moderated Non-permitted groups


Stephen Cowley <stephen.cowley@...>
 

The list of groups that are not permitted under the "Help" section is as follows on 28 Dec 2019:

"We do not permit the following types of groups and content:

  1. Pornography, adult content or nudity.
  2. Harassment of any kind.
  3. Groups that share media or content whose distribution would be in violation of copyright law.
  4. Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
  5. Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, including, but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
  6. Groups dedicated to the promotion of anti-vaccination ideologies.
  7. Groups that are designed strictly to use our directory as an advertisement for something other than the group itself."
I object to the limits 4 and 5 place on political discourse. The central terms are undefined, subjective and even self-contradictory. To cut to the chase, "Alt-Right" ideas (e.g. immigration restriction, retention of ethnic majorities) are majority positions in much of the world. The elected governments of India (BJP), Japan and South Korea for example enjoy majority support, as do the elected governments of Hungary and Poland. Why should ideas with 70% popular support be branded "extreme"? The category of "hateful" is subjective, as one person may like what another person hates. Any immigration policy is "exclusionary", as it excludes people who do not meet the immigration criteria, but the remaining position of open borders is itself "extreme", as virtually all countries have immigration and citizenship tests. If "Alt-Right" ideas are beyond the pale, why not communism, or socialism, or deep ecology, or liberalism, or conservatism? 

The classic texts of liberalism (Joseph Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty)  advocate for free discussion as a means of getting to the truth of a matter. The internet flourished on this in its early days. I would like to see these principles applied on this site.


 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:26 AM Stephen Cowley via Groups.Io <stephen.cowley=blueyonder.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:
The list of groups that are not permitted under the "Help" section is as follows on 28 Dec 2019:
    4. Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
    5. Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, including, but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
I object to the limits 4 and 5 place on political discourse. The central terms are undefined, subjective and even self-contradictory.

If you object, you should take your groups elsewhere. There are plenty of places on the Internet to host groups; Facebook is a popular place to host these types of groups.

I am happy to consider better definitions, should you have them. But I will not consider removing these restrictions.

I have moderated this topic and will delete any non-constructive responses.

Mark 


 

I, for one, am happy these rules are here. I know that I can support this site without supporting hateful people and extreme conspiracies. Besides, there's always Google Groups. You can go elsewhere to places that support these kinds of groups.


Duane
 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 09:26 AM, Stephen Cowley wrote:
I object to the limits 4 and 5 place on political discourse.
You do know that you don't have to use this site?

Duane


Kristen James Eberlein
 

Mark, thank you for providing a site that does not host groups that advocate conspiracy theories or the alt-right.

I (and the other moderators of dita-users) appreciate this very much, and it was one of the key factors in why we selected Groups.io.

Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Owner, DITA-users@groups.io


 

I am very happy that groups.io does have these restrictions. That´s one reason I´m not at facebook. And by the way: Any provider has the right to set his/her own regulations.

Victoria

 


Barbara Byers
 

Mark’s list, Mark’s rules.  Thank you, Mark!

Barb B


On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Stephen Cowley via Groups.Io <stephen.cowley@...> wrote:

The list of groups that are not permitted under the "Help" section is as follows on 28 Dec 2019:

"We do not permit the following types of groups and content:

  1. Pornography, adult content or nudity.
  2. Harassment of any kind.
  3. Groups that share media or content whose distribution would be in violation of copyright law.
  4. Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
  5. Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, including, but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
  6. Groups dedicated to the promotion of anti-vaccination ideologies.
  7. Groups that are designed strictly to use our directory as an advertisement for something other than the group itself."
I object to the limits 4 and 5 place on political discourse. The central terms are undefined, subjective and even self-contradictory. To cut to the chase, "Alt-Right" ideas (e.g. immigration restriction, retention of ethnic majorities) are majority positions in much of the world. The elected governments of India (BJP), Japan and South Korea for example enjoy majority support, as do the elected governments of Hungary and Poland. Why should ideas with 70% popular support be branded "extreme"? The category of "hateful" is subjective, as one person may like what another person hates. Any immigration policy is "exclusionary", as it excludes people who do not meet the immigration criteria, but the remaining position of open borders is itself "extreme", as virtually all countries have immigration and citizenship tests. If "Alt-Right" ideas are beyond the pale, why not communism, or socialism, or deep ecology, or liberalism, or conservatism? 

