A A A

2 comments (Add your own)

1. Natasha wrote:

And what is the purpose of moerdation? Generally speaking, moerdation is the act of regulating a set of materials that is exposed to a given audience at the expense of very few members of that audience. The benefit is considered to outweigh the expense, which justifies the act. The goal of a moderator should be to moderate as little as possible; in other words, only when the benefit truly does outweigh the cost. The reason for this is that moerdation has downsides; firstly, it can lead directly to self-censorship. Secondly, the act itself assumes a certain omniscience on the part of the one doing the moderating (to say nothing of condescending sigh' emoticons). Now, one way to look at the cost/benefit ratio is to examine the number of people who are exposed to the material who would rather not see it. In a typical forum, that number would be fairly high, since a response to a given thread bumps that thread back to the top of the page. In a blog setting, such is not the case. However, that alone does not suggest that moerdation is not needed on a blog. If the comment section on a given post is still alive' in the sense that people are commenting on it who are not a part of the content that one wishes to moderate, there is an impetus to moderate. It is to the benefit of everyone who is still engaged in the conversation.However, when a post is four to five days old, and the comment section is dead' with the exception of the argument, the number of people who are going to be exposed to that information unwillingly is relatively low. By that point, we may reasonably assume that whoever is frequenting the given comment section is doing so with the purpose of following the argument itself. Whether or not they find it distasteful is irrelevant, then, to the discussion on moerdation. If the foregoing is true, then it stands to reason that moerdation' under those circumstances is more costly than it is beneficial. And when THAT is the case, moerdation' is essentially censorship.I remember someone suggesting once that every law or imposing act of government diminishes our freedom because we become afraid of doing or saying something that might be illegal I wonder who that could've been

Thu, March 29, 2012 @ 11:27 AM

2. Ernane wrote:

WillHi Davey,I just came across this video blog now. While I agree with a good ptooirn of what you had to say, there was one aspect I didn't and I think its a big one. You state that telling your parents is really no big deal. This may have been your experience, but its not a fully shared one.Even in this day and age (in Canada but I'm sure the situation is similar in the U.S.), the vast majority of homeless youth are in that situation because their parents thought their child being gay was a big deal. Many of those youth staying in youth hostels and the like are gay. In New York, as you may know, Bea Arthur donated money for a homeless youth shelter for gays and lesbians. One of the reasons for this is that even among youth homeless shelters, there are some, like the Salvation Army, who also consider homosexuality to be a big deal.Gay youth usually have a pretty good idea of how their parents will react. If they don't think their parents will react well, I would counsel them to remain in the closet, unless they have a Plan B (another place to live). Yes, sometimes these parents will surprise them and react like its no big deal, but unfortunately, for some parents, it is a big deal. As long as you're still being supported financially by your parents, its not worth it to jeopardize this if you believe they won't react positively. You're better off staying in the closet to your folks until you're out of the house and able to support yourself.

Sat, March 31, 2012 @ 7:35 PM

Add a New Comment

Your Name:

Your Email/URL (Optional):

Your Comment:

Enter the code you see below:

 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.