1timspalding
We had an inquiry about a number of topics and comments by members containing misinformation or conspiracy theories about the 2020 Presidential election. Some other platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, label such posts or, in extreme cases, suspend or kick people off for supporting them.
As things stand, we do not plan to add labels or change our TOS to prevent posting such junk. My thinking is simple: LibraryThing discussion for are not Facebook or Twitter. We aren't a locus of the sort of reckless, contextless viral spread that characterizes those platforms. Although a few members are clearly, and I must say sadly, deluded about the world, I doubt that members are swayed by nonsense posted here as they might be elsewhere.
Why? First, LibraryThing posts aren't little atomic pieces that can circulate by themselves, as on Facebook and Twitter. Every post is part of a topic. This allows members to knock down and ridicule such things, as they have extensively done. Put another way, ever conspiracy theory sits amid its own labeling and refutations. Adding to them with our own "official" label and refutation isn't going to add much.
Second, LibraryThing isn't an enormous, general-interest social network that some people (stupidly) rely on for news, but a small community of well-read, well-educated, reasonable people who can think critically about what they read. Further, conversation is not general, spreading friend-to-friend, but divided into groups. When someone posts a half-baked theory in "Pro and Con," it's not being taken for gospel truth by your crazy uncle who accepts anything posted by Breitbart; it's being read by exactly the sort of people who knock down such things when they're posted on their feed. On Twitter people make stupid assertions; on LibraryThing their assertions are demolished.
As someone who believes in truth and reason, I am exasperated by conspiracy theories and the people—especially readers—whose intellectual faculties are warped by them. The past few years have seen an alarming rise in unjustified belief. As many know, a family member of mine slid progressively down this path years ago, and I've made a special study of ways smart people end up in any number of reality-denying cul-de-sacs—vaccines, climate change, COVID, etc. I've noticed how such ideas spread, and the ways people try (and usually fail) to knock them down. The current political nuttery is more of the same. It is notable for being pushed by the soon-to-be-former President of the United States. But it's the same depressing story. I think there's good reason to be wary of social networks that encourage tiny, contextless bite-sized chunks of emotion and outrage, create communities of alarmingly like-minded people, and operate on engagement metrics. I do not think that over-educated readers communicating in full sentences on a forum have quite the same problems.
I could go on with other reasons, including the difficulty of staff having to decide what's true and what's false, and the tricky line between what's propaganda and what's discussion of something others are saying. I am also uncomfortable with the selective labeling of nonsense--suspending people for spreading some unconfirmed story about ballot destruction, but all sorts of other nonsense goes unlabelled. But the core argument is simple: We're not Facebook or Twitter.
I remain interested in software solutions to the problem. For example, we could add a down-arrow, so members could vote down posts or messages, causing them to be labelled as such, or removed from normal view. I am similarly interested in how we can handle the making of duplicative posts, full of pasted-in junk. LibraryThing is a unique place for online conversation in full sentences, between adults. I've always looked down on people who paste in words from elsewhere. Stupidity can be opposed with intelligence, but spam is just spam.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
As things stand, we do not plan to add labels or change our TOS to prevent posting such junk. My thinking is simple: LibraryThing discussion for are not Facebook or Twitter. We aren't a locus of the sort of reckless, contextless viral spread that characterizes those platforms. Although a few members are clearly, and I must say sadly, deluded about the world, I doubt that members are swayed by nonsense posted here as they might be elsewhere.
Why? First, LibraryThing posts aren't little atomic pieces that can circulate by themselves, as on Facebook and Twitter. Every post is part of a topic. This allows members to knock down and ridicule such things, as they have extensively done. Put another way, ever conspiracy theory sits amid its own labeling and refutations. Adding to them with our own "official" label and refutation isn't going to add much.
Second, LibraryThing isn't an enormous, general-interest social network that some people (stupidly) rely on for news, but a small community of well-read, well-educated, reasonable people who can think critically about what they read. Further, conversation is not general, spreading friend-to-friend, but divided into groups. When someone posts a half-baked theory in "Pro and Con," it's not being taken for gospel truth by your crazy uncle who accepts anything posted by Breitbart; it's being read by exactly the sort of people who knock down such things when they're posted on their feed. On Twitter people make stupid assertions; on LibraryThing their assertions are demolished.
As someone who believes in truth and reason, I am exasperated by conspiracy theories and the people—especially readers—whose intellectual faculties are warped by them. The past few years have seen an alarming rise in unjustified belief. As many know, a family member of mine slid progressively down this path years ago, and I've made a special study of ways smart people end up in any number of reality-denying cul-de-sacs—vaccines, climate change, COVID, etc. I've noticed how such ideas spread, and the ways people try (and usually fail) to knock them down. The current political nuttery is more of the same. It is notable for being pushed by the soon-to-be-former President of the United States. But it's the same depressing story. I think there's good reason to be wary of social networks that encourage tiny, contextless bite-sized chunks of emotion and outrage, create communities of alarmingly like-minded people, and operate on engagement metrics. I do not think that over-educated readers communicating in full sentences on a forum have quite the same problems.
I could go on with other reasons, including the difficulty of staff having to decide what's true and what's false, and the tricky line between what's propaganda and what's discussion of something others are saying. I am also uncomfortable with the selective labeling of nonsense--suspending people for spreading some unconfirmed story about ballot destruction, but all sorts of other nonsense goes unlabelled. But the core argument is simple: We're not Facebook or Twitter.
I remain interested in software solutions to the problem. For example, we could add a down-arrow, so members could vote down posts or messages, causing them to be labelled as such, or removed from normal view. I am similarly interested in how we can handle the making of duplicative posts, full of pasted-in junk. LibraryThing is a unique place for online conversation in full sentences, between adults. I've always looked down on people who paste in words from elsewhere. Stupidity can be opposed with intelligence, but spam is just spam.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
2lilithcat
Thanks, Tim, for a thoughtful and reasoned response. I haven't see these posts, but I expect they are in a group that I have long ignored.
I think you should be very careful about allowing members to vote down posts. Right now, we can flag spam or TOS violations, which are fairly clear-cut, but not enough to eliminate all disagreement as to whether a particular post should be flagged. I fear that allowing down-arrows in general would result in the removal or labeling of posts simply because the poster has expressed an unpopular opinion. Tread cautiously.
the soon-to-be-former President of the United States
From your mouth to God's ear.
I think you should be very careful about allowing members to vote down posts. Right now, we can flag spam or TOS violations, which are fairly clear-cut, but not enough to eliminate all disagreement as to whether a particular post should be flagged. I fear that allowing down-arrows in general would result in the removal or labeling of posts simply because the poster has expressed an unpopular opinion. Tread cautiously.
the soon-to-be-former President of the United States
From your mouth to God's ear.
3timspalding
>1 timspalding:
Indeed. This is the sort of problem a social network must consider. These sorts of things are easy to get wrong.
Indeed. This is the sort of problem a social network must consider. These sorts of things are easy to get wrong.
4norabelle414
I like the existing flag system a lot. It takes a number of users to have an effect, the initial effect is just to show a flag next to the post, the more drastic effect is to hide the post in a way that can still be viewed if people want to see it.
The flags already apply to any abuse of the terms of service, but if you didn't want to include false and harmful ideas in the TOS, you could make another, less severe, blue flag, like for reviews.
