I make no pretence that I suffer the abuse many do on social media. But I do know many who suffer from misogynist, racist, homophobic and other attacks in many forms of social media. And like many people I am shocked and appalled by such behaviour.
And I am also aware of blogs that encourage abuse and intolerance as a matter of course. That may not be the same as the sort of abuse now attracting attention but let's not pretend it s much more than one stage removed from it. The encouragement of hatred and intolerance is a violent form of politics incompatible with democracy, social harmony and respect whatever it is used to promote.
I don't think I can do much about the forms of abuse being found on twitter at present except express how strongly i condemn it. I can do something about the intolerance commonplace in the blogosphere.
So I will be strictly enforcing my comments policy. I promote transparency and accountability. So leave your name or at least what looks like a verifiable email address (and I do test them) or you won't be published.
And if you comment here but also comment favourably on blogs where abuse is encouraged or supported expect to be deleted as well even if your comment here appears reasonable. I am having a zero tolerance policy to those who embrace abuse.
The plus is the remaining comments will be all the more useful.
And please don't bother to appeal. Editorial freedom is a right too.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I wold suggest that the various TV shows such as big brother, weakest link, etc ie the pervading “culture” has been encouraging bullying as acceptable.
Interesting suggestion
You can add “The Apprentice” to that list too!
I entirely endorse your horror at the recent twitters.
I am concerned that individuals are able to be extraordinary offensive in what they “say” on IT media when I am sure they would rarely contemplate being so personally offenive if they were face to face with the person that they are attacking, or vilifying.
Clarly the social media have to take steps to cut out some of this offensive behaviour and the rest of us have to see how we can ensure that individual commentators deal with the “subject” not the “person”.
We do need vigorous and uninhibited debate on the key topics of the day but we do have to be able to police the arenas where these debates now take place to ensure that it is the topics that are confronted, and dissected, and not the individuals.
Thanks Ian
I want to note that several commentators who fall foul of the ban on those who openly support the policy of blogs where abuse is commonplace have placed abusive comment on this thread, as might be expected.
Their comments have been deleted.
One also suggested I wished to create an echo chamber – which is exactly, of course, what right wing think tanks set out to do
As has the comment of someone who has commented often of late anonymously claiming doing so protects him from the sort of abuse Edward Snowden exposed. In response to him a) no it does not and b) secrecy is not defeated by secrecy – it is defeated by transparency.
Get used to it is my suggestion.
All further such comments will be deleted.
This policy is going to stay
Absolutely hilarious that a right-wing troll is comparing him/herself to Ed Snowden – that’s the kind of persecution complex some of these people have. Given that this is probably the most right-wing govt Britain’s ever had, and that there are vans going round the streets of London with billboards displaying taxpayer-funded right wing troll messages telling immigrants to “go home”, this govt is in fact ENCOURAGING right-wing trolls, not persecuting them. In any case, the comparison is idiotic, because Ed Snowden had to make his revelations WITHOUT being anonymous for them to have any impact – otherwise the powers that be would have just said the whole thing was a fantasy and a fraud.
I understand you may not want to give these abusive blogs publicity, but I think your policy needs a little more clarity if it is to meet your stated objectives. A transparent system should allow prospective posters to determine, with a fairly decent degree of accuracy, if their comment satisfies the guidelines. It would be helpful if you would indicate where the line is drawn between the abuse contained in whatever it is that is being said on whichever blogs you are thinking of on the one hand, and what merely constitutes robust comment (such as the “manipulative bullshitters” reference in one of your recent postings) on the other.
The policy is clear
First, calling liars “bullshitters” is hardly on the offensive scale these days
Second, the comment was made by an identified source I was quoting
Third, it had evidential backing of considerable depth
That is fair comment
Participating in web sites that approve abusive language and an aggressive tone, frequently laden with sexual innuendo and all with clear intent to oppress those calling for greater equality in society, which comment carries with it the clear message that violence in pursuit of greed and manipulation to secure advantage is acceptable, means a commentator is not welcome here, ever.
How much clearer can I be?
Note to poster:
This post was removed
If you wish to comment provide your identity
Hi Richard
Could you perhaps give a list of at least some of these abusive blogs so I know to avoid them. I don’t want to put myself in any danger ideologically, nor do I like foul language or anything that is homophobic, sexist, racist, Islamophobic or critical of the disabled or poor.
As a suggestion, maybe you should abandon random comments completely. Set up a separate email address (so your normal inbox doesn’t get clogged). Invite readers to comment to you privately by email to that email address. You can converse or delete as you see fit. And then maybe publish those more interesting conversations (as you see fit). Just a suggestion…
The most cursory survey of the right wing blogosphere will quickly identify sites to avoid
Thanks, but my question is what you consider the right wing blogosphere for the purposes of ensuring continued welcome here?
I am fairly left wing, so I’m afraid just about everything looks right wing to me. For example, would you consider Archbishop Cranmer to be acceptable? And whilst the Adam Smith blog is definitely right wing, I wouldn’t describe the bloggers there as particularly rude or abusive.
Do you comment on such blogs on an approving way? I have certainly never noted you doing so?
Is it likely?
In that case does it matter?
Well, I might want to comment on them one day, either under my own name or under a nickname. And I may not necessarily disagree with everything the blogger has said. I am yet to meet anyone in life with whom I disagree on literally everything. There is always common ground between people.
I just want to know beforehand so I don’t accidentally become persona non grata here. You have given us the warning, I just want to be as well informed of your intentions as possible so I know the boundaries.
Can you maybe list, say, 3 of the worst offending?
Respectfully, that is your last comment as you are very clearly abusing the rules here
Note to poster:
This post was removed
If you wish to comment provide your identity
Richard,
You have lost it.
Your claim that this is the case justifies my suspicion of your posts
Please do not call again
I have far from lost it
I am standing up for exactly what is the right thing to do