I note another banning controversy has erupted at Daily Kos. This time, it is over a mostly thoughtful diary by longtime user TocqueDeville (UserID: 8353) who must have signed up around the same I did many years ago. TocqueDeville made the mistake of discussing the possibility that Bush administration officials essentially let 9/11 happen on purpose. In banning him, Kos acknowledged that the subject might be a legitimate one for debate, yet he added, “I’ve made clear that it’s not allowed on Daily Kos.”
Now…why might that be the policy? And why might that policy be legitimate?
I want to stipulate up front that I don’t agree with the banning of ToqueDeville. He discussed 9/11 and suggested that there are legitimate questions about what happened. In itself, this isn’t even controversial. Many members of the 9/11 Commission and their investigators have said the same thing, and recent revelations that much of the Commission’s source material was obtained during torture makes this a hot topic worthy of debate on any discussion board worth its salt. Moreover, ToqueDeville’s diary didn’t even make a conspiratorial case. Ironically, he even suggested that he supported the very rule that was used to ban him.
Personally, I somewhat support the ban on CTs [conspiracy theories] at this site. But only because I have no interest in anyone’s theory about anything. I want facts.
But the greatest failure of Democrats and the progressive left in the last 8 years has been to allow the delusional ravings of a few to inoculate the Bush junta on 911. Just because some think that space beams destroyed the Twin Towers is no reason to believe the depiction of 911 presented by Bush/Cheney or the fraud that is the 911 Commission. There’s nothing realistic about believing the Bush administration has lied about everything except 911.
So, no, I don’t think he should have been banned. I don’t think he really violated the rules against promulgating conspiracy theories because he didn’t advance one. But the larger point I want to discuss is whether it is legitimate to ban people who do promulgate conspiracy theories. And there is a justification for a site like Daily Kos. The reason is their size and influence. Daily Kos exists mainly to help elect Democrats. It has a preference for Democrats on the left-side of the party, but it mainly is concerned with keeping Democrats in power and Republicans out of power. All the other great stuff that happens there is secondary to their core mission. And all of it can and should be sacrificed if it threatens to undermine the core mission. And you can do a simple test to determine whether a topic is undermining the mission. Just ask yourself if what is being discussed can be cut and pasted into a 30-second ad to damage any Democratic candidate that has written there or accepted donations from the site.
Kos banned conspiracy theories and Israel-Palestine discussion because they can make the site toxic and worthless to the cause it is designed to advance.
I don’t have that problem. I did have one ad run against a candidate (Martin Heinrich of New Mexico) for a response he gave to me in an interview last year. But, so far, that’s been an isolated event. I am not influential enough and I don’t raise enough money for Democrats to make me have to think twice about what I write…or what you write. And I don’t want to be influential in quite that way because I don’t want to subsume my own ideas beneath any practical concern. I’ll write about what is practical, but I won’t not write because it isn’t practical. I’d rather not conduct interviews with politicians than tone down the site to make it a safer place for them to do interviews.
So, this is a better forum than Daily Kos for discussing things that the Democratic Party finds embarrassing or taboo. But that doesn’t make Kos a tyrannical dictator. It just means that he is a bigger fish with bigger goals and different responsibilities. Having said that, I still don’t think ToqueDeville deserved to get the boot.
Agreed. Having read the original post in question, it sure seemed to me that it was within the rules, unless mentioning the rules is itself against the rules. I think Kos overreacted. Again. Which may itself be an overreaction to previous underreactions.
I think I’ll go get myself a slice of pie now. š
I think it was the topic itself which was threatening. His point was that there ARE legitimate reasons to discuss conspiracy theories, and that, in itself, goes against the grain of what Kos says and does. So I get why he was banned. And it stinks.
I think so long as people realize that Kos as gatecrasher is not trying to change the establishment but join it, then it keeps things in perspective.
And while DK appears to be a site by and for Democrats, it’s really a site by and for Markos. And that’s fine. That’s his right. It’s only amusing to me that so many are willing to work for free to make him rich!
I totally agree. Markos sees himself as a player. He WANTS to be a player. He wants to join the establishment. 9/11 Truth is too threatening to the establishment, and ergo, to Markos, to be allowed anywhere near Markos’s bread and butter.
I personally find Markos to be much too full of himself. His sneering attitude towards things he disagrees with… He sounds like a frickin’ Republican. Blech.
