way they like. I have to admit that I would prefer that they not take the "moderation" feature any farther than they already have, but that's an aesthetic and business judgment, not a matter of rights. There's a reason I'm paying for a premium membership here rather than being on IHUB (where I could participate for free as a charter member). It's got a lot to do with the respect for the free exchange of ideas you find here, as opposed to IHUB where the model is more along the lines of creating an environment where people don't have to hear what they don't want to hear. IMO, if management is wise they will keep that distinction in mind and allow both environments to thrive. Bob has stated more than once that IHUB is much more profitable than SI. That makes sense. I do think there's room for the SI Indie film to coexist alongside of the IHUB (potential, at least) blockbuster. I also think it would be a mistake to blur the distinction between the two, which is what some of these proposed changes would do. But ultimately, it's their ball, glove and bat, and it's up to them to decide what the rules are. If we don't like it we can always leave. That's capitalism in action.

To: mph who wrote (4860)	9/26/2006 9:55:32 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

Excellent post! You've covered the issues clearly and intelligibly. The contract (as most of us came into SI) was about censorship being confined to TOU and segregation corresponding likewise. Now we have experienced a small but vocal minority of people whose primary problem is (as you say) a need for control--and an overweening intolerance of diverse opinion. Now, most of us are so constituted and socialized that we can dialogue with others of diverse views--and this generally leads to a greater maturity and a more accurate and nuanced perspective on life. Thus a Democrat may discuss with a Republican; A christian may dialogue with a Jew...and so forth. But others seem incapable of moving beyond a sense of Absolute Right. It seems to me that this is basically a phenomenon of self absorption and an inability to see people as--well...people. Such people seem incapable of looking beyond their own narrow selfishness. One advocate of censorship opined on this thread that he favored "gated communities" on SI. Well, that is just fine. Let SI offer membership upgrades to purchase gated communities for an appropriate fee. Using the resources of SI to play in a private sandbox and to censure and segregate ought to come at an appropriate dollar value as it does in the real world. None of us bought into a censorship ideology. Those needing to have special restaurant booths and fountains ought to pay for such a dubious privilege. We could have a category of threads termed "CENSORSHIP COMMUNITIES" for these people. Those wishing to pay the appropriate fee could then associate themselves with such thinking. In the meantime, many moderators exercise abuse to an extreme level and diminish the value of the SI membership and experience. There is one moderator (and probably many) who routinely tears people out of dialogue without informing them. I recall in my case that I had spent 20 minutes composing a post to someone only to find that I had been banned without cause, without admonition, and without divulgence. These moderators ought to be held accountable for such abusive treatment of SI members. Such an expectation is a simple regard for being fair, decent, and above board. Let us face it, mph: All of this "controversy" is contrived to coddle a kindergarten mentality. Mature adults segregate people on the basis of unlawful behavior within their community--NOT on their race, color, politics, religion, or opinion on any issue. A small but vocal minority on SI are kindergarten pupils. I mean, can you believe an adult would beat his/her breast screaming they want banning privileges against other members of the community whom are lawfully engaged in dialogue?? YUCK. Hardly the behavior of adults. I looked at your link and skimmed it. Very interesting. Obviously not something that can be assimilated over a quick read but I have experienced workshops that touched on such dynamics. Thanks! Now please allow me to add a rec to your post. I think that is a kindergarten game as well but my rec is a sincere one.