Freedom to flame: Online political chat is an insult to democracy. Can it be fixed?

The Boston Globe ^ | 10/13/2002 | By Nicholas Thompson

[Freedomsfriend]

THE OTHER DAY, a group of Americans gathered together to deliberate the wisdom of a war with Iraq.

D. started it off with harsh words for President Bush, arguing that he just wants a war to distract the nation from other ills: ''Face it America, [Bush] is nuts, and is as dangerous as any outside terrorist we could possibly face.''

[Freedomsfriend]

Sounds like the liberals want to "fix" online chat.

[Tripleplay]

Help me here...........what is the difference between on-line chat and a l. farrakhan speech?

[pabianice]

We MUST control online free speech. For the children.

[doosee]

Of course, this conversation didn't occur at a university round table or in Harvard Square over tea and scones

That line says it all. Only a pointy headed elite from a prestigious university can really debate a topic. From the Globe, not a surprise at all. Not sure who said it, maybe Truman, but the line was - I would rather be governed by people picked at random out of a phone book than by Harvard professors.

[dirtboy]

a mere 2 percent of journalists in Washington described chat rooms and message boards as useful to their work.

Hardy har har. First of all, probably only two percent of journalists in Washington are smart enough to hold their own in an on-line discussion, and second, journalists aren't used to a two-way process - they instead want to ram their opinions down our throats.

This article is mostly a bunch of self-serving crap from the Globe.

[johnny7]

I would rather be governed by people picked at random out of a phone book than by Harvard professors.

So true... whoever said it. The Boston Globe is a snot-nosed elitist paper not fit to line a litterbox.

The NY Times and Washington Post spew the same type of drivel.

All the intellectual wannabes take their word as gospel!

I disdain The Globe and pick up The Herald. Reality vs insanity.

[meia]

This article is mostly a bunch of self-serving crap from the Globe

You have just proven the point of the article. You ignore the subject matter and attack the messenger.

If a group of people were holding a discussion in the meeting hall on the subject of how better to foster on-line discourse, you would be the person who stood up in the back and shouted "This is all a bunch of self-serving crap!!! Not contributing a thing to the discussion but doing your best to disrupt the meeting for everyone else

That being said, I wish we could have more civilized discussions here on Free Republic about subjects. I have to agree with the gist of the article, that it is difficult most of the time, and completely impossible some of the time to actually discuss subjects. When someone posts an article, it seems that most posters want to discredit the authors right to that opinion..

Now, feel free to critique my ideas and my opinions and tell me why you think I am wrong or right. But don't post how long I have been a member (as if that has anything to do with the validity of an opinion)or call me names.

[Amerigomag]

One might surmise that the folks at FreeRepublic are getting under Mr. Thompson's skin.

[muawiyah]

Sometimes "how long you've been a member" is highly relevant.

[dirtboy]

You have just proven the point of the article. You ignore the subject matter and attack the messenger.

I addressed the subject matter as well.

If a group of people were holding a discussion in the meeting hall on the subject of how better to foster on-line discourse, you would be the person who stood up in the back and shouted "This is all a bunch of self-serving crap!!!

Boy, this is hilarious. You get after me for attacking the messenger - with an ad hominem attack yourself.

Not contributing a thing to the discussion but doing your best to disrupt the meeting for everyone else

Even funnier.

That being said, I wish we could have more civilized discussions here on Free Republic about subjects. I have to agree with the gist of the article, that it is difficult most of the time, and completely impossible some of the time to actually discuss subjects. When someone posts an article, it seems that most posters want to discredit the authors right to that opinion..

There are plenty of good discussions. But I can see why, just from this post, why people get after you.

Now, feel free to critique my ideas and my opinions and tell me why you think I am wrong or right.

Oh, thank you for permission to critique your ideas, O Mighty One.

But don't post how long I have been a member (as if that has anything to do with the validity of an opinion)or call me names.

Well, I don't post how long someone has been a member because JimRob frowns on that practice. And I don't need to call you names because you seem perfectly capable of impressing upon others that you don't have a clue. You seem of the exact same mindset as the guy who wrote this article, so I can see why you took offense at my dismissal of the article as self-serving crap.

[dirtboy]

It's relatively hard to identify experts or sort out reliable facts in online political discussion.

Hardly. It's more difficult to tell when papers like the Globe or the NY Slimes are lying - unless you have access to alternative news sources on the internet - hence the reason to run this article. This article is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the medium that has been successful at discrediting liberal news outlets.

[Amerigomag]

Now, feel free to critique my ideas and my opinions and tell me why you think I am wrong or right

The example you selected was on point to support your conclusion but your criticism of its author was unjustified because:

The author offered some substance in the paragraph preceeding your selected quote

and

Boston Globe articles, except sports scores and TV listings, are all disguised editorials and are indeed self-serving crap.

[meenie]

Seniority in conversation does not indicate merit any more than seniority on the job. The experience helps but doesn't guarantee results.

[=Intervention=]

I agree that the article did have some valid points (rating systems, filtering, and board moderators do help screen out trash). I also agree that the heavy-handed thought police view of the landed upper-classes comes through from the article. FR is moderated in some sense now -- maybe it's not the best solution, but it's a step towards getting rid of the debris. Rating systems and user-selectable filters a la slashdot really is the way to go. Maybe even something like eopinions.com, where you have a "trusted by X" users thing, and a list of people whom you trust. What the Globe article doesn't mention, however, is the need for both civilized discussion and pure flame fests. The most disturbing thing about the article is simply that the author seems to believe that venting should not be allowed on the Net. But human freedom and the Net is large enough to allow room for both types of discussion and furthermore, to provide people with the options to choose which ones they want. It ain't broken, guys -- so don't "fix" it.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The underlying question in this article is "Do we really want the unwashed masses publicly debating politics?"

It is pure elitism. A lot of liberals believe in the free flow of ideas as long as it takes place behind protected walls and among those of "stature." It doesn't occur to this author that on-line visitors are free to IGNORE postings they find juvenile or inane.

"We can't have introverted losers posting to on-line political discussion boards. They might inject some populist notions threatening our ivory towers."

It's kind of like the old debate about whether or not women should be educated. "The first thing you know, women might know things they are not supposed to know and that might be dangerous."

I say beware of those who want to "screen and police" the Internet.

[mewzilla]

Heaven forfend the hoi polloi actually think for themselves without some liberal ivory tower type telling them what, when, and how to think.

[PGalt]

Online political chat is a threat to our CRIMINALITY. Can it be stopped?

[leadpenny]

Hey, Nicholas Thompson! What are the chances that you or your editors will pick up on any of the well-reasoned comments that have been, and will be, made on this forum? Let me guess: No Chance.

Free Speech is messy. Live with it! Or maybe you'd have us all just shut up and read nothing but your drivel.

[dirtboy]

Seniority in conversation does not indicate merit any more than seniority on the job. The experience helps but doesn't guarantee results

I think he was talking situtuations when someone has signed up that day and immediately posts a "Bush is a Nazi" article.

[Gone_Postal]

When someone posts an article, it seems that most posters want to discredit the authors right to that opinion.

No everyone has a right to their opinion but when the author is wrong or the idea is just why left of "right" then it should be discredited for what it is.

This article is seen by most as another way the liberals what to control free speech and it bothers me.