Update on Yachting Monthly and PBO

[BelleSerene]

I can't see why any commercial organisation would tolerate the homophobic, xenophobic, racist cesspit which is The Lounge, and I don't see why we leisure sailors should tolerate the damage it does our image. The moderation policy there isn't remotely strong enough, and I hope new buyers grasp the nettle once and for all.

Well indeed. Wouldn't the world be so much nicer a place if people we don't agree with could be excluded.

 

[zoidberg]

I can't see why any commercial organisation would tolerate the homophobic, xenophobic, racist cesspit which is The Lounge, and I don't see why we leisure sailors should tolerate the damage it does our image. The moderation policy there isn't remotely strong enough, and I hope new buyers grasp the nettle once and for all.

It's dismaying that rabid intolerance of others is permitted a platform without vigorous challenge, and such intolerance - of everything and anyone of a different viewpoint - grows louder. There's a long history of intolerance of different others, of course, wherever one looks - e.g. the Catholic Church's mass executions of Reformers, pogroms of Jewish communities throughout history, the Rohingya abuses - and the attitude expressed above grows in the same soil.

The question of whether a social media provider, such as here, should exercise censorship over content is very timely. Should this place be, as Zuckerberg suggests re Facebook, "A platform for all ideas"...? "Make the world more open and connected"...?

Prominent writer Nial Ferguson, in the Spectator, quotes the CEO of a large US ISP company, Matthew Prince - "I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet.... No-one should have that power...." Further, he reports Google using IT to document 'hate crime', and that YouTube 'doesn't allow hate speech or content that promotes or incites violence'. But, he asks, who decides what is 'hate speech'? That label has become the 21st Century equivalent of 'heresy', bandied about very freely, as are the epithets 'racist' and 'sexist' - far too easily levied, impossible to refute once yelled, and inevitably closes down adult discussion. Exactly the same as yelling 'homophobic, xenophobic, racist'.....

Who is 'JumbleDuck' and the like to decide what you or I should read and consider?

There are other places on the internet where tolerance of expressed views and comment is not moderated. They seem to manage harmoniously and well through peer pressure and courtesy, and are hosts to quite a few of those the likes of 'JumbleDuck' is loudly intolerant of. None are 'homophobic, xenophobic, racist' to an extent that others feel the need to suppress.

They are liberal in practice.

Then there are places where someone like CEO Matthew Prince finds an irresistible urge to prevent others expressing a view and decides to indulge that urge. Social excommunication..... That's illiberal. And fascist. Like what's going on in/around Catalonia today - and a few places closer to home.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Well indeed. Wouldn't the world be so much nicer a place if people we don't agree with could be excluded.

When those people are homophobes, xenophobes and racists then yes, it would. Oh, and I forgot "misogynist", so that one should go into the mix as well. Why on earth Time Inc are happy to host Stormfront-Lite is beyond me.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It's dismaying that rabid intolerance of others is permitted a platform without vigorous challenge, and such intolerance - of everything and anyone of a different viewpoint - grows louder.

I have no tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and I dislike seeing sailing linked to them online.

The question of whether a social media provider, such as here, should exercise censorship over content is very timely. Should this place be, as Zuckerberg suggests re Facebook, "A platform for all ideas"...? "Make the world more open and connected"...?

No. It should be a place to discuss sailing. Those who wish to indulge in discussion about how much they hate women / gay people / foreigners / ethnic minorities have, sadly, plenty of other places to do that.

 

[westhinder]

...It should be a place to discuss sailing. Those who wish to indulge in discussion about how much they hate women / gay people / foreigners / ethnic minorities have, sadly, plenty of other places to do that.

Absolutely agree

 

[Blue Sunray]

No. It should be a place to discuss sailing. Those who wish to indulge in discussion about how much they hate women / gay people / foreigners / ethnic minorities have, sadly, plenty of other places to do that.

+1

 

[BlueChip]

I could be persuaded to take out a digital subscription to a mag, provide there was an incentive to do so (price!).