The flags already apply to any abuse of the terms of service, but if you didn't want to include false and harmful ideas in the TOS, you could make another, less severe, blue flag, like for reviews.
5gabriel
>1 timspalding:
Count me among those sceptical of any good coming of regulating nonsense. LT members probably lean left as it is, any use of social approval to regulate is unavoidably going to end up with a partisan bias.
Count me among those sceptical of any good coming of regulating nonsense. LT members probably lean left as it is, any use of social approval to regulate is unavoidably going to end up with a partisan bias.
6Limelite
>1 timspalding:
Thoughtful reasoning by you. And, painful though it is recently in certain topic threads when the problem you outline is most often exhibited, I think LTers, unlike devotees of other social platforms because they are readers, can be the best antidote to mis- and dis-information.
Attempts to "run interference" seem to give rise to additional problems and additional grievance outcries from the Amen Corner of conspiricists. FB and other online discussion fora have shown that technical attempts at solving the problems of certain human natures is a lose-lose battle.
The TOS here is sensible, workable, and enforceable -- by its membership, IMHO.
Much like the "will of the people" worked in this election. In spite of.
Good topic for thoughtful discussion. More and better ideas for handling problems might be offered. Will have to check in later!
Thoughtful reasoning by you. And, painful though it is recently in certain topic threads when the problem you outline is most often exhibited, I think LTers, unlike devotees of other social platforms because they are readers, can be the best antidote to mis- and dis-information.
Attempts to "run interference" seem to give rise to additional problems and additional grievance outcries from the Amen Corner of conspiricists. FB and other online discussion fora have shown that technical attempts at solving the problems of certain human natures is a lose-lose battle.
The TOS here is sensible, workable, and enforceable -- by its membership, IMHO.
Much like the "will of the people" worked in this election. In spite of.
Good topic for thoughtful discussion. More and better ideas for handling problems might be offered. Will have to check in later!
7Matke
>1 timspalding: Very well said, Tim. As others have said, I think the current flagging system works great. I’d be wary of a down arrow for a variety of reasons.
It seems that there are enough members who will vigorously dispute false statements and ludicrous conspiracy theories.
Let the credulous have their say. Let those very few who really do post in bad faith go to it. I think you can rely on some highly intelligent members to hold the fort.
Thank you for posting this.
It seems that there are enough members who will vigorously dispute false statements and ludicrous conspiracy theories.
Let the credulous have their say. Let those very few who really do post in bad faith go to it. I think you can rely on some highly intelligent members to hold the fort.
Thank you for posting this.
8aspirit
>1 timspalding: "general-interest social network that some people (stupidly) rely on for news"
As an aside, it's not stupid to cautiously rely on social media for news when you live in an area with weak journalism. I can find more local news that's relevant to me by scrolling Facebook and Twitter than I can by reading the newspapers every week. The online info additionally doesn't have the constant bias of the spoken grapevine that most locals tend to rely on.
Okay, now my thoughts on downvoting... no, please. I have seen downvoting be harmful to many times. The same for upvoting, actually. We can already individually block the members who are clearly bad faith to make topics better and safer. Blocking is easy to do and undo while giving each of us more control over what's see and when, without interfering with the flow of conversation.
As for what do to reduce the problematic content, the fake news that's shared without a sense of humor or fact-checking....
Update: I'm already thinking my suggestion couldn't be useful, so nevermind.
As an aside, it's not stupid to cautiously rely on social media for news when you live in an area with weak journalism. I can find more local news that's relevant to me by scrolling Facebook and Twitter than I can by reading the newspapers every week. The online info additionally doesn't have the constant bias of the spoken grapevine that most locals tend to rely on.
Okay, now my thoughts on downvoting... no, please. I have seen downvoting be harmful to many times. The same for upvoting, actually. We can already individually block the members who are clearly bad faith to make topics better and safer. Blocking is easy to do and undo while giving each of us more control over what's see and when, without interfering with the flow of conversation.
As for what do to reduce the problematic content, the fake news that's shared without a sense of humor or fact-checking....
Update: I'm already thinking my suggestion couldn't be useful, so nevermind.
9gilroy
I do not think that over-educated readers communicating in full sentences on a forum have quite the same problems.
I think you give some users too much credit with this statement...
Though I appreciate your stance and also know, if I don't want to be attacked, I stay away from Pro and Con...
10timspalding
>8 aspirit: As an aside, it's not stupid to cautiously rely on social media for news when you live in an area with weak journalism. I can find more local news that's relevant to me by scrolling Facebook and Twitter than I can by reading the newspapers every week.
This may be true, if sad Online media have murdered a lot of smaller-market journalism. But it turns out there's something valuable about having reporters whose job it is to know officials, attend committee meetings, read lawsuits and etc. When that's gone… I suppose online sources are better than some others.
I think you give some users too much credit with this statement...
Maybe so. Consider me optimistic.
This may be true, if sad Online media have murdered a lot of smaller-market journalism. But it turns out there's something valuable about having reporters whose job it is to know officials, attend committee meetings, read lawsuits and etc. When that's gone… I suppose online sources are better than some others.
I think you give some users too much credit with this statement...
Maybe so. Consider me optimistic.
11anglemark
As someone who considers himself a libertarian socialist, I’m very much in favour of the self-regulating status quo that you propose. This isn’t Twitter.
12paradoxosalpha
Alas, so polarized is public discourse that even the phrase "fake news" suggests its own unhealthy cognitive bias--not skepticism, but paranoid adherence to a given narrative.
Viral disinformation and misinformation are both big problems on all sorts of 'net platforms, and I think their hazards are increased by the short attention-span , high-tension engagements deliberately fostered by |f| and |t|. LT doesn't really suffer from these features, and skews towards a user base resistant to them.
Viral disinformation and misinformation are both big problems on all sorts of 'net platforms, and I think their hazards are increased by the short attention-span , high-tension engagements deliberately fostered by |f| and |t|. LT doesn't really suffer from these features, and skews towards a user base resistant to them.
13abbottthomas
>1 timspalding: That all seems very sensible. Most members deserve to be treated as rational and decent people. The few that don’t fit that description stick out like sore thumbs and, I doubt, are ever taken seriously.
Thank goodness it seems that the USA has voted for a decent person as leader - it matters for the rest of the world.
Thank goodness it seems that the USA has voted for a decent person as leader - it matters for the rest of the world.
14aspirit
>10 timspalding: I'm reasonably confident the quality of journalism didn't decrease in my area when online social media became widely available. We're still fighting for the majority of the population to have reliable internet access. And, honestly, one of the first front page articles I read in my current hometown newspaper was an opinion piece about how paving the city's roads back in the 1950s might have led to the moral ruin of multiple generations. The rest of that issue covered newer topics, but was... uh, not better than the front page. The town hasn't caught up to complaining about Facebook yet; they're too busy wondering if stop lights are symbols of fascism.
On Twitter, I can learn about protests at the prisons, legal charges against municipal officials, and COVID-19 spread through the schools. That's news deliberately left out of all the newspapers and TV programs covering the area or spun to make officials look like hardworking master-types keeping order, because the local journalists know the officials a little too well.