I just don’t care for his attitude. And that’s why I have never gotten very involved with that site.
And don’t even get me started on the way the majority of the people there sneer at and put down people who believe in LIHOP, much less MIHOP. They act like you should be outright committed to an insane asylum.
I far prefer this site.
So, you are saying that Markos did, for all practical reasons ban Israel-Palestine discussions.
I don’t think one has to be a deep conspiracy theorist to think that the Cheney administration were looking for a casus belli to invade Iraq, and that they had a sense that something was coming down. They would not have known that it would be as catastrophic as the attacks on the towers. They probably thought that there would be an explosion somewhere — at most a dozen or so people killed. Given their capacity to manipulate the press (and the as still unresolved anthrax episode) it wouldn’t have taken anything more to ram through a Patriot Act.
I don’t see how one can otherwise interpret Bush’s statement to whoever it was passed information on to him about a possible attack, that ‘you’ve covered your ass.’
My kos number is within 500 of Toquedeville’s. I guess that must make me a conspiracy theorist, too.
Hell, I admit it. I AM a conspiracy theorist. Fucking sue me! I believe almost all of it, minus the death rays and the reptilians. DAMN but it feels good to write that out and post it.
9/11 was inside job. And no, I am not insane, and I’m not a Trekkie or a fan of Fringe, Lost, or the X-Files. I’m just your average computer programmer/geek.
Thanks, Booman, for the forum to say that without fear of getting fucking banned. Kiss my ass, Markos.
rense.com ? sure, it’s got UFOs and mind rays.. but lots of updates on other topics that “threatens the establishment”.
Can’t stand it. The guy has his own agenda.
Everyone with half a brain knows that the 2000 election was stolen, to get Bush in power. All of the top Republicans conspired in this subversion of America’s democracy. When the Republicans stole the election in 2000, they stopped America from being a democracy, since the People no longer had a say in who would rule them.
Bush and his enablers took away from the American people the founding idea of the American republic: that the people choose their government. Compared to that, intentionally letting 9/11 happen is a minor indiscretion.
Kos evidently doesn’t understand this, which makes me think that in the new political climate, in which Obama is becoming the new Bush, Kos and his blog will become increasingly irrelevant.
Markos isn’t very politically savvy, imho. He’s just banned a long time, very well known, well liked, good writer from his site. Even if he’s serious about the no CT rule, i just find that banning to be careless. He’s going to leave a bad taste in the mouths of users, since who’s going to want to post good stuff now that people have seen such a good poster get the boot without so much as a warning? And you say that he’s had other banning controversies?
Zero tolerance is nice, but when you are that big politics count.
It won’t be the first time.
What I wish, instead, was that DK and others would encourage responsible reporting on conspiracies, and ban only the irresponsible kind. There is a world of difference betweent the two. Postulating what happened is just opinion, and useless. But putting forward data, or discussing why some things may be kept secret is absolutely legitimate.
To hold fast to such a rule is a sign of a lack of intelligence or something more sinister. If Kos didn’t really leave the CIA, as he claimed, well, that would also explain his absolutely unwavering policy in this regard.
Agreed! And if he does this kind of thing too often he’s going to sabotage his site but good.
The logic of banning in sports is that when somebody is prohibited playing sports of your interests. One may banned because of playing with influence of any drugs. Lou Merloni is going to be getting a lot of flak. Lou Merloni, a onetime player for the Boston Red Sox, broke allegations of steroid use in the organization. He said that performance enhancing drugs weren’t necessarily endorsed, but that a team doctor came in and told players that they were illegal, yet there was a way to use them and not suffer ill effects. Some people would give installment loans to make the whole thing go away. Team official Dan Duquette has refuted the presence or message of said physician. Steroid penalties in Major League Baseball add up to more than a cash advance; it was incredibly brave of Lou Merloni to come forward.Read more click http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/05/11/lou-merloni-red-sox-steroids/
followed a “ban any diary that couldn’t be safely used in a 30 second campaign commercial” rule, I doubt it would ever get to the size required to make selling ads worth the trouble.
As a tool for electing Democrats, such a site would be about as useful as the DLC website or a Chia Pet.
Iirc, when 35 comments per thread was the average, Markos’ hand was far, far lighter.