Years ago (prior to our Atlantic circuit) I used to subscribe (digital copy) to a US magazine: Blue Water Sailing.
A digital copy was 55% of the print price (including P&P).
IIRC, there is no significant discount in price when you take out a digital sub instead of a print copy for YBW mags.

I mentioned this a couple of years ago to Richard Shead at SIBS, and his reply was that they had a different business model.
No shit, Sherlock. And how's that working out for you?

You'd better investigate Readly. A digital subscription library to more magazines including multiple yachting mags than you could ever read for little more than the cost of a YM subscription .

 

[Tomahawk]

I have no tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and I dislike seeing sailing linked to them online.

No. It should be a place to discuss sailing. Those who wish to indulge in discussion about how much they hate women / gay people / foreigners / ethnic minorities have, sadly, plenty of other places to do that.

IIRC, the Lounge was created because sailors tend to be very independent minded people of reasonable intellegence who are want to discuss things other than which anchor is best. I suppose it is a bit like peeps in a yacht club talking about things other than sailing, and were posting non sailing discussions on this forum to the extent it was becoming very crowded.

Scuttlebutt is a good place to talk about sailing. But do you really want to restrict people to only talking about anchors and waypoints? By an equal and opposite thought, consider that sailors tend to be reasonably wealthy.... wealthy enough to spend many thousands on a toy and such people are a very good segment for targeted marketing. There are only so many anchors you can buy for your boat. But you can market all sorts of non boating services if you are thoughtful. Hence the Lounge has a potentially useful roll for a publisher.

 

[JumbleDuck]

IIRC, the Lounge was created because sailors tend to be very independent minded people of reasonable intellegence who are want to discuss things other than which anchor is best.

Perhaps it was. But now it's mainly a forum for sad cases to vent their bigoted dislike of anyone even a little unlike them, and to whine when they are - from time to time - pulled up for doing so.

Hence the Lounge has a potentially useful roll for a publisher.

Not while it's the Monday Club online, it hasn't. Pure poison.

 

[[70521]]

Perhaps it was. But now it's mainly a forum for sad cases to vent their bigoted dislike of anyone even a little unlike them, and to whine when they are - from time to time - pulled up for doing so.

Personally, I'd like their comments contained in the Lounge as I can choose enter it or not. Ignore is always good.

 

[boatboat]

Perhaps it was. But now it's mainly a forum for sad cases to vent their bigoted dislike of anyone even a little unlike them, and to whine when they are - from time to time - pulled up for doing so.



Not while it's the Monday Club online, it hasn't. Pure poison.

And when the powers that be decide your own opinions are hateful?

What will you turn to then? Having trashed free speech you wont have a right to reply.

 

[doug748]

Scuttlebutt is a good place to talk about sailing. But do you really want to restrict people to only talking about anchors and waypoints?.

There have been several attempts, over the years, to raise non sailing topics on the hallowed Scuttlebutt pages, often little more than trolls. There seems to be a niff of it in this very thread.

Most folk on here are not interested in bull about people's profound beliefs unless it is related to sailing. It is best left that way in my view

 

[Time Out]

And when the powers that be decide your own opinions are hateful?

What will you turn to then? Having trashed free speech you won't have a right to reply.

Amazed this type of post only took 192 posts....same old nonsense. There is free speech and there is free speech....

 

[boatboat]

Amazed this type of post only took 192 posts....same old nonsense. There is free speech and there is free speech....

....said the tyrant. Only mine is allowed of course.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Personally, I'd like their comments contained in the Lounge as I can choose enter it or not. Ignore is always good.

Good point. However, once the dog has submerged all but the tip of his nose, it is supposed to let go the leaf onto which the fleas have moved. It would be rather nice to see the Lounge float off downstream ... along with the 90% of its contributors who never post in the boating forums.

 

[JumbleDuck]

And when the powers that be decide your own opinions are hateful?

They are at perfect liberty to do so. Their forums, their rules.

What will you turn to then? Having trashed free speech you wont have a right to reply.