To put it another way, I'm more concerned about murder threats directed at social media journalists than the "murder" of small journalism markets by social media sites.
I do understand the concern about the survival of small-town journalism, though. Certain companies, politicians, and their followers don't want reporters better educated.
Being wary of fake news makes sense to me, too.
On Twitter, I can learn about protests at the prisons, legal charges against municipal officials, and COVID-19 spread through the schools. That's news deliberately left out of all the newspapers and TV programs covering the area or spun to make officials look like hardworking master-types keeping order, because the local journalists know the officials a little too well.
To put it another way, I'm more concerned about murder threats directed at social media journalists than the "murder" of small journalism markets by social media sites.
I do understand the concern about the survival of small-town journalism, though. Certain companies, politicians, and their followers don't want reporters better educated.
Being wary of fake news makes sense to me, too.
15cpg
Rats! I was so looking forward to your staff resolving the truth status of the following for me:
1) This sentence is false.
2) There are infinitely many prime numbers n for which n+2 is also prime.
3) This dress makes me look fat.
4) Noel is more talented than Liam.
1) This sentence is false.
2) There are infinitely many prime numbers n for which n+2 is also prime.
3) This dress makes me look fat.
4) Noel is more talented than Liam.
16timspalding
1. Nes
2. I could write some code to figure this out, but it would take forever to run. And slow down the site.
3. The blue dress or the white dress?
4. My son is more talented than Noel, whoever he is.
2. I could write some code to figure this out, but it would take forever to run. And slow down the site.
3. The blue dress or the white dress?
4. My son is more talented than Noel, whoever he is.
17Limelite
An idea if change is in the wind.
How about UP votes only? Accumulated expressions of approval might add to the gravitas of sane posts. At the same time, the absence of UP votes on the mis- and dis- posts might serve as silent witness to their unacceptable to thinking people status.
Consider the idea nothing more than a visual method of expressing polite applause.
How about UP votes only? Accumulated expressions of approval might add to the gravitas of sane posts. At the same time, the absence of UP votes on the mis- and dis- posts might serve as silent witness to their unacceptable to thinking people status.
Consider the idea nothing more than a visual method of expressing polite applause.
19MissBrangwen
Thank you for posting this, Tim. I don't write a lot in the forums, but I do read there, and I think a reaction like this was really needed.
I agree with the previous posters who say that down voting might do more harm than help, and I think it would have a lot of consequences on all of the forums that would change the overall culture of the site, so I wouldn't want to risk that just because of a few people who post "junk" as you put it. I wouldn't like to give them that power.
I am on another website that allows upvoting but not downvoting, and it might be better, but I'm still not convinced.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that it might be an idea to require that you give your sources when you cite articles from the news or similar texts. Most of the posters do this, but not all of them, and I think this might be something that could be included in the TOS - just to allow readers to understand where something comes from, and really because it should be standard to do so, even more so on a bookish website. Copying and pasting a text without showing where it comes from doesn't help a discussion.
I agree with the previous posters who say that down voting might do more harm than help, and I think it would have a lot of consequences on all of the forums that would change the overall culture of the site, so I wouldn't want to risk that just because of a few people who post "junk" as you put it. I wouldn't like to give them that power.
I am on another website that allows upvoting but not downvoting, and it might be better, but I'm still not convinced.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that it might be an idea to require that you give your sources when you cite articles from the news or similar texts. Most of the posters do this, but not all of them, and I think this might be something that could be included in the TOS - just to allow readers to understand where something comes from, and really because it should be standard to do so, even more so on a bookish website. Copying and pasting a text without showing where it comes from doesn't help a discussion.
20John5918
>19 MissBrangwen: it might be an idea to require that you give your sources when you cite articles from the news or similar texts
Yes please! There are one or two posters in the Pro and Con group who are particularly lazy about this, despite having it pointed out to them frequently. I agree - let it become part of the TOS.
I'm on other discussion boards where it is spelt out clearly in the TOS what is considered "fair use" of copyright material. The title and source must be stated (with a link if it is online), and you can't copy and paste huge chunks of it, just a few sentences or a paragraph or two to give a sense of what it's about, or an abstract, or the relevant part that you particularly want to draw attention to. It's only fair that the platform which first published an article should be acknowledged. I thought that was pretty universal standard practice until I came to LT's Pro and Con group!
Yes please! There are one or two posters in the Pro and Con group who are particularly lazy about this, despite having it pointed out to them frequently. I agree - let it become part of the TOS.
I'm on other discussion boards where it is spelt out clearly in the TOS what is considered "fair use" of copyright material. The title and source must be stated (with a link if it is online), and you can't copy and paste huge chunks of it, just a few sentences or a paragraph or two to give a sense of what it's about, or an abstract, or the relevant part that you particularly want to draw attention to. It's only fair that the platform which first published an article should be acknowledged. I thought that was pretty universal standard practice until I came to LT's Pro and Con group!
21AlexandraHewitt
Este usuario ha sido eliminado por spam.
22MissBrangwen
>20 John5918:
Regarding citation, you put perfectly what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words for it!
Regarding citation, you put perfectly what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words for it!
23southernbooklady
>1 timspalding: I remain interested in software solutions to the problem. For example, we could add a down-arrow, so members could vote down posts or messages, causing them to be labeled as such, or removed from normal view. I am similarly interested in how we can handle the making of duplicative posts, full of pasted-in junk
You could create a character limit such that after 200 words or so the rest of the post is hidden behind a "read more" link. That might dampen the enthusiasm of people for pasting in full articles from other sites if they knew they wouldn't necessarily be seen, much less read. It also would be less disruptive of the general conversation in the thread.
You could create a character limit such that after 200 words or so the rest of the post is hidden behind a "read more" link. That might dampen the enthusiasm of people for pasting in full articles from other sites if they knew they wouldn't necessarily be seen, much less read. It also would be less disruptive of the general conversation in the thread.
24gilroy
I'm agreeing with all the NO for the down vote option.
I'm liking the flag or read more options mentioned. They seem more in line with what the site already has programmed/planned than having to create a new system to work with the fora.
I'm liking the flag or read more options mentioned. They seem more in line with what the site already has programmed/planned than having to create a new system to work with the fora.
25Maddz
Unfortunately, I feel that only being able to vote posts one way looses the nuance of people liking vs people disliking a specific post. A sufficiently divisive topic could end up with all posts being voted one way, even opposing posts.
26proximity1
Actually, as a matter of fact, my opinions are what you call "gospel truth." I don't say that to brag. Believe me, it's not easy being consistently correct, having a piercing intellect, uncommon sensitivity to truth, justice and fair-play and a curious mind that goes unhindered into any potentially interesting matter.
It's a burden to be exceptionally bright, to have exceptional insight. Or so such people tell me.
27Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
28MsMixte
>19 MissBrangwen: "Another thing I'd like to mention is that it might be an idea to require that you give your sources when you cite articles from the news or similar texts. Most of the posters do this, but not all of them, and I think this might be something that could be included in the TOS - just to allow readers to understand where something comes from, and really because it should be standard to do so, even more so on a bookish website. Copying and pasting a text without showing where it comes from doesn't help a discussion."
Yes, please have the TOS include a requirement that sources be cited. If you, the poster, are going to tell me that a 'postal worker claims he/she was ordered to backdate ballots', I want to know if it was CBS News reporting, or Project Veritas. Context matters!
