| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-May-01 08:16 PM
San wrote:
>I was actually debating against putting the link myself but
>hey it was the first time someone's written a critique about
>it so I made the exception.
I would urge you to welcome criticisms of this site
ALL THE TIME anywhere, whether for the first or
the nth time.
I mean, most of us are reasonable people.
If the criticisms are stupid and unfair, we
will see them as such.
If they are fair and constructive, we can
all learn from them.
It's really that simple.
Also, by posting criticisms about ourselves and
this site, we collectively display a sense of
self-confidence -- something that's sorely
lacking among our fellow-Nepalis.
And, you know what, self-confidence (which is
DIFFERENT from arrogance) attracts people
to the postings and to the site.
>Also, we are changing our policy regarding
>anonymous postings in that we will be deleting all
>anonymous postings that have questionable criticisms
>and/or personal grudges in them. It's not fair to let some
>people hide behind anonymity and say unwarranted things
>about others.
San,
Like you in another context, I too have been a
victim of anonymous, slanderous postings on
numerous occasions. (I am sure those who have been
reading my postings here and on SCN know this
quite well.)
Even then, I am firm in my belief that I, for one,
would NOT -- N-0-T -- want to delete anonymous
postings even when they are damaging to me
personally.
Why?
Because once you -- as a Web master -- start to
judge what's "questionable" and what's "personal
grudge" about other anonymous people's postings
and try to take actions accordingly (i.e. delete
them), then there's no stopping you or anyone else
from deciding where the line/limit should be drawn.
I mean, I know that you are great guy, but I
would worry about giving too much powe to
one individual in PUBLIC space.
And as someone who swears by freedom of speech,
I am of the opinion that occasional "questionable"
postings and "slanderous" postings are really
small prices to pay for the FREEDOM to speak up
our mind freely on this Web site. I think, most
of us are attracted to the site because we can
speak up our mind freely here. Else, why would
we be here?
That freedom is MORE IMPORTANT and MORE valuable
than the occasional "questionable" or "slanderous"
postings.
Also, you must have noticed the remarkable
DECREASE in the number of anonymous postings
on this site and a remarkable INCREASE in
the number of people using their own names.
Now, how did this happen? Certainly NOT
by having the kind of rules and regulations
that you are proposing now, but by posters
who have been served as examples to others
by posting stuff intheir own name and taking
the blame/praise for their own postings!!
And the site is still evolving, attracting
more people from Boston, Nepal and elsewhere.
Another argument against your proposal would be:
As it is, you are doing a great job as the
Webmaster. I would imagine that that itself must
take up a lot of you time. If so, now, why do you
want to take additional burden of being the Thought
Police -- judging what's questionable and what's
not and then taking actions?
Anyway, to sum up, I would urge you NOT to
start imposing restrictions on this site.
Of course, you are free to impose restrictions,
of course. But when you do that, then something
intangibly wonderful about this site dies.
oohi
ashu
To those who want to post criticisms
anonymously, this is what i have to say: if you want to
criticize someone you better have the guts to use your own
name and a valid email address, otherwise this site is not
for you.
|
| San |
Posted
on 19-May-01 12:10 AM
Dear Ashu,
I appreciate your views on this and I have and will always stand by freedom and truth. I volunteer my time doing this for the GBNC which has the ultimate ownership of this site, and I have to abide by what GBNC thinks about certain matters.
In any event, regarding freedom of speech, here's my two cents. Practicing freedom of speech is a great thing. That's why we give freedom such importance. Being able to do what one wants to do is a basic necessity that each individual should have. But not at the expense of someone else.
Even in the land of the free, they have rules that make sure everything is running smoothly. Practicing freedom does not mean that you can hide behind the bush and shoot someone in the back. Posting slanderous articles about someone or criticizing someone using an anonymous name is comparable to that. That is not freedom. Maybe it's freedom for the anonymous poster, but it's not freedom for the person being criticized. Just like in the free world where people deserve to be able to breathe freely and be free of people mugging them, shooting them from behind; in the internet people need to be free of irresponsible people who post slandererous comments against them using anonymous names.
Also, I would like to promote this site as a place where responsible people exercise their freedom of speech, not some irresponsible person hiding behind a anonymous name asking so and so to pay up his 50 dollars, or how someone shirks his duties as so and so etc. I don't want this site to be the source of discouragement to the people who want to do something for the community and to the posters who want to discuss valid issues, because some anonymous poster is bent on showing them down.
For a society to grow, there needs to be laws in place that provides security and freedom to the people living in the society. For a discussion forum to grow, we need to have some rules so that the regular posters or people associated with this association, feel secure about anonymous posters not altering the meaning of freedom that we would like to share with each other through our productive discussions and musings.
Ashu bro, the site has seen much growth in the past thanks to your untiring efforts and zeal in sharing with us many interesting things. You are a very important part of this site and I hope you understand that with this posting I'm opening up a new discussion regarding 'freedom of speech for netizens' definition of freedom for the citizens of the net.