I don’t get it. It’s a conspiracy to discuss Bush lies about 9/11/01, but it’s OK to discuss Bush lies about 9/12/01-1/20/09?
I have to say, reactions like this that remind me of conspiracy theories involving Markos’s connections to the CIA.
that was the point of Toquedeville’s diary
I discuss how the CIA likes to have its minions in the press (alternately described as “agents,” “assets” or “assholes”) steer, constrict and otherwise control discussion of issues here:
http://southofheaven.typepad.com/south_of_heaven/2009/05/pelosi.html
Specifically, how John Dickerson at Salon.com sees this latest bozo eruption over torture as Pelosi picking a fight with the poor ol’ CIA.
I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe all putdowns of conspiracies to someone being connected to the CIA though. Some theories are eye-rolling, and let’s face it, we’ve all been trained to react negatively to anything labeled a “conspiracy theory.”
By the way, does anyone know what Nancy Dickerson was buried in Arlington? My dad had to fight in WWII to get planted there.
I’m interested that you say Obama is losing badly against the permagov. How do you see this playing out? I figure that Obama’s attempt to effect certain transformations (energy, health care) that ultimately with strengthen democracy is the reason behind concessions that have led to much hand wringing in the blogosphere (not releasing the photos, for example) – trying to accomplish important changes without going head to head against the permagov. is it possible to do that?
The civil service is and has always been on Obama’s side. Obama won the primaries in DC, MD, and VA by a landslide. He won DC and MD by a landslide in the general, and won Virginia solidly because of a landslide majority in Northern Virginia. I would point out that Obama won Langley, home of the CIA, and Quantico, home of the USMC by a solid margin. The only part of Washington Obama does not control is the GOP/think tank/celebrity press corps axis of hubris.
My own view is that releasing the photos and purging the military of Chistianist/torture elements would strengthen his hand.
I was specifically thinking about things intelligence/military: Don’t ask, don’t tell; FISA; increase in troops in Afghanistan; torture, both pictures and prosecution; I know there are more things but I don’t keep notes on this. An adjunct to this appears to be the Justice Department, which has a lot of federal prosecutors put in place by BushCo who are still in place (see: Siegelman, Minor, etc.).
The most extreme example of these battles was JFK, who after the Bay of Pigs fired Allen Dulles and said he was going to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces. A couple of years later the CIA was still there and Dulles was running the meetings at the Warren Commision. A recent book, FAMILY OF SECRETS, goes far to suggest that it was GHW Bush and the CIA who brought about Watergate (similar to what was earlier posited by Len Colodny in SILENT COUP). It’s shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s read about the October Surprise to have CIA-connected people helping to get rid of Jimmy Carter and usher in Reagan et seq. Anyone here know that Ollie North was part of the planning for Carter’s failed hostage rescue?
So how will things end up for Barack? I get the feeling that there are elements of the permanent government that are not in harmony (the bankers have weakened everyone else), but I am not sure if Obama can or even wants to exploit this crack.
If you are old enough to remember Carter he was repeatedly portrayed as “weak” but a lot of that “weakness” had to do with being set up by underlings in the permanent government. I suspect a lot of that will come in Obama’s direction. On the other hand, the Republican brand is not selling at all, so there may be a need for some compromise.
Does any of this make sense?
yes, makes a lot of sense. Not sure what JFK was thinking to say he was going to tear the CIA into 1,000 pieces. was he that naive? imo Obama is wiser and has no dangerous hubris. I take his Afghanistan troop increase to be a pragmatic response to Bushco’s mess. guess I’d add Justice Dept and education to the list of things I think are on the top of Obama’s list (+energy, healthcare).
One thing that came home to me in the election last year is how Republicans (since Eisenhower? Nixon?) don’t have real candidates, just figureheads of corporate interests. Why did McCain run? I thought someone owned him (Cindy, of course, but her interests?) and he had to run.
Doesn’t discourage me, however, for working for change. It’s just a longer, slower, more difficult process than popular perception in the USA would have us believe. We have so much going for us – a strong civil society (something that takes centuries to build) and a concept of/ belief in the rule of law, regardless of what damage Bushco and their predecessors have done on that front.
Good piece, Bob. Read it and commented.
Sounds like Markos is on his way to becoming another piece (vocal and all) of the establishment. Re 9/11 and conspiracy theories, what is he so afraid of? Ditto, the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Facts have power as well as a disturbing tendency to come to light, even though the manifestation thereof might take a very long tine.
