[Mod Edit To Remove Potentially Offensive Links]

[Johny]

Up

0

::

There is a thread doing the rounds where a website was included in the discussion and was subsequently removed with the message as shown in the title here, as the result of a comment – that was also removed from the discussion.

I appreciate the powers that be want to ensure the smooth and friendly running of the site, which means policing content. It is a discussion that has played out many times with the same answers usually given and I don’t expect anything different here. I should add, that for the most part, I agree with it.

Having seen the link before being deleted, I thought they were banal, and probably silly at most. But what is potentially offensive??

Yes, this is intended as a nice friendly forum where members can run around with glee and pixies play at the bottom of the garden, but everything is potentially offensive to those that want to take exception.

If for example, I owned a sex shop and provided a link to get feedback on my website, would it be allowed, or would it be removed for being potentially offensive.

This isn’t a rant about free speech, rather about trying to see where the limits are or whether decisions are made arbitrarily on a whim, at the slightest hint of protest, because, in this instance, it just seems a little over the top.

There is a quote I love that for me typifies how thin skinned we have become and it is here:-

(Warning: Potentially offensive naughty word included.)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

[bb1]

Up

0

::

Johny, I think you are referring to my complaint, which I understand would be covered by rule 10 in the following link.
http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/forums/index.php?threads/welcome-to-the-flying-solo-forums-please-play-nicely.589/

I would have no objections to a sex shop having a link here to use your example, as it is a legitimate business.

Just my view on the original links, every second post on the FB page contained the F word (which added no real value), and some were borderline sexist comments. All in my opinion.

The website had a direct copy of the first few posts on the FB page somehow in the bottom half off it, again with the F word up front.

Maybe I am being a little precious, happy to be told that privately and publicly, but you need to consider Flying Solo’s standing on search engines and such, so anyone running a search could potentially link to those pages.

My personal opinion

[Johny]

Up

0

::

Yes Bert it was your comment.

Let me say that you are entitled to your opinion, and I would not try to suggest otherwise. My comment though isn’t aimed at you although I would make one comment on that.

If there is a discussion and someone infers offence or removal of a topic for example, in a public forum that comment allows readers to learn a bit more about the person making the comments. It could be seen in a positive or negative light and could influence whether someone does business with them or not. In that regard, I reckon posts like that should remain.

Ultimately, my sex shop example does fall foul of rule 10 that you mention as it would contain adult content. So that is the rub for me. You have cited a rule to explain one position, but accept another that potentially breaches the same rule. Is that the way the powers that be would see it as well?

So it then becomes an issue of consistency. Of course I don’t know whether there were other complaints, or what others considerations were made. Given that the link and your post were both removed around the same time it gives the impression it was removed based on one complaint.

If that is the case, just not sure I agree with the haste in which it was removed.

[bb1]

Up

0

::

Johny, post: 250216, member: 34822 wrote:

Ultimately, my sex shop example does fall foul of rule 10 that you mention as it would contain adult content. So that is the rub for me. You have cited a rule to explain one position, but accept another that potentially breaches the same rule. Is that the way the powers that be would see it as well?

.

I just googled a sex shop, and looked at their website, and again just my opinion, and there actually wasn’t anything offensive on it, just advertising their products (all legal, no porn or anything), maybe it was the one I chose, no F words or the like to be seen actually. Whatever it’s open to someone to complain if a sex shop does post up here and the admins can make a decision on that.

So I am guessing from your comments [USER=34822]@Johny[/USER] you see no problems with a link littered with the F word, I found the C word as well, and a smattering of sexists comments as well. Not really what I would expect to see at a normal business, and could open FS open to a myriad of Complaints.

I would be interested in [USER=5]@Robert Gerrish[/USER] comments on that, I always took this forum as decent place to hang out (again my opinion on what the links contained).

I was surprised when my comment was deleted, but I can understand why. I should have reported the post rather then post what I did, but as the original posters post had already been reviewed and commented on by the Admins, I was a little taken aback that they were happy with it.

[Johny]

Up

0

::

Nope, I have no problem with a link littered with swear words or anything else as long as it is legal. Swear words are nothing more than I hear on everyday TV. For me the determination should be whether the discussion topic is genuine or not.

Different story if they are openly displayed on this forum in the main text. Then I would agree with having them removed. I would have thought any reasonable adult can open a link, see what is there and then decide whether or not they want to read on.

Why would people complain? Ah yes, they take offence. Already covered that.

I already know what Robert will say, I mentioned it in my first post.

Perhaps rather than a link being deleted a warning suggesting those easily miffed shouldn’t read would

[Paul – FS Concierge]

Up

0

::

Just to point out that I wrote to you personally Bert and explained that I had not seen anything I found offensive.

Given that I subsequently removed the original links and acted on your report, I think it is safe to infer that I wasn’t “happy with it”.

We don’t think of our rules within a framework of censorship, more a framework of wanting everyone present to be comfortable so applying the rules relies on making judgement calls.

When one of our members makes a report, that is important information that we take seriously.

Cheers

[JohnTranter]

Up

0

::

Johny, post: 250209, member: 34822 wrote:

(Warning: Potentially offensive naughty word included.)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

I’m guessing no one reported Johnny’s post for linking to a link with potentially offensive language. The warning makes it quite clear that offence may be caused. I’m sure I’ve referenced websites in the past containing a litany of swear words, but I did warn beforehand that they contained offensive language. (The “best m.f. website” and others for those who want to look it up)

Maybe the original post should have had this warning added, rather than the link removed. It made the whole thread a bit confusing as the reference website couldn’t be easily found.

[Author]

Posts