Internet Forum Ethics

[Marek]

Is it unethical for an internet forum that allows discussion on just about every topic, besides those that are particularly offensive or obscene, to bar its users from discussing any and all topics that relate to a certain significant and arguably oppressed demographic?

To look at a specific example, can we agree that actions by forums like Stormfront, which disallows promotion of racial equality, are unethical? Or is okay for the moderators of a general forum to prohibit the discussion of significant cultural and political issues that they might disagree with or not want to think about?

Suppose discussion of a certain issue has been popular for a long period of time, and many users enjoy discussing the topic with the wide variety of viewpoints that exist on a particular forum. Is it worse for the forum moderators to "pull the rug out," so to speak, as opposed to maintaining guidelines that were developed at the forum conception?

NOTICE: Please, refrain from discussing the H word. This is merely a thread on internet forum ethics.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I think you would have to decide what ethics are and where they come from or who decides what the ethical guidelines are.
Is the 'law of the land' ethical if you agree with it and unethical if you disagree with it? Or is your own view of those ethics unetical if you disagree with them? I suppose the answer to that is perspective.

Should the ethical considerations your own part of the world holds be used to make a value judgement of the ethical considerations another part of the world holds? Would it not simply desolve into determning how close to your own ethics they are to decide how right they are?

Is it ethical to stick to your own principles even if it means trampling over the principles held by whatever place you currently are?

 

[keith99]

Yes,

An internet forum is not the only place to discuss something.

One should also remember any forum survives because it has people going to it and using it. In the case refered to there were a disproportionate number of threads many of which degenerated to uselessness.

The topic may deserve discussion, but if it instead produces noise that drives posters away then it is not only ethical but reasonable for such a ban.

On can still hope that in time it will be lifted and that reasonable discussion will take place.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Is it unethical for an internet forum that allows discussion on just about every topic, besides those that are particularly offensive or obscene, to bar its users from discussing any and all topics that relate to a certain significant and arguably oppressed demographic?

Obviously you are not talking about this forum, as there are many topics which are very offensive or obscene to certain individuals which can be allowed to be discussed. Perhaps you should just leave what ever forum you are talking about and stay around here instead.

 

[FallenPaladin]

Since its a privately owned forum the rules depend on the whim of the owner(s). If the forum was publicly owned then things might be different.

 

[Skaloop]

If it's a forum run by a private individual or group, I see nothing unethical. If Stormfront prohibits comments of racial equality, that's no different than a forum on racial equality prohibiting racist comments. Or a pro-life site prohibitng pro-choice comments (or vice versa).

I may find the content or focus of a particular site to be unethical personally (as I do with Stormfront), but how they moderate their site is a different matter.

 

[Macx]

It is absolutely ethical for a (privately owned) forum to moderate

discussion of a certain issue has been popular for a long period of time, and many users enjoy discussing the topic with the wide variety of viewpoints that exist on a particular forum.

Think of an internet forum as a way to have a really big living room with lots of friends over having conversations. It is your house. If someone is saying stuff you don't like (not even disruptive necessarily) and they refuse to chill out, you have every right to ask them to leave right? Wouldn't the world be a much less pleasant place if, once a guest crossed your threshold they could only leave of their own accord . .. you could never ask a guest to leave? Think about it, eventually you wouldn't ever invite anyone over because you could never know if they were going to become a jerk and decide they like your place better than theirs and just camp out, peeing all over your art. So what do you do? You move out? Its your house! In a society where it is deemed illegal/ unethical to ask someone to leave . .. moving out of your own house is your only recourse. Where do you go? Why would you even bother owning a house?

Isn't it great that we live in a society where it is perfectly acceptable to ask a guest to leave? The opposite would be unethical.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No.

Private forums are allowed to moderate their content as they see fit. If Stormfront wants to censor racial equality, that's its business. As Skaloop says, they can censor pro-equality speech just as a pro-equality forum can censor anti-equality speech.

It makes for very poor standards of discussion, but it's not inherently unethical for mods to censor speech on a private forum.

You have the privilege, not the right, to post.

 

[Zebra1552]

Is it unethical for an internet forum that allows discussion on just about every topic, besides those that are particularly offensive or obscene, to bar its users from discussing any and all topics that relate to a certain significant and arguably oppressed demographic?

Yes. Very unethical.

To look at a specific example, can we agree that actions by forums like Stormfront, which disallows promotion of racial equality, are unethical? Or is okay for the moderators of a general forum to prohibit the discussion of significant cultural and political issues that they might disagree with or not want to think about?

Leaders should not suggest that burying one's head in the sand is a good approach.

