Saturday, July 31, 2010

Better Website Censorship

I am going to start off and say I do not entirely agree with the ethics behind this idea. Or rather, in general I disagree with censorship intended to limit free speech, and this idea would make censoring people who disagree with your viewpoint easier. However, in the same vein of free speech and following the intentions of my website, I am making this post.

There are many sites that censor aggressively. They have admins and automated bots scowering forums and comment sections on their site. They remove any comments that do not agree with their stated viewpoints. They remove anything that questions their logic or the validity of their arguments. Some sites will report blatantly false information as accurate and prevent anyone from saying otherwise on their site.

Inevitably, if the site is remotely popular, this will spawn a backlash. Perhaps people will discuss the censorship on another website's forum. In some cases entire sites are devoted to the suppression of free speech on just website.

Ultimately, the reason this happens is because people are aware that their freedom of speech has been impinged upon. The best way to do this is simply not to let them know they have been censored.

On many sites, when an admin removes a comment it can be a teaching moment. A person can learn 'ok, foul language is not accepted on this site,' or some similar lesson. However, if a site is removing comments because they criticize the site, they are not going to change the posters mind by doing so. Instead the poster will see that his comments have been removed and become incensed.

The way to deal with this is rather than removing 'undesired' posts, simply hide them. The only user who can see a hidden post would be the user who made the comment. There would be no indication to this user that the post has been hidden. He or she has no immediate reason to assume that they have been censored.

Likewise rather than banning someone, he is silenced. Only the admins would be aware of this, and to the silenced user his account would seem to work like normal. However, all of his posts would automatically be hidden. Any personal messages he sent to other users would never reach their recipients. A user who has banned but never realizes it may not be so quick to create a new account to 'troll.'

Now a user who has been 'censored' may eventually grow wise. If he or she has multiple accounts they will catch on quickly. However, the reason many people create multiple accounts is to work around bans or previous censorship. If they are blissfully unaware that no one is reading their comments, they may never bother creating a dummy account.

The other way in which they may grow wise is if they notice that people never seem to respond to their comments. However, it is not uncommon to make a comment on a website and have no one respond to it, even if they can read it. People often skim longer posts and threads and miss some comments. Depending on the situation, I could see a large period of time passing before someone finally caught on. They could, for some time, simply think the other users are bad at reading or paying attention.

If the site wanted to be really tricky, they would have bots that would create automated replies to any threads that a 'banned' user would create. He or she would be the only user who could see these replies. Effectively it creates a labyrinth of a subform to trap 'trolls.' They may eventually learn of the deception and escape, but until they do, they have been neutralized.

To throw people of the trail the occasional thread could be deleted traditionally and the occasional user could be straight up banned. For example if someone used fowl language, they may even expect to see their post removed, and doing so could keep them from being suspicious. The deception, hiding their posts from everyone but them, could be reserved for only the posts that dissent from the viewpoint your site promotes.

Now there could be even larger backlash if users discovered that this technique was used. However, sites that are already censoring opposing viewpoints are already facing disparaging remarks on other sites and this could let them avoid that. Yes, it is deceptive, but many sites do not mind deceptive. Would I ever use such a system on this blog? No. Of course it may be hard to figure out.

On a lighter note, the method of 'silencing' users rather than banning them could be effectively used even on sites that do not try to limit people's expression. Yes, it is still deceptive, but all sites have to deal with trolls. And sometimes a troll isn't someone who disagrees with you but is a legitimate jerk who is disrupting a site and needs to go.

2 comments:

  1. You can't censor this post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ahh. I see that I'm the first to post to this entry. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Have comments about my ideas? If you see something wrong with them, leave a comment. I'll try to comment back. If you have seen these ideas implemented/mentioned somewhere before, leave a comment. I like to think I am 'original' but that doesn't mean somebody has not beaten me to the punch. Finally, if you just have something to say, well comment that as well.