Rwanda

That was about the 14:11 post by GSM.

Without knowing exactly what she said it’s impossible for me to know how bad it was, or if it was a non-PC comment which we know she tends to make.

Trouble is, that "non-PC" comments, aren't just done in a vacuum. They are indicative of the way a person thinks and can often lead to unacceptable ideas and comments.

It wisnae me either but I did see the post. I am aware that Ug is outspoken with her controversial opinions but I was disappointed to read comments that I considered to be racist. GNHQ couldn’t let that stand.

volver

Trouble is, that "non-PC" comments, aren't just done in a vacuum. They are indicative of the way a person thinks and can often lead to unacceptable ideas and comments.

Absolutely. I always assume that any extreme views are tempered by the fact that it is being posted on here and so it is only indicative of what a person thinks. The truth is probably far worse unfortunately.

It wasn't me. I was at the hairdressers. Not there when I went, gone when I came back.

(TBH, I don't bother to read Ug's posts so I could have slid past it without it registering.)

FYI it’s still possible to read GN threads whilst banned

GrannyGravy13

FYI it’s still possible to read GN threads whilst banned

I assumed that is the case. I’m not sure why it should matter though?

Today is the 6th anniversary of Joe Cox’s death by a white supremicist who action it is thought was prompted by the hate speech prevalent at the time.

Today a human rights QC posted that he had been having death threats prompted in part by Johnson’s language.

We ALL have a duty to modify our language and avoid racism.

There is no excuse.

Whitewavemark2

Today is the 6th anniversary of Joe Cox’s death by a white supremicist who action it is thought was prompted by the hate speech prevalent at the time.

Today a human rights QC posted that he had been having death threats prompted in part by Johnson’s language.

We ALL have a duty to modify our language and avoid racism.

There is no excuse.

Precisely.

GrannyGravy13

FYI it’s still possible to read GN threads whilst banned

I'm not really bothered about that, either, TBH

Well it wasn't me, I didn't even see the post before it was reported, but if, as we suspect, it was racist then I certainly would have reported it. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to offend, and I have been offended by said poster many times. There, I have outed myself as a woke, liberal, leftie.

I do not know what the deleted post said but generally, I would much rather this site allowed for posts which mods deem offensive to be greyed out but leaving them in situ. The content is no longer “in your face” and can still be read but needs a bit of effort to do so. Other forums do this. It would cut out all the post-deletion speculation too.

Moderating here is subjective and often seems indiscriminate and unfair e.g. provocative posts are left in situ but reasonable and perfectly justifiable responses are deleted. This creates a distortion of events. Pointless making representations to GNHQ as we know little is spent on the site and historical requests said to have been referred the “back room team” ages ago have still not been implemented.

You cant expect them to do that I am afraid. Whatever my views are on moderation of speech, you cant really expect a website to take the fall for peoples comments. It's an issue we need to tackle as a society rather than expect websites to deal with it.

CaravanSerai

I do not know what the deleted post said but generally, I would much rather this site allowed for posts which mods deem offensive to be greyed out but leaving them in situ. The content is no longer “in your face” and can still be read but needs a bit of effort to do so. Other forums do this. It would cut out all the post-deletion speculation too.

Moderating here is subjective and often seems indiscriminate and unfair e.g. provocative posts are left in situ but reasonable and perfectly justifiable responses are deleted. This creates a distortion of events. Pointless making representations to GNHQ as we know little is spent on the site and historical requests said to have been referred the “back room team” ages ago have still not been implemented.

They can’t leave racist posts up for legal reasons

That would be a good idea Caravanserai, as long as the post wasn't deemed to be so offensive as to be illegal, it would let us see what people really think.

The content is no longer “in your face” and can still be read but needs a bit of effort to do so. Other forums do this. It would cut out all the post-deletion speculation too

Interesting, I didn't know that. At least we could judge.

As I didnt see the deleted thread I cannot judge but at least GNHQ could give an explanation of why it was deleted, if it was sufficiently offensive to warrant suspension or a ban and thus end speculation.

Was it any worse than anything HM Government is saying, I wonder.
It would be boring if this became a 'nodding dog' site. Oh Yes.

You shouldnt be handing over the decision on what's offensive to random people who own websites. I think my two posts now contradict each other but it's a very complex area

Callistemon21

^The content is no longer “in your face” and can still be read but needs a bit of effort to do so. Other forums do this. It would cut out all the post-deletion speculation too^

Interesting, I didn't know that. At least we could judge.

As I didnt see the deleted thread I cannot judge but at least GNHQ could give an explanation of why it was deleted, if it was sufficiently offensive to warrant suspension or a ban and thus end speculation.

Was it any worse than anything HM Government is saying, I wonder.
It would be boring if this became a 'nodding dog' site. Oh Yes.

I did see the post and can remember the content. I don't think even the government would come up with something so blatantly offensive, although a couple of individual MPs have come close to it.

Galaxy

You shouldnt be handing over the decision on what's offensive to random people who own websites. I think my two posts now contradict each other but it's a very complex area

Why not? I manage a couple of online sites and I wouldn't accept anything which would offend a huge number of the members and would possibly be illegal. As the "publisher" of the sites, I would be held responsible.

If it was unlawful then understandably it was deleted.

But a ban?

Callistemon21

If it was unlawful then understandably it was deleted.

But a ban?

I don't know what the policy is. Maybe she's had warnings before.

WWM2 In which case it must have been bad. Much of what I read here from the right wing makes me wince and yet it remains in situ.

Off topic re Rwanda but regarding moderation - people might like to read the novel We had to remove this post by Hanna Bervoets. It's about the staff of third-party companies employed by socia media sites to moderate offensive content. The social media site isn't specifically named in the novel but the end notes make it obvious that it's based on real evidence about what gets posted on FB. It's shocking reading, the effect that having to look at vile content all day does to the minds of moderators.

Galaxy

You shouldnt be handing over the decision on what's offensive to random people who own websites. I think my two posts now contradict each other but it's a very complex area

I'm a bit gobsmacked by this. GN is not a "random person who owns a website". Its part of a £9 million pound company with a reputation to uphold.

I've had comments deleted in the past because someone gets offended by them and I shrug my shoulders and move on. They can decide. Its their site.

But I've never posted anything that is hateful about a particular demographic and which GN could be construed as advocating. They have advertisers who presumably don't want to be associated with racism or any thing like it. We all know what the rules are when we sign up. Stick by the rules or don't join. GN membership isn't a human right.

Earlier in the week, a couple of us tried not to post on a deliberately provocative thread, but as it was fast becoming a mutual admiration thread for the more blinkered posters, I for one felt I had to jump in to illustrate that we don't "all agree with the flights to Rwanda". Anyone lurking or a potential advertiser perhaps, would have got totally the wrong impression of the views of members of GN. Racist or whatever the post was today, would have the same effect. Sorry if this is a thread about a thread.