I would love to hear what everyone has to say regarding this. Let's do this in a democratic way!
Regards,
San
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-May-01 11:18 AM
Yes, let's hear other voices too. Meantime, here are soem thoughts.
San wrote:
>Even in the land of the free, they have rules that make sure >everything is running smoothly.
No.
The First Amendment issues in the US are never so clear-cut and dry and finalized for things to "run smoothly".
If anything, they are always being discussed, heatedly debated about, vigorously researched/commented upon, and pushed to the whatever limits, and so on and on.
And all that is GOOD for the continuing vitality/vibrancy of democracy in the land of the free.
Using similar logc, on a micro, micro-level, why can't the same also hold true for the continuing vitality/vibrancy of this slice of Nepali democracy? After all, are we not for democratic debates here -- no matter how unpleasant some of our discussion topics
turn out to be?
>Practicing freedom does not
>mean that you can hide behind the bush and shoot someone
>in the back. Posting slanderous articles about someone or >criticizing someone using an anonymous name is comparable to >that. That is not freedom. Maybe it's freedom for the anonymous >poster, but it's not freedom for the person being criticized.
I agree with you 100 per cent on one level.
But let's get real.
1) Whether we like it or not, we live in a world that's
conflict-ridden, has back-biters, has problems and so on.
We don't live in some la-la land where things are all great
all the time.
2) But the charm of this site is that more closely this
RESEMBLES the real world, the more believable our
experiences here are going to be. This authenticity of
experiences is something that's going to attract real
people who, in turn, have the incentive to post stuff
in their own names. (To a large extent, this is already
happening here, and that's good!)
Putting 1) and 2) together, we can argue that ONLY when we work hard to make this site mirror the real world by making experiences here as real as those found in our off-line world then we have a site that real people want to come -- for the colors, for the characters, for the autheticity of live-human experiences/thoughts and ideas.
Else, my fear is that, by imposing even so-called good-intentioned restrictions, we'd end up with a sanitized, antiseptic site that'd be too nice, too polite,
too priggish and very, very boring.
Also, let's look at it this way.
Fortunately, our readers here are collectively MUCH, much SMARTER than individual posters like you or me.
Now, just because some idiot criticizes you anonymously in public
does NOT mean that your readers are going to buy that idiot's
"gaali" lock, stock and barrel. Readers ARE going to look for reasons, and they don't believe everything they read.
And so, if you are doing a good job, then you have to have faith in yourself that readers, even people who have doubted or doubt you, will turn around to see things for what they are.
Having faith in yourself to push ahead when some people
around you are anonymously hellbent on destroying you
is an excellent way to stretch your emotional
muscles so that they don't break easily. And this is
something all our Nepali public leaders need to
learn -- whether they run GBNC, this Web site, or the
country of Nepal.
Else, it'd be a pity if we ended up with Nepalis with
brittle ego and fragile emotional states -- the ones who
fall apart or fly off the handle or are severely distressed at the first blast of public criticism even when those criticisms
come anonymously.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-May-01 11:22 AM
CONTINUATION:
>Just like in the free world where people deserve to be able
>to breathe freely and be free of people mugging them,
>shooting them from behind; in the internet people need to
>be free of irresponsible people who post slandererous
>comments against them using anonymous names.
Well, like I said, nothing comes for free,
even freedom itself.
Giving space in a public forum like this to people who criticize/slander you -- whether overtly or covertly -- is
the best way one can preach and practice democratic
values. And these occasional slanders/criticisms are
small prices to pay for big freedom of speech. So, there's
this trade-off.
I would prefer this arrangerment much mre to something
whereby one person, even a good person, decides for all what's "questionable" and what's "slandeous" and so on.
As hisry has taught us, especially our oen Panchayati history,
such a one-person or one-group decision-making apparatus is the first step toward being autocratic, and I, for one, oppose such an apparatus to begin with.
>Also, I would like to promote this site as a place where >responsible people exercise their freedom of speech,
We all want that too.
I's just that I, for one, think that the best way to achieve
that goal is by NOT setting up blanket restrictions but by appealing to the reason of all reasonable people who post
and read stuff here. I wouldn't worry about the ouliers,
the five per centers, who want to post slanderous
stuff anonymously -- they are simply not important here.
>I don't want this site to be the source of discouragement
>to the people who want to do something for the community
>and to the posters who want to discuss valid issues,
>because some anonymous poster is bent on showing them down.
>For a society to grow, there needs to be laws in place
>that provides security and freedom to the people living
>in the society. For a discussion forum to grow, we need to
>have some rules so that the regular posters or people
>associated with this association, feel secure about
>anonymous posters not altering the meaning of freedom
>that we would like to share with each other through
>our productive discussions and musings.
I agree with you.
And I share your concerns.
The site has already attracted these many people PRECISELY because:
a) people know that they are exposed to authetic issues posted by autheentic people.
b) and, people know that when you are exposed to authetic issues, you get a few oddball issues too and you can safely ignore such
oddall issues. I have this faith in our readers.