Kos became part of Versailles long long ago. As for 9/11, if there are questions that urgently need to be answered, and I submit there are, then those questions touch on national security. Why was all the relevant information taken out of Colleen Rowley’s request for a warrant? That is a question that urgently needs to be answered.
You can’t criticize Israel at Daily Kos, you can’t talk about the voting machines, you can’t question th 9/11 commission, you can’t defend Hillary Clinton, the list of banning offenses continues to grow.
I don’t post at Daily Kos because I want to keep my account in the remote possibility that someday I will want to post a diary there. As it is, it is just a question of time before I am banned.
I believe what you say but I am still having difficulty getting my mind around this banning crap. Also, your posts seem reasonable and well thought out. Why would you ever be banned at a liberal blog like Daily Kos?
because you can get banned at Kos for simply rec the wrong diaries or the wrong comments. It is crazy over there. Also, as has been posted elsewhere Kos is perfectly happy for his site to be use to spread lies about Hillary, Sarah Palin, or anyone else he does not like. He has no problem with lies, he just does not want to deal with certain issues. Kos is a bully, clear and simple. There isn’t much anyone can do about it except give up worrying about it.
Yes. Behind that cherub-like face lies a real asshole.
I’ve been over at dKos for a long time and these controversies come and go. Several people banned in the past deserved it because they were abusive and or/obscene. And from what I could tell were warned and continued their behavior. They founded MLW.
But if Kos applied the standard evenly and consistently, he would have to take a hard look at his own front page posts, many of which make me hesitate to suggest the site to people and involve conspiracies of other kinds (Palin’s child, for example). And also very childish, poorly thought out diatribes (McCain’s yellowed teeth). There is a front pager who routinely harasses and abuses readers but remains on the front page.
As for these occasional eruptions, when I see a diary going off the tracks, I simply don’t read it and don’t spend time on the comments. And these diversions usually run their course and 6 months later it’s something else. To ban this particular person throws a wet blanket over the site, and IMHO gave aid and comfort to some real jerks who will now make the place less pleasant.
What bothers me most at this point in dKos evolution is the condescension and arrogance of some of the relatively new posters who instead of offering a real reply launch into a lecture as though you just fell off a turnip truck.
Your post makes the banning more comprehensible to me, Booman. Tocquedeville’s post, as I understood it, was about how the term “conspiracy theory” has functioned to block analysis and discussion and wasn’t specifically about sept 11, imo, (though Booman is a much more careful and critical reader than I am). Anyway, in my reading of it T. was not arguing for Bushco culpability or even some kind of lihop, but was arguing for discussion and analysis versus shutting down discussion by “CT” name calling.
The point of the diary was important, imo, though I understand better why kos is so strict about certain things. (Didn’t realze there was a no IP diaries rule, but it makes sense since IP discussions over there were just occasions for intense flaming).
As I recall the term “conspiracy theory” itself was first popularized after the JFK assassination by Lawrence Schiller (yes, that Lawrence Schiller) in the book THE SCAVENGERS AND CRITICS OF THE WARREN REPORT (In Nazi Germany they were called “alarmists”). Schiller was a friend of J. Edgar Hoover and was “helping out” by pushing back at anyone who suspected any hanky panky in Dallas. The same Lawrence Schiller who helped Norman Mailer with a fictionalized account of Oswald.
The problem with “conspiracy theories” intruding on discussions is that they often knock the bookends off the shelves. When Reverend Wright appeared at the National Press Club and fielded a question on AIDS being man-made, he responded by asking if the reporter had read the Leonard Horowitz book, EMERGING VIRUSES. That’s the last you heard of that because, quite honestly, Horowitz lays out a lot of information which helps to explain the hows and whys of creating such a virus. If someone was familiar with Horowitz’s book you might understand the concern some had in 2005 when military scientists retrieved the DNA from the 1918 Spanish Flu. You could conspiracize that soon a new wave of that deadly flu would be released for the purpose of “thinning the herd,” so to speak. But since Wright was being demonized and marginalized Horowitz wasn’t attacked. But if Horowitz had become part of the discussion he’d have been demonized, marginalized and dismissed.