Suppose discussion of a certain issue has been popular for a long period of time, and many users enjoy discussing the topic with the wide variety of viewpoints that exist on a particular forum. Is it worse for the forum moderators to "pull the rug out," so to speak, as opposed to maintaining guidelines that were developed at the forum conception?

No, it is not ethical to punish everyone for a few member's insults.

 

[Macx]

Yes. Very unethical.

Really? They don't have a right to control what is discussed in their own "living room"?

Leaders should not suggest that burying one's head in the sand is a good approach.

Not exactly relevant. A guest in someone's living room should have enough respect for the host not to try and use the host's "event" as a platform to promote their own agenda. It is cool when a politician shows up at a fundraiser for kiddie cancer, even more cool when that politician writes a check . . . it becomes pointedly not cool when the politician takes the podium and starts encouraging people to vote for him or even worse to write checks supporting his campaign or insulting people attending the fundraiser who didn't/don't plan on voting for him. It is not really about burying one's head in the sand, it is actually more like keeping the focus on the kiddie cancer fundraiser and preventing the politician from abusing the situation for his own ends.

No, it is not ethical to punish everyone for a few member's insults.

Who is being punished? If I went to a gun forum and never posted anything that wasn't related to how great chevy cars are . . . and hit the report button anytime someone said different, it would be disruptive and the moderators would be right to tell me to chill out on the Chevy thing or ban me if I kept it up. Nobody is being punished, just a little consideration is being demanded of those who haven't been very considerate. I am quite frankly surprised at how generous the mods here have been, given these repeated attempts to brink the rules.

 

[Marek]

Really? They don't have a right to control what is discussed in their own "living room"?

Macx, I think you're missing the point. Nobody is disputing that any privately owned forum has the right to moderate however they want. My question was geared more toward whether it's a good thing to, in a general forum, pick out a particular and disallow any discussion of it. I understand some earlier points that if the topic is particularly disruptive or offensive, it might be a good thing to disallow discussion on that particular topic.

 

[Zebra1552]

Really? They don't have a right to control what is discussed in their own "living room"?

They would, if they were the only ones in it.

Not exactly relevant. A guest in someone's living room should have enough respect for the host not to try and use the host's "event" as a platform to promote their own agenda. It is cool when a politician shows up at a fundraiser for kiddie cancer, even more cool when that politician writes a check . . . it becomes pointedly not cool when the politician takes the podium and starts encouraging people to vote for him or even worse to write checks supporting his campaign or insulting people attending the fundraiser who didn't/don't plan on voting for him. It is not really about burying one's head in the sand, it is actually more like keeping the focus on the kiddie cancer fundraiser and preventing the politician from abusing the situation for his own ends.

Except that this site isn't about kids with cancer. It has ethics and morality forums, yet ethics and morality cannot be discussed on certain grounds because the leaders feel it's wise to censor it for whatever reason. That's not cool.

Who is being punished? If I went to a gun forum and never posted anything that wasn't related to how great chevy cars are . . . and hit the report button anytime someone said different, it would be disruptive and the moderators would be right to tell me to chill out on the Chevy thing or ban me if I kept it up. Nobody is being punished, just a little consideration is being demanded of those who haven't been very considerate. I am quite frankly surprised at how generous the mods here have been, given these repeated attempts to brink the rules.

If you went to a forum and respectfully discussed issue A every single time, and you never had a single rule violation for anything and all the sudden A cannot be discussed anymore because of a few whiners, you'd get ticked too. That's punishing everyone for a few people's inability to be respectful.

 

[Zebra1552]

Macx, I think you're missing the point. Nobody is disputing that any privately owned forum has the right to moderate however they want. My question was geared more toward whether it's a good thing to, in a general forum, pick out a particular and disallow any discussion of it. I understand some earlier points that if the topic is particularly disruptive or offensive, it might be a good thing to disallow discussion on that particular topic.

If a class of college students can discuss spanking- some being parents- then full adults on the internet should be able to discuss a topic without getting disruptive, offensive, or offended.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Except that this site isn't about kids with cancer. It has ethics and morality forums, yet ethics and morality cannot be discussed on certain grounds because the leaders feel it's wise to censor it for whatever reason. That's not cool.

That hardly makes it unethical. They also censor swearing and the promotion of non-Christian faiths. They are the mods, they get to make the rules.

If you went to a forum and respectfully discussed issue A every single time, and you never had a single rule violation for anything and all the sudden A cannot be discussed anymore because of a few whiners, you'd get ticked too. That's punishing everyone for a few people's inability to be respectful.

Getting ticked isn't exactly punishment. It's immature, sure, and it makes for a poor forum, but it's not unethical. If they killed you to censor your speech, then yeah, that's unethical. But merely deleting your post is not unethical.