Free speech is not a right to post irrelevant bigoted nonsense on privately owned forums

 

[Tomahawk]

Amazed this type of post only took 192 posts....same old nonsense. There is free speech and there is free speech....

But when is free speech censored?

By way of example, I was banned from Mumsnet after the killing of innocent people in Manchester because I asked a question. In fact my question was repeated by the BBC not a week later.. .. but I have still been banned. In short I have been censored.

So for all my friends on Mumsnet, I have simply disappeared. If they were to enquire, the answer would be, he broke the rules... but they would never be told what rule and for what action I was condemned. Such behaviour by an organisation bodes ill for free speech.

I sould like to think no one would be treated like that on here.

 

[newtothis]

But when is free speech censored?

By way of example, I was banned from Mumsnet after the killing of innocent people in Manchester because I asked a question. In fact my question was repeated by the BBC not a week later.. .. but I have still been banned. In short I have been censored.

So for all my friends on Mumsnet, I have simply disappeared. If they were to enquire, the answer would be, he broke the rules... but they would never be told what rule and for what action I was condemned. Such behaviour by an organisation bodes ill for free speech.

I sould like to think no one would be treated like that on here.

Why? If you came into my house and behaved in ways or said things I found unacceptable, I'd throw you out. My house, my rules. Mumsnet has its own set of rules, as does YBW; if you break them - and that is for them to decide - they can cut you off. If you don't like the rules, setting up a bulletin board where you can set the agenda is very easy.
Free speech has never been easier. Anyone can say what they like on their own blog/tweets/facebook. But you don't get to walk into an Arsenal pub and start bigging up Spurs, although you're welcome to give it a try.

 

[Tomahawk]

There is one flaw in your argument.

Mumsnet and this place are open to public view from anywhere. Although you have to me registered to post a comment.
Your house is a private to you and conversation in your house remains private unless someone repeats it.
You also ignore that the BBC asked exactly the same question as I did.

Let us leave it here.. Except to observe a report from FOOK last week about internet censorship in China which is seriously draconian. Did you know they have face recognition systems that will censor out cartoons of President Xi posted on Weechat (the state operated version of Instagram)?

 

[robertj]

It's dismaying that rabid intolerance of others is permitted a platform without vigorous challenge, and such intolerance - of everything and anyone of a different viewpoint - grows louder. There's a long history of intolerance of different others, of course, wherever one looks - e.g. the Catholic Church's mass executions of Reformers, pogroms of Jewish communities throughout history, the Rohingya abuses - and the attitude expressed above grows in the same soil.

The question of whether a social media provider, such as here, should exercise censorship over content is very timely. Should this place be, as Zuckerberg suggests re Facebook, "A platform for all ideas"...? "Make the world more open and connected"...?

Prominent writer Nial Ferguson, in the Spectator, quotes the CEO of a large US ISP company, Matthew Prince - "I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet.... No-one should have that power...." Further, he reports Google using IT to document 'hate crime', and that YouTube 'doesn't allow hate speech or content that promotes or incites violence'. But, he asks, who decides what is 'hate speech'? That label has become the 21st Century equivalent of 'heresy', bandied about very freely, as are the epithets 'racist' and 'sexist' - far too easily levied, impossible to refute once yelled, and inevitably closes down adult discussion. Exactly the same as yelling 'homophobic, xenophobic, racist'.....

Who is 'JumbleDuck' and the like to decide what you or I should read and consider?

There are other places on the internet where tolerance of expressed views and comment is not moderated. They seem to manage harmoniously and well through peer pressure and courtesy, and are hosts to quite a few of those the likes of 'JumbleDuck' is loudly intolerant of. None are 'homophobic, xenophobic, racist' to an extent that others feel the need to suppress.

They are liberal in practice.

Then there are places where someone like CEO Matthew Prince finds an irresistible urge to prevent others expressing a view and decides to indulge that urge. Social excommunication..... That's illiberal. And fascist. Like what's going on in/around Catalonia today - and a few places closer to home.

Well said!!