I myself have advanced the “theory” best stated by Eisenhower, about the “military-industrial complex” controlling the country. But in arguing that Obama, or any President, is subordinate to a permanent government, I am essentially saying that the politics of left v. right as played out in Congress is at best in the margins. My “conspiracy theory” (which includes bumping off JFK and sabotaging Nixon and Carter) explains why in every dispute with the military/CIA so far in Obama’s short tenure he has backed down. My theory would explain why Obama flipflopped on FISA as he was getting closer to being elected while Republicans were constant and more than willing to give a Democrat socialist an improved “imperial Presidency.” Because the President isn’t really in charge.
What conspiracy theories don’t do is give an easy solution to how to resolve a problem. It just makes the problem harder to solve. If Obama is subservient to Robert Gates, how do you change that? Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but if you try to shine a light you’re a “conspiracy theorist.” Next thing you know you’re in a lineup with space aliens and the Illuminati.
I guess I should have posed here the question posed above re: your opinion about Obama’s ability to avoid taking on the permagov and effect change. Cultures, societies, and political systems do change but slowly and with much effort. I’m sure Obama knows what he’s up against.
Again, well said!
Judging by the almost 2000 comments now in that thread and the voting, most are in agreement with your conclusion, banning was not necessary. I don’t think that it was a ban-worthy post either. Now, apparently just raising questions is enough. Can a site really be big enough to essentially ignore such an issue?
I do not remember the specific event, and I’m sure DK hasn’t missed me, but about 2, or so, years ago he made a decision regarding something that I felt was so wrong that I have not visited his site or ever linked to it.
I still have a link to DKOS but I rarely go there now, and I have a vague recollection of some other censorship or banning issue that I found repulsive. For the life of me I can’t recall exactly what it was, just that the act of banning was very distasteful.
I was banned from Jeralyn’s site, probably by that Big Tent guy, probably because during the neverending debate over Florida and Michigan I suggested that by signing off on the Party’s position and then reversing herself Clinton was being hypocritical. So I figure that if someone is so closed-minded as to not entertain my opinion then maybe they’re too close-minded to influence my opinion.
You’ve stated, and I agree, that the purpose Kos’ site is to get Democrats elected.
But that purpose is too narrow because Kos will support anyone with a ‘D’ next to their name, regardless of whether they are a good candidate or not.
Kos’ site has supported, among others, Harold Ford and Chris Carney and I can recall many posts that minimize the problems with Ben Nelson (oh, he represents a Red State, of course he’s going to vote that way …).
Initially, when the site was more open & honest, it was a worthwhile read. Over time it has become a blue ‘Red State’.
Read T.’s diary, didn’t think it was CT, read the diary in defense of T., read the comments when there were only 81 of them, voted in the poll, Markos is a jerk, YAWN.
I still click on the big orange a couple times a day because sometimes the FP posts are interesting, many times the recommended diaries are interesting, KO posts there… once in a blue moon I will even log in, throw in a comment and log out.
My level of participation there is equal to what I have with tvguide.com. Seriously. If I had to choose which site would live or die, I’d pick tvguide.com because everything I get from DK can easily be available elsewhere. Markos has got himself a nice money-making brand name but, ya know, so did Circuit City.
They’re conspiring hard
against us
no matter what we do
the masons and the opus dei
and don’t forget
the jew
the secret government
follows the Rockefeller plan
and put thermite in the towers
to free sirhan sirhan
Wow, is that a song?
Of course, one of the techniques used to fight conspiracy theorists is to tie them in with anti-Semites. Therefore, to think that blowing up the Twin Towers was a conspiracy (okay another conspiracy other than a group of lone nuts from Iraq, er, Saudi Arabia), you have to believe that the Jews were behind it.
Note that the anthrax letters were originally part of the Saddam conspiracy. When that fell through and it became obvious that only the U.S. military had the know-how to pull this off then this part of the conspiracy was translated to a belong to a “lone nut” within the biological warfare industry. And it took riffling several lone nuts before they found the right one, even though there’s actually no evidence that the chosen designee ever made the anthrax used in the attacks, he ever mailed the stuff off or that he ever had a motive.
How’s the next verse go?
i think the scan is so askew as to block the next verse.
But the main problem with conspiracy theory is that it leads to the conclusion that action in terms of ordinary politics and organizing is hopeless – violence or despair are the only answers. And Kos is correct in banning that from a site that is designed to inspire people to political action.