Don't forget the Terms & Agreements you signed upon joining up to this hypothetical forum. You gave full consent for them to do this. You can complain about them being unfair (which they are), but not immoral. That kind of accusation is just screaming to grow into a persecution complex.

 

[Skaloop]

Except that this site isn't about kids with cancer. It has ethics and morality forums, yet ethics and morality cannot be discussed on certain grounds because the leaders feel it's wise to censor it for whatever reason. That's not cool.

It's uncool, sure. I agree on that. But unethical? Nah, it doesn't go that far.

It would only be unethical if it were a pay site that had that promised an open and free forum to discuss anything, took your money to join, then made sweeping changes to the rules that were outside the terms and conditions and contrary to the promises upon which your payment was made, without offering you an option to get your money back. That might fall under unethical. But still probably not illegal.

 

[Zebra1552]

That hardly makes it unethical. They also censor swearing and the promotion of non-Christian faiths. They are the mods, they get to make the rules.

Actually, they don't. They get to enforce them. The person who makes the rules- who gets to stamp his seal of approval- is not a mod.

Getting ticked isn't exactly punishment. It's immature, sure, and it makes for a poor forum, but it's not unethical. If they killed you to censor your speech, then yeah, that's unethical. But merely deleting your post is not unethical.

I never said deleting a post is unethical.

Don't forget the Terms & Agreements you signed upon joining up to this hypothetical forum. You gave full consent for them to do this. You can complain about them being unfair (which they are), but not immoral. That kind of accusation is just screaming to grow into a persecution complex.

Not really. You may not be able to name a hard fast rule that applies elsewhere for why it's not okay, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Zebra1552]

The Christian way? You bet your crucifix.

Maybe the Conservative Christian Way (C). But not the Christian way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, they don't. They get to enforce them. The person who makes the rules- who gets to stamp his seal of approval- is not a mod.

Potato, potato, you know what I mean

I never said deleting a post is unethical.

Well, you kinda did:

"No, it is not ethical to punish everyone for a few member's insults." - #9
"If ... all the sudden A cannot be discussed anymore because of a few whiners, you'd get ticked too. That's punishing everyone for a few people's inability to be respectful." - #12

QED

Not really. You may not be able to name a hard fast rule that applies elsewhere for why it's not okay, but that doesn't make it right.

Nor does it make it wrong. Like I said, getting ticked by something isn't grounds for it to be labelled 'immoral'. If it really is immoral, it is so for reasons other than 'it ticks me off'.

 

[Zebra1552]

Potato, potato, you know what I mean


Well, you kinda did:

"No, it is not ethical to punish everyone for a few member's insults." - #9
"If ... all the sudden A cannot be discussed anymore because of a few whiners, you'd get ticked too. That's punishing everyone for a few people's inability to be respectful." - #12

QED


Nor does it make it wrong. Like I said, getting ticked by something isn't grounds for it to be labelled 'immoral'. If it really is immoral, it is so for reasons other than 'it ticks me off'.

Meh, when this hypothetical forum supposedly holds itself to higher standards than most other forums it makes it immoral, or at the very least hypocritical.

 

[Macx]

Meh, when this hypothetical forum supposedly holds itself to higher standards than most other forums it makes it immoral, or at the very least hypocritical.

Higher standards? No. . . . I haven't seen it (the hypothetical board) promote itself as such. . . . sure haven't seen it delivered. We aren't talking Ship of Fools, which is a bastion of liberalism and intellectual discourse but is moderated VERY loosely (low dive or high dive, is a matter of perspective, it is the deep end of the pool). And we aren't talking about any Christian Zone Forums which may be small but is full of spiritual giants (again low dive or high dive is a matter of perspective) . . . . we are perhaps talking about the big, shallow end of the pool and the life guards are aware how easy it is for little people to drown, so they get extra jumpy about the rules. Seems completely reasonable. Given that homosexuals can go to Ship of Fools and pat each other on the back and talk about how their preference isn't a sin and how morally superior they are for choosing same sex fornication instead of normal fornication . . . I don't understand the facination with trying to discuss it where it has been expressly declared unwelcome. It isn't like there aren't more welcome places on the .net.

A clear attempt to drive off the last of the liberal Christians on this site?Spartan 421It's a dick move to be sure, but unethical it is not. Stupid? Yes. A clear attempt to drive off the last of the liberal Christians on this site?

What? Liberal Christians can't participate if they aren't allowed to promote homosexuality? Really? Where is their focus then? Surely liberal Christians aren't one trick ponies! There has to be some depth or character . . . right?