We're most of us familiar with the filter we initiate on our own on AO* boards... "ignore this author" etc. We click it, and "poof!" no longer have to read their posts. I had, I think, three, maybe four people in mine when last I checked, and it served me well.
Then too, there's the "host" filtering which, in theory, "protects" us from defamatory posts, and language considered obscene. That used to mean that if a person spewed obscenities, or bashed a group on the basis of sexual preference, religion, etc., then the "host" would remove those things.
But that's where it gets a little sticky, isn't it.
How do we determine, without more than a cursory reading, what exactly constitutes "bashing" or "defaming" someone?
OK, some things are clearly libelous, but others, done with "finesse" may not be so obvious, but accomplish the same thing.
It is not, for instance, libelous to call a person anything, if they really are, and you can prove it. "Truth" is a defense against charges of libel you may take to court with you, and win.
What passes as "acceptable" discourse clearly varies, according to the observer. What I find offensive, you may not, and vice versa. It would seem some "hosts" then anoint themselves the "tie breakers" and make their decisions, in what appears to be an arbitrary manner.
Back in the day when AO* had "people" serving in that "host" or "monitor" capacity, for each individual message board, there was at least a little human discernment at work. There were good, bad, and indifferent hosts, to be sure, but at least they were people who actually (except for one, at least) read posts before pulling them. Not so much so, any more. It's automated now, and if you have a problem, and do contact a person, more often than not, you run into a language barrier which impedes the process of resolution immeasurably.
This later form of imposed filtering is subject to nuance, and discourages candor, regardless of the truth in the comment. You may say, in regard to a slur: "prove it" but you may not say "you are a liar" even though the meanings are quite similar. Is there an actual difference here? Other than one costing you your posting privileges, and the other not?
It's then the word "liar" which has been censored -- not the thought, or intention, but the individual word, which begs the question: is the word "liar" obscene or otherwise unseemly? Apparently, when applied in conjunction with "you are a ___"
So that is the way one message board provider (AO*) handles the filtering thing. Well, that and the "auto-yank" which simply means that when you hit X number of times of someone clicking your name, you get put on "time out" (and really, could they have a more patronizing phrase for that?) for a while. In that situation, they don't even pretend to have read your "offending" posts, and they'll tell you as much. They'll even repeat it, if you ask them to. It's all about the numbers, and with enough diligence, anyone may target and have removed anyone of their choosing. The "humans" at the host's service center wouldn't ever tell me what that magic number was, but I would imagine it must be fairly high, and involve the work of several confederates.
There's yet another sort of AO* filtering presently being used on at least two of their message boards, and apparently, there's no "official" connection with AO*. It does seem that a person or persons are pulling posts they personally don't like, for whatever reason. To speculate as to whom that person or person may be seems, at this point, counterproductive. People have indeed been speculating for years now, and I would imagine many have come to their own conclusions based upon observation, or whatever. Over the course of several years, I've come to realize that really, "identifying" the post puller serves little purpose at this point. If someone had "proof" that might be valuable, but I've never seen any. I could produce an educated guess, as could many others, but really, that's all (at this point) it would be.
What I think is important to recognize, though, is the "damage" the random pulling of posts causes not to the author of the post, but rather to everyone who reads the message board, and begins to form opinions about the quality of posts from individuals.
When posts are pulled, it not only distorts history, and causes only those responding to an offensive post to look the culprits, but also, the absence of posts disallows anyone to get a real "feel" for what has transpired there.
I'm of the school of thought which believes that when a person posts something, a bit of their character is revealed in that post. If they reveal themselves to be cruel, or snotty, then IMO that should remain on the board so that everyone may for themselves judge the character and veracity of the poster. How easy it is, to say: "I never said that -- prove it" and hide behind that lie because the "proof" has gone missing, and so the offender remains protected by the very "weapon" intended to "damage" them. When charges are leveled, it seems a pity some well intended person has gone before and destroyed the "evidence" needed to support the charge.
Just some thoughts I've been pondering this morning...