Yes, please have the TOS include a requirement that sources be cited. If you, the poster, are going to tell me that a 'postal worker claims he/she was ordered to backdate ballots', I want to know if it was CBS News reporting, or Project Veritas. Context matters!
29anglemark
>27 Earthling1: Presumably because you violated the Terms of Conduct, but that doesn't belong to this thread.
31AliciaStone 
Este usuario ha sido eliminado por spam.
32timspalding
Yes, please have the TOS include a requirement that sources be cited. If you, the poster, are going to tell me that a 'postal worker claims he/she was ordered to backdate ballots', I want to know if it was CBS News reporting, or Project Veritas. Context matters!
I worry this would be fiddly. People quote things all the time. What would the rule be, exactly?
Additional problem, it licenses the posting of big blobs of content.
I worry this would be fiddly. People quote things all the time. What would the rule be, exactly?
Additional problem, it licenses the posting of big blobs of content.
33John5918
>32 timspalding: it licenses the posting of big blobs of content
In some other discussion boards I am on where there are guidelines for citing sources, it specifically states that you should not post "big blobs of content". You put the title, the source and the link, and you quote no more than a couple of sentences, a paragraph or two, an abstract, just so that readers can see what it is about and decide whether or not to follow up by clicking the link and reading it. Seems to work.
In some other discussion boards I am on where there are guidelines for citing sources, it specifically states that you should not post "big blobs of content". You put the title, the source and the link, and you quote no more than a couple of sentences, a paragraph or two, an abstract, just so that readers can see what it is about and decide whether or not to follow up by clicking the link and reading it. Seems to work.
34melannen
I am increasingly thinking that the problem isn't sites that *contain* that sort of thing, it's sites that *promote* that sort of thing. LT doesn't do any promoting of individual posts, and I don't think you're planning to, so I'm not worried about that, the usership are quite capable of handling it.
LT does do a little bit of automatic promoting of groups. I don't think your current "Group Suggestions" algorithm is currently likely to send people down a qanon spiral like Facebook's does, but if you're planning to revamp it or increase its prominence it might be a good idea to reserve the ability for staff to deprecate groups in the recommendation algorithm if they actively promote factually inaccurate and provably harmful information by design. (Which wouldn't have to be limited to political stuff - that would also cover, idk, pro-ana or MAP or whatever groups.) Like I said I don't think it's a risk in current Talk, but if groups promo mechanisms change, and if groups who are banned elsewhere decide to come here for refuge, it might be nice to have already thought it through.
LT does do a little bit of automatic promoting of groups. I don't think your current "Group Suggestions" algorithm is currently likely to send people down a qanon spiral like Facebook's does, but if you're planning to revamp it or increase its prominence it might be a good idea to reserve the ability for staff to deprecate groups in the recommendation algorithm if they actively promote factually inaccurate and provably harmful information by design. (Which wouldn't have to be limited to political stuff - that would also cover, idk, pro-ana or MAP or whatever groups.) Like I said I don't think it's a risk in current Talk, but if groups promo mechanisms change, and if groups who are banned elsewhere decide to come here for refuge, it might be nice to have already thought it through.
36gilroy
>32 timspalding: Actually, part of the problem now is big blobs of content. They copy whole articles without attribution, which is technically a copyright violation.
37MsMixte
>32 timspalding: Just a link to the source would be adequate as far as I am concerned.
38lilithcat
I'm not convinced about requiring citations to the source. If I see "my brother-in-law told me" or "this guy I follow on Twitter", I know to ignore it.
Frankly, I think the staff has better things to do with their time than monitor source citations.
As for "big blobs of content", how big is too big? Is it a quotation for a New Yorker article or someone's long list of books read for a challenge?
It's all too fuzzy.
Frankly, I think the staff has better things to do with their time than monitor source citations.
As for "big blobs of content", how big is too big? Is it a quotation for a New Yorker article or someone's long list of books read for a challenge?
It's all too fuzzy.
39southernbooklady
I agree with >38 lilithcat: -- most of the time, the source of a post is a Google search away. From a software perspective, it seems to me that trying to control how people post is a near-impossible task, and you are better off giving people tools to control what they see: the option to hide individual posts, instead of being forced to block all the posts by a user, for example.
Also, as an aside, I think the "reply" option should automatically insert the referenced post. That is one case where an enforced citation would be really helpful and presumably within the capabilities of the platform.
Also, as an aside, I think the "reply" option should automatically insert the referenced post. That is one case where an enforced citation would be really helpful and presumably within the capabilities of the platform.
40SandraArdnas
>39 southernbooklady: I think the "reply" option should automatically insert the referenced post. That is one case where an enforced citation would be really helpful and presumably within the capabilities of the platform.
Please, no. In every forum I've ever seen it leads to majority of people quoting entire previous posts for no reason whatsoever. It would be nice to have a more convenient way to quote when needed, but not automatically
Please, no. In every forum I've ever seen it leads to majority of people quoting entire previous posts for no reason whatsoever. It would be nice to have a more convenient way to quote when needed, but not automatically
41paradoxosalpha
>40 SandraArdnas:
Agreed. The automatic insertion of the link to the post being replied to is totally sufficient (and a welcome recent development).
Agreed. The automatic insertion of the link to the post being replied to is totally sufficient (and a welcome recent development).
42southernbooklady
>41 paradoxosalpha: ah, that is what I meant, and no, I clearly didn't realize it had been added!
43Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
44SandraArdnas
>43 Earthling1: Obviously, no one warned you that trolling random forum threads results in hairy palms eventually. Now you know
45Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
46Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
48timspalding
>43 Earthling1: What is LibraryThing's financial connection to Twitter and Facebook?
Birds aren't real. Windmills cause cancer. And we don't need a financial connection because we're all lizard people.
I asked the moderator. She said, I didn't suspend you, he did. OK. So I asked him and he said "someone already told you".
I posted a message to your profile. Here it is, in situ.
That linked to https://www.librarything.com/topic/326001#7308879 where I wrote:
As I've expressed many times:
1. We don't go looking for violations of the TOS. We act on reports.
2. We act on content. We aren't carefully balancing what you say here versus over there, trying to ferret out tone and intent, what so and so said and what you were trying to accomplish in your reply. I powerfully don't care. I have better things to do.
Therefore if you say "all X must be killed" I'm going to suspend you. Don't want to be suspended? Don't say such a thing.
Birds aren't real. Windmills cause cancer. And we don't need a financial connection because we're all lizard people.
I asked the moderator. She said, I didn't suspend you, he did. OK. So I asked him and he said "someone already told you".
I posted a message to your profile. Here it is, in situ.
That linked to https://www.librarything.com/topic/326001#7308879 where I wrote:
"I suspect that the member is attempting to make a "point," but, as has often been discussed, we don't judge posts on their context. It's not out mission to ferret out whether someone's "All X must be killed" is or is not ironic.
I am accordingly suspending the member for one day.
As I've expressed many times:
1. We don't go looking for violations of the TOS. We act on reports.
2. We act on content. We aren't carefully balancing what you say here versus over there, trying to ferret out tone and intent, what so and so said and what you were trying to accomplish in your reply. I powerfully don't care. I have better things to do.