I don’t disagree with you and said something similar upstream. If electing the right people doesn’t change anything, then what’s the point of voting? Therefore, for example, if you want people to vote you should ignore cases of voting fraud because they will discourage voting. That is, unless you’re willing to take the next step.
If Kos’ whole purpose is to sell the Democratic brand and disregard the rest then banning anything or anyone that distracts from that goal is fine. Truth is not the issue.
Now, the Soviet Union, Chile, Argentina and any other number of totalitarian regimes have fallen. So nothing is impossible, even if you only survive long enough to watch it fall.
If in fact a “conspiracy theory” better defines reality than the cover story repeated in our media then there is an obligation to recognize the truth rather than to keep treading water while not understanding why you are in water.
That’s completely untrue, however, in that most of the serious researchers I know are NECESSARILY political activists precisely because they DO understand how the system works, and understanding it is a necessary step to fixing it.
I think this is one of those events that helps define larger questions. In this case, it throws a bright light on all the self-serving blogosphere boasting about its ability to supplant the MSM. What we see now is that once a website reaches a certain size and influence, CYA becomes as much the order of the day as it does with the MSM and the rest of the embedded establishment. We end up with a self-censorship policy based not on truthfulness or insight but on how well an idea or expression fits in with the ambitions of the media outlet.
I doubt that the blogs will ever replace Big Media when it comes to investigative reporting (and yeah, I’m painfully aware of the deficiencies in the MSM’s performance in that arena). The great strength of the blogs, the void they fill, is precisely their ability to house interpretation and opinion reflecting a vast spectrum of viewpoints. When a site becomes Too Big to Succeed, we get its proprietor aping the big media and editing not for quality or thoughtfulness but for how well its content will soothe the powers that be. And so the site’s only real reason to exist is undercut.
If Markos really only wants his site to be an appendage to the DNC, that’s certainly his call. And it’s the readers/contributors call as to whether the pall cast by this kind of self-serving and careless editing leaves enough value to made that bookmark worth clicking. All in all, I’ll still check in there, but with a lot less trust in Kos’s intentions and editorial competence. Too bad.
What we see now is that once a website reaches a certain size and influence, CYA becomes as much the order of the day as it does with the MSM [..]
Do we have other examples aside of dKos? Is it fair, at this point, to consider dKos’ fate the rule, considering both the current limitations of the medium & the limitations of Markos’ personal vision?
I have vague recollections of the trend but couldn’t pin any down for you. I think the larger point is that it’s inevitable. The notion that there was something unique about editing a blog as compared to the newspaper or radio or TV news was always an obvious misread.
Banning should not be Markos’s call. He may “own” the site, but the site’s importance is due to its membership. The membership may ban others, e.g. through troll ratings, but Markos’s unilateral actions show a petty dictator at work.
I’d say it’s less petty dictator and more the ad department meddling in editorial decisions. In this case both departments reside in one person.
You need to consider that Daily Kos has managed to resist the kind of marginalization that has been inflicted on MoveOn and ACORN. That takes work and it involves taking on THE CRAZY and making clear that the site does not embrace it.
Naturally, the media has a broad and restricting definition of THE CRAZY, so to comply with their dictates it necessary to go too far in stifling debate. But DK isn’t a media outlet, nor do they really pretend to be objective. They want to crush Republicans and elect Democrats. And they can’t help Democrats if Democrats won’t take their money. They can’t use their full potential as a lobbying organization if politicians won’t engage the community.
It’s a mistake to judge DK by the standards we would apply to a news organization or even a blog that makes no pretense of being a Democratic blog.
Yes, that would be a mistake. Which is why the incessant blogger bragging to the effect that “we don’t need no stinkin MSM because we do it better anyway” never made the slightest sense.
I’ve never gotten the impression that dKos overtly defines itself as a branch of the Dem party, though. Its front pagers including Kos certainly weren’t above it all during the primary.
As far as fearing that Dems won’t take their money, that doesn’t seem to be a problem for Open Left and its allies despite that site becoming one of the shrillest and most out there outlets around. I think it’s less worry about what Dem insiders will think than a need to protect dKos’s position as the default choice when the MSM wants to display a “liberal blog”.
It’s a mistake to assume news organizations have standards, either. š
(The standards people assume they do, I mean. A lot of people think news articles are fact-checked. Many are clearly not!)