The classic texts of liberalism (Joseph Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty)  advocate for free discussion as a means of getting to the truth of a matter. The internet flourished on this in its early days. I would like to see these principles applied on this site.


Drew
 

The conspiracy theory category seems awfully broad. It could include topics like Area 51, Planet X, Moon landing, Bigfoot, dollar bill symbology, Flight 007, HAARP, chem trails, JFK, Lincoln, Julius & Ethel Rosenberg... Perhaps the intended "objectionable" conspiracies would be eliminated by the other restrictions?

Drew

On 12/28/19 10:35, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:26 AM Stephen Cowley via Groups.Io <stephen.cowley=blueyonder.co.uk@groups.io <mailto:blueyonder.co.uk@groups.io>> wrote:
The list of groups that are not permitted under the "Help" section
is as follows on 28 Dec 2019:
4. Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or
exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
5. Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories,
including, but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
I object to the limits 4 and 5 place on political discourse. The
central terms are undefined, subjective and even self-contradictory.
If you object, you should take your groups elsewhere. There are plenty of places on the Internet to host groups; Facebook is a popular place to host these types of groups.
I am happy to consider better definitions, should you have them. But I will not consider removing these restrictions.
I have moderated this topic and will delete any non-constructive responses.
Mark


txercoupemuseum.org
 

I mentioned very recently that one of my reasons to be in this group is to get a better sense of the “defining culture” within 
Groups.io.  Mark has most clearly and eloquently established the “rules of participation” of HIS organization.  

Like any “parent”, it is for him and him alone to set limits within “his house” that define “his values”.  Since we are all known by the company we keep I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable here.  

In his place, only strong convictions keep a steady course and avoid the shoals of timidity or inaction.  One need only recall their own experiences as a child to understand that life can be very stressful in the moral vacuum that quickly arises when no responsible person establishes and enforces civility.  

The individuals that founded this country were well aware of the forms of oppression that adversely affect minorities under pure "majority rule".   They incorporated numerous checks and balances to mitigate this.  

From what I have observed of his actions and inactions over recent months Mark consistently strives to “do the right thing”.  
I am most favorably impressed to date with the moral balance Mark has established and maintains within Groups.io.

WRB

— 

On Dec 28, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:26 AM Stephen Cowley via Groups.Io <stephen.cowley=blueyonder.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:
The list of groups that are not permitted under the "Help" section is as follows on 28 Dec 2019:
    4. Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
    5. Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, including, but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
I object to the limits 4 and 5 place on political discourse. The central terms are undefined, subjective and even self-contradictory.

If you object, you should take your groups elsewhere. There are plenty of places on the Internet to host groups; Facebook is a popular place to host these types of groups.

I am happy to consider better definitions, should you have them. But I will not consider removing these restrictions.

I have moderated this topic and will delete any non-constructive responses.

Mark 
_._,_._,_


 

I, too, am very happy the restrictions are here.

I remember a debate on beta about the restrictions when they first came into being (or were being contemplated by Mark). Some people argued that they would be bad for business or that they had no place here, etc. My argument then, as it is now, was that the restrictions (not to make light of them) are "a feature, not a bug" - in other words, they are good for business, not bad.  And now we are seeing that come to pass, in hearing from at least one person in this thread that they specifically picked groups.io over other platforms because of them.

So good job, Mark. Carry on!
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 08:52 AM, Drew wrote:
The conspiracy theory category seems awfully broad
Maybe, but I don't think that matters. It gives Mark wiggle room to pick and choose when there is any question about it.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Glenn Glazer
 

I have found, when moderating groups and other organizations, that when rules that limit intolerance are questioned, that it is helpful to refresh myself on the Paradox of Tolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I hope others also find it useful in supporting why such rules must exist.

Best,

Glenn


Kinji Kameda <hakuchi@...>
 

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Mark Fletcher wrote:

If you object, you should take your groups elsewhere.
Nice to notice there is such a good welcome to different opinions and discussion ... makes it clear that I do not need to continue my study of this thigie anymore.

I'm not going to support any fascist-site-thingie that is not allowing free speech and discussion of different opinions and has such intolerant view of more tolerant views of dicussion.

Nice thing I didn't invest any more into this ... couple days of browsing is something I can waste for something like this.

Good this unearthed sooner than later.

Keep on rockin' in the ?Free?world!