Therefore if you say "all X must be killed" I'm going to suspend you. Don't want to be suspended? Don't say such a thing.
49Opteryx
>1 timspalding: "... As someone who believes in truth and reason, I am exasperated by conspiracy theories and the people—especially readers—whose intellectual faculties are warped by them. The past few years have seen an alarming rise in unjustified belief. As many know, a family member of mine slid progressively down this path years ago, and I've made a special study of ways smart people end up in any number of reality-denying cul-de-sacs ..."
If you haven't seen it already, it sounds like you would be interested in the documentary film The Brainwashing of My Dad, by someone who went through a similar situation.
If you haven't seen it already, it sounds like you would be interested in the documentary film The Brainwashing of My Dad, by someone who went through a similar situation.
50Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
51norabelle414
>1 timspalding: Is any of this a real problem outside of the "Pro and Con" group?
52MarthaJeanne
>51 norabelle414: and this thread.
53anglemark
The problem with some conspiracy nuts is that they are really dull and boring. If they at least entertained me...
54Bookmarque
Yeah, this is another flaming bag of you-know-what to remind me to stay the hell out of there.
55lorax
timspalding (#48):
Therefore if you say "all X must be killed" I'm going to suspend you. Don't want to be suspended? Don't say such a thing.
That is not actually in the TOS, though I definitely agree that it should be, and had several times typed and abandoned a response to this thread about just that, when it was abstract rather than concrete. When I have brought up very similar situations in the past - aimed at gay people, not at a political party, for the value of X - I was told that it was an idea, not an attack, and was acceptable. It may be that this goes farther (the posts I was thinking of just said our children should be taken away and we should all be thrown in jail), it may be that your thinking has changed over the years, but in any rate "don't make threats or call for violence" should be in the TOS. Trolls are very good at figuring out what the letter of the law is and staying *just* within it.
Therefore if you say "all X must be killed" I'm going to suspend you. Don't want to be suspended? Don't say such a thing.
That is not actually in the TOS, though I definitely agree that it should be, and had several times typed and abandoned a response to this thread about just that, when it was abstract rather than concrete. When I have brought up very similar situations in the past - aimed at gay people, not at a political party, for the value of X - I was told that it was an idea, not an attack, and was acceptable. It may be that this goes farther (the posts I was thinking of just said our children should be taken away and we should all be thrown in jail), it may be that your thinking has changed over the years, but in any rate "don't make threats or call for violence" should be in the TOS. Trolls are very good at figuring out what the letter of the law is and staying *just* within it.
56Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
57Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
582wonderY
>56 Earthling1:. Oh, my, you do go on.
You say you’ve followed the site rules for years. But you just joined in February of this year. Did I misunderstand you?
You say you’ve followed the site rules for years. But you just joined in February of this year. Did I misunderstand you?
59andyl
>56 Earthling1:
If you are not happy, you can always choose not to use the site.
>57 Earthling1:
You seem to denial about personality cults which was the context in which cultist was used. It seems to me that there is clearly a personality cult around Trump. Of course it may just be as temporary as his presidency but we will see.
Also earlier you dismissed the idea of conspiracy theories too because of it being done out in the open. You are twisting definitions. Just for the avoidance of doubt will you confirm that you do not think that Qanon (for example) is a conspiracy theory and give your rationale.
If you are not happy, you can always choose not to use the site.
>57 Earthling1:
You seem to denial about personality cults which was the context in which cultist was used. It seems to me that there is clearly a personality cult around Trump. Of course it may just be as temporary as his presidency but we will see.
Also earlier you dismissed the idea of conspiracy theories too because of it being done out in the open. You are twisting definitions. Just for the avoidance of doubt will you confirm that you do not think that Qanon (for example) is a conspiracy theory and give your rationale.
60norabelle414
>52 MarthaJeanne: Yeah I was trying to get at the idea that this thread has created more problems (1) than it has solved (0).
And also a lot of the suggestions (requiring citations, limiting visibility of large amounts of text) would cause a lot of new problems in groups that do not have the problems that the change is trying to solve.
And also a lot of the suggestions (requiring citations, limiting visibility of large amounts of text) would cause a lot of new problems in groups that do not have the problems that the change is trying to solve.
61Jean-Louis
> Is not the formula "soon-to-be-former" President of The United States what you call in english a bias ?
62anglemark
>58 2wonderY: Possibly Earthling was permanently banned under another name and returned under this one?
Otherwise I'd simply say that the only rule you really have to follow here is the old "Don't be a dick", but apparently that's too hard for some people.
Otherwise I'd simply say that the only rule you really have to follow here is the old "Don't be a dick", but apparently that's too hard for some people.
63paradoxosalpha
After decades on the internet, I have yet to see an effective use of sarcasm in any sort of message board. No matter how bitter a poster may feel, attempts to rip the flesh (etymology of "sarcasm") of one's interlocutors just makes the poster look awful, even when the intent is intelligible--which it often is not. I'm not just deriding others; I've been that poster.
64proximity1
>61 Jean-Louis:
Jean-Louis, in a word, "the answer depends on who is asked."
In other times (un peu moins foutu), people should refer to "the out-going president." "Soon-to-be-former" is somewhat loaded language.
The fact of the matter is that "soon-to-be-former president" is language chosen deliberately for its presumptive character by people who are bent on pushing a much-disputed view ("Who won this election?") with an preconceived conclusion which is intended to foreclose the very question which remains contentious.
That is revelatory of numerous things and not least of them is the very determined effort by an intensely insecure political faction to try to vouch-safe what it damn well knows is the fruit that same faction's having played the electoral system and, as I believe the facts to be and to eventually be revealed, used every tactic to undermine a free and fair contest in the days before, the day of and the days following election-day and its balloting.
That happened before --in the presidential election of 2000. Each time it happens, it inflicts immense and lasting harm on the national body politic. There has been no recovery from the farce of 2000 and this fresh instance, coming just twenty years later, indicates that these kinds of elections may follow in quicker, more frequent succession. If that happens, the consequences are analogous to the nation's engaging in what may likened to an insane game of national electoral Russian-roulette in which, with each two turns, the weapon's cylinder is charged with an additional round and the game resumes.
Such an approach to the nation's elections and electoral politics suggests about the professionals involved that they neither believe in nor see any use for any long-term capacity for mutual political trust and good-faith. Rather, the opposite are assumed to be both true and inevitable.
It is, in effect, an informal signing of a nation's political "death-warrant" as a practical, working system of difference-settling by open, fair and free elections based on a common consensus about fair-play.
All that is now very clearly dead and gone and I see no reason to expect its return prior to much greater national socio-political catastrophes.
What's no less clear is that the people who see their partisan advantage in such high-stakes cheating and bad-faith is that they simply do not give a good goddamn about any of that.
I find it very hard to even imagine how present electoral political circumstances could be made shittier than they are now.
I read the financial market's up-ticks as being based on the belief that the supposed Biden victory won't survive or be validated in the wake of legal challenges.
The once supposedly venerable BBC has shredded the last vestige of its journalistic integrity in blatantly lying about and distorting the plain facts.
________________________
You could use Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" (1911)
Par exemple:
" Present -- (n) "That part of eternity dividing the domain of disappointment from the realm of hope."