Markos has moved the goalposts. The standard about conspiracy theories at dKos has been, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The examples of banned speculation have been specifically MIHOP. Over the past few years, several well-sourced diaries on LIHOP have been posted and recced. Now Kos has even banned discussion of LIHOP.
What leads you to believe that Kos has also banned discussion of I/P? I thought that DHinMI’s diary about banning that topic last week was snark.
There has always been a creative tension at Daily Kos between its goals of electing more Democrats and better Democrats. It has always claimed to be a blog for the Reform of the Democratic Party, a goal which has contributed to much of its interesting diaries and commentary. By his recent move, Kos may be tipping the balance away from the blog being a force for reform within the Democratic Party, toward being an uncritical source of support for elected Democratic leaders. Not only does such a move make it much more attractive for Democratic Politicians to post there without embarrassment. It also makes the site much safer for pooties, ponies and post-political facebook friends.
IMHO, there has always been plenty of CRAZY at dkos. It’s just that certain ‘crazy’ is tolerated (if not outright embraced) & other ideas are labeled ‘crazy’ when they may not be.
WRT, for example, 9/11 & HAVRA (the Help Americans Vote Republican Act) there plenty of unresolved questions & the “move along or we’ll move ya along” attitude smacks of the so-called liberal facism that is so popular in the press.
But, that is when I’m reminded that Kos is an ex-Republican & that you can take the boy out of the Party but you can’t take the Party out of the boy.
Crazy that hugs the power centers is always welcome.
I have been participating in web groups for years, mainly technical, and spilled my share of blood in Great Flame Wars. They usually end up with site owner/manager starting to ban people or subjects for various reasons. This is a counter productive endeavor.
With current tools, not to mention creating new accounts, the manager is often confronted with both a “gingerbread man” poster popping up to say “nah, nah…” plus a mile long thread chewing on every pixel of his original decision. He may have thought there is good reason or he may have a bigger agenda, but no one is ever satisfied and it creates nothing but bad blood.
Plus its just damn silly. Grown people running around as censors saying, “this is an approved subject, but this isn’t.”
Years ago, after one more of these fights, we started our own group which would be self governing. Any subject that offends the community sensibilities, would be open to community discipline. Much easier when using NNTP , but possible in web blog format. The best moderation of a Net community is little to none. Kos would have been ten times better off to keep his fingers away from the keyboard and let the offending post disappear as one of thousands. He doesn’t want to put off any would be NAME poster which brings shine to his site, but he does so at the expense of losing the heart of his group.
Seen it way too often.
But he who pays the bill, calls the tune. So live with his restrictions or leave.
R
Hey, I hear Galileo is still banned from the Vatican’s blog because of his wacky heliocentric nonsense.
His craziness at that time was obviously detrimental to recruiting good new Catholics.
I don’t think anybody has come up with a very good solution to the consequences of the “Great Internet F-wad Theory,” which is to say, online forums are often overwhelmed by, to abuse a Rumsfeldism, “bad actors.” It’s not hard to drag the discourse down, and once things go bad, it’s hard to turn it around. The good folks submit their GBCWs, and you’re left with the people who have hijacked your forum. And their fans.
Look at ToqueDeville’s recent diaries: A diary hocking Chris Hedge’s brand of progressiver-than-thou narcissism. A diary bashing the First Lady for ostensibly considering herself on the same footing as the Queen of England. And “The Democrats have failed again,” posted a whole two weeks after the inauguration.
ToqueDeville is a classic concern troll. The popularity of such diaries is part of the reason that DailyKos is no longer on my list of daily reads. Between the concern trolling and the icanhazcheezburger-worthy regressions into pootie-land, a lot of important diaries disappear from the front page in minutes. I’m glad that Kos is doing something about it, but I doubt that it’s enough. A much better solution than banning one user would be a rethink of the extremely crude Recommended Diaries algorithm. It remains to be seen whether there is either the will or the technical chops to take such a project on.
Lame, sure, but they should be free to opine. Maybe others should be free to shush them down too, as happens to noisy people in theaters.
Does this obsession with banning people exist on Right Wing D-Kos equivalents as well, or is this a uniquely liberal sanitary obsession? (Speaking purely from personal experience, my answer to this question is yes.)
errm… actually my “yes” was supposed to mean that yes the left wing has a banning fetish in my experience.