When Does Censorship Become Necessary?
If you frequent the trending page, you may have noticed the recent commentary stemming from Scholarch's post directed at Robert (who replied in turn). It seems to have caused quite a stir, especially if Scholarch's guestbook is anything to go by.
I don't care about the drama of it all. Frankly its all rather banal and appears to have been blown completely out of proportion. I'm entitled to that opinion, just as you are entitled to yours even if it may be in complete disagreement. From what I can see, both parties have remained respectful towards one another, albeit with a tinge of saltiness. We are biased & contradictory creatures, it is what it is.
The part I take issue with is the Code of Conduct being silently pinned to the top of the Discovery page. If Scholarch's account is anything to go by, there has been no communication between themselves and Herman regarding the inciting post itself, at least at time of posting. At the base level that's not necessarily a problem, as in Herman's own words…
"Posts may be hidden from the discovery feed to keep our shared garden enjoyable for everyone."
The Code of Conduct then goes on to list what Herman classes as "unenjoyable" for the platform, including what most people have concluded to be the problem-point of "personal attacks and subtle digs." There have been arguments that a similar, lengthier post by Absurd Pirate hashes out the exact same opinion, only far more vaguely. Does this count as a "subtle dig"? If so, why didn't it receive the same treatment? We could sit here all day and argue where the line is but I don't think we would ever reach a decent consensus. What even constitutes as subtle? Speaking from personal experience as an autistic person, subtle doesn't even exist to me and, hell, even then what I would deem as genuine and helpful critique could be easily interpreted as a personal attack by someone else.
Opinions on topics like this will continue to be an ouroboros until the end of time.
There is no promise that you will be told what, if ever, you have done to go against the Code of Conduct we have all agreed to by creating an account here. Most platforms, unfortunately, run this way. Gone are the days of in-the-moment pop-ups that stop you in your tracks and cause a childhood meltdown.
Herman is well within his rights to dictate what is and isn't appropriate for his website. As many people have already echoed, if you want to have complete control over what you post, using any host other than your own software is the wrong avenue. However, playing the role of an (almost) silent benevolent leader while simultaneously tacking your 10 Commandments to the top of the reading poll just… doesn't sit right with me? It feels slimy and, to be honest, a little childish. It draws a clear line in the sand when it comes to pondering if things have actually been seen and actioned by Herman, or whoever has been responsible for moderating this situation. It has been seen, and the response is clear.
"Read the damn rules."
It's a little immature, in my opinion, especially if said pinning of the link is a direct rebuttal to Scholarch's original post and perceived shadow-banning. As far as we can surmise, the truth will never be known because no comment has actually been made and (at time of posting this) no affected party has been contacted. If that is the case, it never should have happened. You can't reprimand one singular person under the guise of reminding your entire user-base what is and isn't permissible.
Two birds, one stone. Sure. But when it's plainly obvious what the starting point of everything was, the mirage of coincidence breaks down pretty quickly and one could argue that the reminder sitting at the top of the Discovery page could be the very thing its existence is said to have stemmed from; a personal attack.1
I don't know how either party feels about things and I haven't asked. It's none of my business and I'm sure if they want to have dialogue between one another, they will. This is all conjecture on my part and I can only speak to how I feel as an observer, which is… Uncomfortable. I love Bearblog and the people that frequent it. There are many people that I disagree with, but I believe that's good too. I don't hide blogs because, as much as I sit here rolling my eyes, I value having a seat at the other table should I choose to take it. The last thing I want is to create my own echo-chamber.
Of course there are exceptions to this but that should be pretty obvious. I am not here to advocate for hate speech.
According to Herman, "Our community’s a tapestry—different lives, different lenses. Not everyone sees the world like you do, and that’s okay.", which is a wonderful thing to have etched into the holy stones of Bearblog, but if anything this whole situation has highlighted what a slippery slope Codes of Conduct can be.
"Bear Blog won’t be a megaphone for hurting people. "
Who decides what hurts? When does criticism become too personal? When does censorship become necessary?
Previous |
For what it's worth, I don't believe it is a personal attack, just that it could be perceived as one.↩