Jean-Louis, in a word, "the answer depends on who is asked."
In other times (un peu moins foutu), people should refer to "the out-going president." "Soon-to-be-former" is somewhat loaded language.
The fact of the matter is that "soon-to-be-former president" is language chosen deliberately for its presumptive character by people who are bent on pushing a much-disputed view ("Who won this election?") with an preconceived conclusion which is intended to foreclose the very question which remains contentious.
That is revelatory of numerous things and not least of them is the very determined effort by an intensely insecure political faction to try to vouch-safe what it damn well knows is the fruit that same faction's having played the electoral system and, as I believe the facts to be and to eventually be revealed, used every tactic to undermine a free and fair contest in the days before, the day of and the days following election-day and its balloting.
That happened before --in the presidential election of 2000. Each time it happens, it inflicts immense and lasting harm on the national body politic. There has been no recovery from the farce of 2000 and this fresh instance, coming just twenty years later, indicates that these kinds of elections may follow in quicker, more frequent succession. If that happens, the consequences are analogous to the nation's engaging in what may likened to an insane game of national electoral Russian-roulette in which, with each two turns, the weapon's cylinder is charged with an additional round and the game resumes.
Such an approach to the nation's elections and electoral politics suggests about the professionals involved that they neither believe in nor see any use for any long-term capacity for mutual political trust and good-faith. Rather, the opposite are assumed to be both true and inevitable.
It is, in effect, an informal signing of a nation's political "death-warrant" as a practical, working system of difference-settling by open, fair and free elections based on a common consensus about fair-play.
All that is now very clearly dead and gone and I see no reason to expect its return prior to much greater national socio-political catastrophes.
What's no less clear is that the people who see their partisan advantage in such high-stakes cheating and bad-faith is that they simply do not give a good goddamn about any of that.
I find it very hard to even imagine how present electoral political circumstances could be made shittier than they are now.
I read the financial market's up-ticks as being based on the belief that the supposed Biden victory won't survive or be validated in the wake of legal challenges.
The once supposedly venerable BBC has shredded the last vestige of its journalistic integrity in blatantly lying about and distorting the plain facts.
________________________
You could use Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" (1911)
Par exemple:
" Present -- (n) "That part of eternity dividing the domain of disappointment from the realm of hope."
65aspirit
>61 Jean-Louis: that's standard usage in English at this point in US elections. Other common phrases are "lame duck president" and "outgoing president", as his administration is expected to start transitioning resources this week.
ETA: We cross-posted, so I could see proximity1's answer. An argument could be made that a former POTUS retains the title of "president". To me, outside of formal documents, that seems like quibbling.
ETA: We cross-posted, so I could see proximity1's answer. An argument could be made that a former POTUS retains the title of "president". To me, outside of formal documents, that seems like quibbling.
66timspalding
>51 norabelle414: Is any of this a real problem outside of the "Pro and Con" group?
No. I suspect it would happen in any political or perhaps religious group. But Pro and Con is the only really active one right now. Periodically the Catholic group has seen Catholic conspiracy theories posted, and this brings up one of my problems with this sort of thing. We all know that "Obama was born in Kenya" is a conspiracy theory. But "Protestants and Masons wrote the documents of Vatican II" is no less so--it's just a conspiracy theory within a particular subculture. I have no doubt that every community has such things. And no site could ever keep track of them, intervening to ward off nonsense known only to that community.
but in any rate "don't make threats or call for violence" should be in the TOS
The TOS has: "LibraryThing may not be used to injure, threaten, stalk, impersonate, or harass someone."
I'm happy to phrase that more generally--to change "someone" to "someone or a group of people." But "All right wingers must be killed" is a threat to many people, including no doubt some members. You are not allowed to threaten people on LibraryThing.
I tried to figure out who owns this site. I got a snotty reply. So here's the answer from the far from perfect Wikipedia: Tim Spalding of Portland, Maine, is the majority owner, but it is also owned by ABE Books, which is owned by Amazon (Jeff Bezos), and Cambridge Information Group.
Yes. I am the majority owner. The minority owners are Abebooks, which is now owned by Amazon, and Bowker, which is owned by CIG.
As I said, I was suspended twice in two days.
No, you were suspended once. I believe I unsuspended you several hours after 6:00, because, frankly, we suspend and unsuspend people rarely enough that it is a manual process. Next time I have some free time to code I shall make the unsuspension automatic.
No. I suspect it would happen in any political or perhaps religious group. But Pro and Con is the only really active one right now. Periodically the Catholic group has seen Catholic conspiracy theories posted, and this brings up one of my problems with this sort of thing. We all know that "Obama was born in Kenya" is a conspiracy theory. But "Protestants and Masons wrote the documents of Vatican II" is no less so--it's just a conspiracy theory within a particular subculture. I have no doubt that every community has such things. And no site could ever keep track of them, intervening to ward off nonsense known only to that community.
but in any rate "don't make threats or call for violence" should be in the TOS
The TOS has: "LibraryThing may not be used to injure, threaten, stalk, impersonate, or harass someone."
I'm happy to phrase that more generally--to change "someone" to "someone or a group of people." But "All right wingers must be killed" is a threat to many people, including no doubt some members. You are not allowed to threaten people on LibraryThing.
I tried to figure out who owns this site. I got a snotty reply. So here's the answer from the far from perfect Wikipedia: Tim Spalding of Portland, Maine, is the majority owner, but it is also owned by ABE Books, which is owned by Amazon (Jeff Bezos), and Cambridge Information Group.
Yes. I am the majority owner. The minority owners are Abebooks, which is now owned by Amazon, and Bowker, which is owned by CIG.
As I said, I was suspended twice in two days.
No, you were suspended once. I believe I unsuspended you several hours after 6:00, because, frankly, we suspend and unsuspend people rarely enough that it is a manual process. Next time I have some free time to code I shall make the unsuspension automatic.
67lilithcat
>66 timspalding:
I'm happy to phrase that more generally--to change "someone" to "someone or a group of people."
I think that's a good idea. Right now, there are those who think that if they don't name names (or other identifiers), they aren't violating the TOS.
I'm happy to phrase that more generally--to change "someone" to "someone or a group of people."
I think that's a good idea. Right now, there are those who think that if they don't name names (or other identifiers), they aren't violating the TOS.
68Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
69timspalding
>68 Earthling1:
I'm sorry. You're mistaken. Your comment in the thread was removed because too many people flagged it.
I didn't read the rest of your post. I have work to do. Go complain to someone else.
I'm sorry. You're mistaken. Your comment in the thread was removed because too many people flagged it.
I didn't read the rest of your post. I have work to do. Go complain to someone else.
70Matke
>69 timspalding:
Oh, Tim. I’m so sorry.
Oh, Tim. I’m so sorry.
71Jean-Louis
>65 aspirit: thank you proximity1 and aspirit for your answers. As a Frenchman who doesn't like Emmanuel Macron I am very sensitive about the role played by the media in any kind of election. Our present President has been elected by them and yours might very well be defeated by them. Anyway, this has nothing to do with democracy.And I think the American Democrats should be aware of this more than they seem to be at the moment. That is why I reacted to Tim Spalding's post.