<EOM>

\\\..
^.. \\

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." - Kyōami

.


 

The conspiracy theory category seems awfully broad. It could
include topics like Area 51, Planet X, Moon landing, Bigfoot,
dollar bill symbology, Flight 007, HAARP, chem trails, JFK,
Lincoln, Julius & Ethel Rosenberg... Perhaps the intended
"objectionable" conspiracies would be eliminated by the
other restrictions?
And therein lies the problem. Some of the ideas you mention (such as chemtrails) are seen by most as disinformation from the tinfoil hat crowd. Trying to define these things is difficult because of what different people define them as. If this was a group, the moderator would handle such comments on a case-by-case basis, as they see fit. Given that Mark is the owner, I'm satisfied with his good judgement to do the same thing. He must, after all, consider the reputation of groups.io. As has been repeated, there are other places to home such groups.

Dano


 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 12:34 PM, D R Stinson wrote:
Trying to define these things is difficult because of what different people define them as
True. And when you think about it logically, using the broad term "conspiracy theory" to rule out groups creates no problem in the way of discouraging groups from applying who might otherwise apply. Nobody who believes in a conspiracy theory thinks it's a conspiracy theory, so group owners reading that conspiracy theory groups are disallowed will just apply anyway. Then Mark can decide whether it's a benign or a non-benign conspiracy theory. No harm done.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Charles Roberts
 

DLTDHYITA.....

Chuck


On Dec 28, 2019 12:22 PM, "Kinji Kameda via Groups.Io" <hakuchi@...> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Mark Fletcher wrote:

> If you object, you should take your groups elsewhere.

Nice to notice there is such a good welcome to different opinions and
discussion ... makes it clear that I do not need to continue my study of
this thigie anymore.

I'm not going to support any fascist-site-thingie that is not allowing
free speech and discussion of different opinions and has such intolerant
view of more tolerant views of dicussion.

Nice thing I didn't invest any more into this ... couple days of browsing
is something I can waste for something like this.

Good this unearthed sooner than later.

Keep on rockin' in the ?Free?world!


<EOM>

\\\..
^.. \\

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." - Kyōami

.





 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:17 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:

DLTDHYITA.....

I would like to apologize for approving this message. This is not the type of atmosphere I'd like to foster here on beta. Thanks to the people who called me on this. I was wrong.

Mark


Stephen Cowley <stephen.cowley@...>
 

Hi Mark,

Yes, there have to be rules, but these reflect the nature of any real discussion if they are phrased in a way that reflects the views of a reasonable person (legal term). So I suggest that you consider including "the advocacy of violence or illegality by other ideologies" in point 4 as a definition. At present, all your examples are American and some/all probably ephemeral.

All the best
Stephen Cowley


Bill in OKC too
 

Mark, I had to look it up to see why it would be a problem.  Personally, I don't see it as a problem. Anyone who doesn't want to be here is welcome to leave. You and I don't really agree politically, but you've never intruded your beliefs on me, and I try not to intrude mine on you. It is an axiom of our country that we're free to believe as we wish, and to associate as we wish. Anyone who doesn't like the few rules here can certainly find someplace else to be. I know you to be an honest and decent person despite our differences, as when I left groups.io in the middle of 2016 over problems with your Terms of Service, you addressed them by more clearly defining what you needed and exactly how you would use your access to our copyrighted data. Which is why I've been a happy paying customer since 

Bill in OKC

William R. Meyers, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)


A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
LAZARUS LONG (Robert A. Heinlein)


 

Hi.  I am a lurker here, never post.   Always interesting to me to see the discussions.   On the group I moderate, this subject of rules comes up often.  Almost always brought up by someone who is more interested in the actual words, vs the spirit, of the rules.  As I usually remind people, we will never get every rule right - it’s just the nature of things.   Remember the spirit.  


The other thing we always remind people is that the First Amendment does not apply here - we are a private group.  Mark is right - if you don’t like it, you can go elsewhere.   It’s another sad reality that most people who quote the first amendment don’t understand it.  


Overall, kudos to Mark for establishing this space for all of us to use.  His rules, and the spirit of them, seem fair.  So does the application.  The wording could be better - perhaps remove the examples and make it about the concept (Mark - let me know if you would like some examples sent to you offline for you consideration).  


Stay warm everyone.   Here’s to 2020 being the best year it can be.