So, I wouldn't worry too much about restricting topics
and issues.
*******************
>Ashu bro, the site has seen much growth in the past thanks
>to your untiring efforts and zeal in sharing with us many >interesting things. You are a very important part of this
>site
Thank you, San. But as you well know, I greatly
value your work.
By temperament, I am passionate about being a catalyst for many things in and out of Nepal -- both personally and professionally,
and it's great to know that you appreciate my being a catalyst here too.
On a general level, though, this freedom of speech issue is so deeply dear to my heart (I've been defending it since 1993 on
the Net) that I really don't want the usual seemingly-true Nepali good-intentions (which is basically like 'authoritarian thinking with a nice smile) clouding up the underlying principles.
Thanks, now, let's hear other voices too.
oohi
ashu
|
| San |
Posted
on 19-May-01 04:21 PM
You said:
"But let's get real.
1) Whether we like it or not, we live in a world that's
conflict-ridden, has back-biters, has problems and so on.
We don't live in some la-la land where things are all great
all the time. "
You are absolutely correct in that we live in a world which is conflict ridden which has lots of back biters and other problems. We are trying to control these problems in the world, why shouldn't we try to control them where we can?
Aren't we trying to make each day of our life resemble the la-la land if it was possible? Now, why is it not right to try to make our experience in this site resemble a la-la land?
Just because the outside world is full of problems we do not have to try to recreate that inside our own house just because it seems so unreal living in a nice house. Although there are lots of problems in the outside world, we try to create the best possible house where we can live and exercise our freedom. If someone writes bad stuff on the walls of our house, we would not leave it there or promote such activity saying we want our house to reflect all the problems that exist in the society. We want to keep our house clean and nice and as free of the problems in the society as possible. If someone is bent on creating problem for the house, we do our best to try to protect it.
It does not take a parliament to decide which posting is malicious or not. If the posting involves accusations towards a certain person using an invalid email address, that's the kind of posting that is malicious and the kind that this website is proposing to filter.
Just because the outside world is full of problems we do not have to try to recreate that inside this site, when we can control it. I think of it this way, act locally think globally. If we just realize that there are problems in the world, and not see how we can correct them in our day to day lives as much as we can, these problems will never end. Ok, I'm not trying to save the world here by doing this :) but why allow such bs to take place in your neighborhood when you can do something to stop it, like set up vigilances etc.
So much for now.... Love to hear other's comments too.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 19-May-01 06:50 PM
I think freedom of speech doesn't necessarily involve giving an
unfettered access to both polish & soil this website. Several
reknowned websites of world famous media houses don't have to
give such access to its readers to prove that they value the
freedom of speech/writing. So,proposing such means doesn't violate
the basic belief of this website.
However, the question is do we have any serious problem yet in
this website? No. Most of the writers are well behaved. It is
an unopportune time to implement such measure.
|
| akhilesh |
Posted
on 19-May-01 08:17 PM
Biswa:
I agree with you. You can't shoot people hiding behind the fence. There are some columnists in Nepali journalism, for instance, who are pretty good with word-play. But their writings turn into placid nothingness - just like our politician's election promises - the moment I read their bylines. I know web is a much different form of communication, and i realize my arguments risk getting challenged. But never mind. Let's hear more on this. Ashu made quite a case himself.
The only GNBC regulars that I know are Ashu and Namita, and yet I have been equally drawn to arguments from Biswa, Trilok and Diwas, names, for argument's sake, that could well have been X, Y, and Z. Wonder whether I have mad my point.
akhilesh
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 20-May-01 02:58 AM
Biswo wrote:
>However, the question is do we have any serious problem
>yet in this website? No. Most of the writers are well behaved. >It is
>an inopportune time to implement such measure.
***************
You wouldn't dream of going to a formal party wearing
shorts and T-shirts and sandals.
Why?
Even if no one throws you out, you'd feel distinctly out of
place and you would want to leave that place out of
your own free will.
Similarly, when there are real people posting in their own
names and discussing real issues (as it is happening on this
site), the PROBABILITY that one would post stuff
anonymously and slander people is pretty low.
I, for one, am happy to monitor this site through its
own unspoken/unwritten/tacit 'culture' than by
outright/explicit blanket restrictions about this
and that. In other words, peer-to-peer monitoring
than having one guy -- no matter how good, how respected,
how moral -- deciding for all.
After all, all our work here is VOLUNTARY.
And you get voluntary contributions NOT by
restrictions -- no matter how morally right those
intentions to restrict may be - but by
appealing to people's reasonableness.
I, for one, believe that most visitors to this
site are reasonable people who see anonymous slander
for what it is: Pathetic, sorry and pitiable acts of
desperation by losers who have nothing better to do.
You know, maybe their parents got divorced or maybe
their surgery of the gonads went wrong . . . whatever
the case, these anonymous slanderers deserve pity,
compassion and maybe even counseling.
Still, ignore them, and they'll just slink off
into the virtual mist.
oohi
ashu
|