72andyl
>71 Jean-Louis:
I think the problem is that the US system is a bit weird. Unlike France and the UK where you lose and you move out the next day and the new guy moves in, in the US the losing President has 3 more months. So "soon-to-be-former" President (and even lame-duck President which sounds even worse) is perfectly acceptable usage even in the non-Trump era. ISTR Obama being described as a lame-duck President in late 2016 for example.
I think the problem is that the US system is a bit weird. Unlike France and the UK where you lose and you move out the next day and the new guy moves in, in the US the losing President has 3 more months. So "soon-to-be-former" President (and even lame-duck President which sounds even worse) is perfectly acceptable usage even in the non-Trump era. ISTR Obama being described as a lame-duck President in late 2016 for example.
73Jean-Louis
>72 andyl: To say the US system is "a bit weird" sounds like an understatement. I'm afraid I still don't understand exactly how it works. Anyway the medias have become the problem. Either they rule, like in the so-called free countries, or they are controlled by the government in the autoritarian countries. Which means there remains hardly any free press. Long ago, MacLuhan said "the medium is the message".
74GeorgeColes
Este usuario ha sido eliminado por spam.
75John5918
>73 Jean-Louis:
Not a new thing, of course. The Sun newspaper is widely credited with the Tory victory in the UK in 1992. To quote Wikipedia (for convenience):
The Sun later printed a self-congratulatory headline "It's The Sun Wot Won It". And of course continued to print a picture of a topless woman on page 3 of every edition for another 20 years or so.
On the other hand, I think you overstate the case if you are referring to mainstream media. Respectable and responsible media check their facts, verify their sources and clearly separate factual news from political opinion, and are open and transparent about their editorial political bias. Between them they also cover the whole political spectrum, left, right and independent, although of course many people would only be reading media which mirror their own political bias. The US right wing narrative that there is a left wing bias doesn't stand up to scrutiny, given the power and reach of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
On the other hand if you are speaking about social media, I would agree with you that they have played a tremendously influential (and often irresponsible) role influencing elections. Once again the whole political spectrum is covered by social media platforms, and once again, many people are only looking at social media which reflects their own political bias.
Not a new thing, of course. The Sun newspaper is widely credited with the Tory victory in the UK in 1992. To quote Wikipedia (for convenience):
Owned by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch, The Sun had been relentless in its drive to turn voters against the Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock. The Sun, then the tabloid newspaper with the widest circulation in Britain, encouraged its readers to back the Conservatives and published the election day headline "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights"... Kinnock himself blamed The Sun and other newspapers sympathetic towards the Conservatives as a major factor in his failure to win the election and bitterly denounced its use of "misinformation and disinformation". Even some Conservatives acknowledged that The Sun contributed to their election triumph, including Margaret Thatcher and Lord McAlpine...
The Sun later printed a self-congratulatory headline "It's The Sun Wot Won It". And of course continued to print a picture of a topless woman on page 3 of every edition for another 20 years or so.
On the other hand, I think you overstate the case if you are referring to mainstream media. Respectable and responsible media check their facts, verify their sources and clearly separate factual news from political opinion, and are open and transparent about their editorial political bias. Between them they also cover the whole political spectrum, left, right and independent, although of course many people would only be reading media which mirror their own political bias. The US right wing narrative that there is a left wing bias doesn't stand up to scrutiny, given the power and reach of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
On the other hand if you are speaking about social media, I would agree with you that they have played a tremendously influential (and often irresponsible) role influencing elections. Once again the whole political spectrum is covered by social media platforms, and once again, many people are only looking at social media which reflects their own political bias.
76aspirit
>73 Jean-Louis: I suspect fake news (the type that ignores history, social expectations, and facts) has been adding to the confusion.
US news media "calling" the elections has been an part of federal* elections for roughly two hundred years. I don't know how our elections compare to France's, other than I expect ours are considerably more complex these days. I'm going to take a reasonable guess France has fewer than the thousands of elections offices that we do.
We rely on news media to keep track of what state and the largest county offices report for their counts not only because it's convenient but because that works for fair elections, ensuring the people who are running in the elections (usually) aren't the one reporting the outcome.
Counting the populace votes, which continues this week, can hold surprises that change the outcome, but that's not a new problem, as presidential candidates are typically aware. No matter who the news media calls as the president elected by the populace, there's more to the election; the Electoral College meets in December. The election and transition processes here are on a longer timeline than seems to be used elsewhere. The outgoing president's term ends January 20, which is why there's two months of "the outgoing president".
The incoming president has those two months to transition, which involves debriefing by the outgoing presidential staff on what's been happening in 50 states, all territories, federal reserves, and foreign relations; hiring replacement staff; and scheduling.
Other nations are reportedly trying to reach the incoming administration through the White House, as usual for this point in the presidential elections, but they can't. The current administration is refusing to follow standard transition practices. That's not a problem with the news; the current administration became the problem.
* (this is another confusing term, as all elections for federal positions are state run)
US news media "calling" the elections has been an part of federal* elections for roughly two hundred years. I don't know how our elections compare to France's, other than I expect ours are considerably more complex these days. I'm going to take a reasonable guess France has fewer than the thousands of elections offices that we do.
We rely on news media to keep track of what state and the largest county offices report for their counts not only because it's convenient but because that works for fair elections, ensuring the people who are running in the elections (usually) aren't the one reporting the outcome.
Counting the populace votes, which continues this week, can hold surprises that change the outcome, but that's not a new problem, as presidential candidates are typically aware. No matter who the news media calls as the president elected by the populace, there's more to the election; the Electoral College meets in December. The election and transition processes here are on a longer timeline than seems to be used elsewhere. The outgoing president's term ends January 20, which is why there's two months of "the outgoing president".
The incoming president has those two months to transition, which involves debriefing by the outgoing presidential staff on what's been happening in 50 states, all territories, federal reserves, and foreign relations; hiring replacement staff; and scheduling.
Other nations are reportedly trying to reach the incoming administration through the White House, as usual for this point in the presidential elections, but they can't. The current administration is refusing to follow standard transition practices. That's not a problem with the news; the current administration became the problem.
* (this is another confusing term, as all elections for federal positions are state run)
77prosfilaes
>73 Jean-Louis: I find lines like "there remains hardly any free press" frustrating. I'm not going to tell you that things are invariably getting better, but so often these phrases harken back to a fantasy golden age that never existed.
I find it interesting that you blame the press for Macron. I looked at it as the result of a large political field splitting votes and the runoff system getting rid of everyone but Macron and Le Pen, leaving most voters with someone they may have disliked and someone who terrified them.
I find it interesting that you blame the press for Macron. I looked at it as the result of a large political field splitting votes and the runoff system getting rid of everyone but Macron and Le Pen, leaving most voters with someone they may have disliked and someone who terrified them.
78aspirit
>76 aspirit: tl;dr
"Unted States press stole presidential election!" is fake news.
The headline of "Joe Biden wins the US presidential election" describing the almost completed count (for the populace vote) is a sign of a working democratic election.
"Unted States press stole presidential election!" is fake news.
The headline of "Joe Biden wins the US presidential election" describing the almost completed count (for the populace vote) is a sign of a working democratic election.
79Jean-Louis
>77 prosfilaes: The trick of branding the right as fascists or nazis has been used first by François Mitterand and then successfully by all subsequent contenders. As for our press, in the months preceding the 2017 elections the portrait of Macron, who was then almost unknown was on the front page of practically all french magazines and journals. He really was the candidate of the medias. And also, don't forget what happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn falsely accused of sexual aggression and to François Fillon accused a few days before the election by the Canard enchaîné and within 24 hours brought to justice. In both cases nothing came out of it.
The accusation of sexual aggression has been used against Donald Trump, against Julian Assange and others.
And the social medias, bad and twisted as they are too often, loosen the grip of the press on the people. I admit I lean on the right, but I would gladly be a socialist if I found a real socialist leader. May be you had such a one in Bernie Sanders. Why was he pushed aside by the Democrats ?
The accusation of sexual aggression has been used against Donald Trump, against Julian Assange and others.
And the social medias, bad and twisted as they are too often, loosen the grip of the press on the people. I admit I lean on the right, but I would gladly be a socialist if I found a real socialist leader. May be you had such a one in Bernie Sanders. Why was he pushed aside by the Democrats ?
80proximity1
>73 Jean-Louis:
Jean-Louis,
there are historical reasons behind all this. Travel in the 18th century wasn't what it is today. For decades, the president was elected (in numerous states, this was done by the state legislatures, not by direct popular vote) in December and the new president was inaugurated in March (or sometimes April, the dates varied over the years.) The electors in the states had to vote in their respective states and later, prior to March's inauguration, convene in Washington, D.C. to formally validate, certify their ballots.
United States presidential inauguration
________________________
Élection présidentielle américaine de 1788-1789
When the United States were founded as a unified nation under the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to the former charter, ("Articles of Confederation")
"In 5 states, the state legislature chose electors. The other 6 chose electors through some form involving a popular vote, though in only two states did the choice depend directly on a statewide vote in a way even roughly resembling the modern method in all states."
_______________
(Wikipedia : "1788–89 United States presidential election")
81lorax
timspalding (#66):
But "All right wingers must be killed" is a threat to many people, including no doubt some members. You are not allowed to threaten people on LibraryThing.
This is a policy change, then, and one I am grateful for. You have in the past (many years ago, in fairness) said that threats against gay people as a group (specifically, that our children should be taken away) are acceptable because they're just a political debate, but that responding by calling someone a bigot is an unacceptable personal attack. Changing the TOS to "someone or a group of people" would be a very welcome change.
But "All right wingers must be killed" is a threat to many people, including no doubt some members. You are not allowed to threaten people on LibraryThing.
This is a policy change, then, and one I am grateful for. You have in the past (many years ago, in fairness) said that threats against gay people as a group (specifically, that our children should be taken away) are acceptable because they're just a political debate, but that responding by calling someone a bigot is an unacceptable personal attack. Changing the TOS to "someone or a group of people" would be a very welcome change.
82Jean-Louis
>64 proximity1: Thank you. I didn't know Bierce's definition. We'll alas have more occasions to appreciate its truth.
83Jean-Louis
>80 proximity1: I hadn't thought of this question of travel. In 18th century France "we" didn't have that worry. No elections.
84proximity1
>83 Jean-Louis:
See :
Literature, travel and colonial writing in the English Renaissance, 1545-1625 by Hadfield, Oxford etc. Clarendon Press 1998
one of many studies of "early modern" (epoch) travel.
above all, Alexis de Tocqueville, I & II:
https://www.librarything.com/work/13546571/book/56964328
https://www.librarything.com/work/3257589/book/56964334
See :
Literature, travel and colonial writing in the English Renaissance, 1545-1625 by Hadfield, Oxford etc. Clarendon Press 1998
one of many studies of "early modern" (epoch) travel.
above all, Alexis de Tocqueville, I & II:
https://www.librarything.com/work/13546571/book/56964328
https://www.librarything.com/work/3257589/book/56964334
85Jean-Louis
Thank you proximity1
86prosfilaes
>79 Jean-Louis: The trick of branding the right as fascists or nazis has been used first by François Mitterand and then successfully by all subsequent contenders.
And branding is important. But that strikes me as a you problem; that your opponents try and summarize your position in one negative word is not surprising or outrageous, and I'm quite sure that the French right tries the same, if less effectively.
As for the US, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-fascist-is-donal... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-fascist-is-president-trump-theres-sti... offer a scale of Benitos for fascism; 26 out of 44 in 2016, and 47 out of 76 (on an expanded scale) in 2020. He loses points for not actually killing people, not being militaristic enough, and having absolutely no cult of youth.
Also in the US, the Senate Majority Leader, possibly the second most powerful position in the nation, throws around the word socialist at everything the Democrats do, and especially the milquetoast Biden; https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-suggests-voting-rights-propos... is an example of how he called basic voting reform Socialist; good or bad, it had nothing to do with the state controlling the means of production.
The accusation of sexual aggression has been used against Donald Trump, against Julian Assange and others.
I'm guessing this is a language problem, but it's sexual assault, not sexual aggression.
Donald Trump committed sexual assault. There's a video where he brags about grabbing women by the pussy. He went on Howard Stern and talked about barging into changing rooms at the Miss USA contests. When the first allegations of sexual assault by Donald Trump came out, the Washington Post knew exactly who to talk to, because one of their journalists knew a women who had been speaking about Trump grabbing her inappropriately to friends for twenty years. To dismiss Trump's history of sexual assault is to ignore his own words and those of more than a dozen women, in favor of his self serving claims.
May be you had such a one in Bernie Sanders. Why was he pushed aside by the Democrats ?
Push aside by the Democrats? It's a two party system, and there simply is not anywhere near 50.1% support for an openly socialist candidate in the US. Despite the complaints, he lost fair and square.
And branding is important. But that strikes me as a you problem; that your opponents try and summarize your position in one negative word is not surprising or outrageous, and I'm quite sure that the French right tries the same, if less effectively.
As for the US, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-fascist-is-donal... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-fascist-is-president-trump-theres-sti... offer a scale of Benitos for fascism; 26 out of 44 in 2016, and 47 out of 76 (on an expanded scale) in 2020. He loses points for not actually killing people, not being militaristic enough, and having absolutely no cult of youth.
Also in the US, the Senate Majority Leader, possibly the second most powerful position in the nation, throws around the word socialist at everything the Democrats do, and especially the milquetoast Biden; https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-suggests-voting-rights-propos... is an example of how he called basic voting reform Socialist; good or bad, it had nothing to do with the state controlling the means of production.
The accusation of sexual aggression has been used against Donald Trump, against Julian Assange and others.
I'm guessing this is a language problem, but it's sexual assault, not sexual aggression.
Donald Trump committed sexual assault. There's a video where he brags about grabbing women by the pussy. He went on Howard Stern and talked about barging into changing rooms at the Miss USA contests. When the first allegations of sexual assault by Donald Trump came out, the Washington Post knew exactly who to talk to, because one of their journalists knew a women who had been speaking about Trump grabbing her inappropriately to friends for twenty years. To dismiss Trump's history of sexual assault is to ignore his own words and those of more than a dozen women, in favor of his self serving claims.
May be you had such a one in Bernie Sanders. Why was he pushed aside by the Democrats ?
Push aside by the Democrats? It's a two party system, and there simply is not anywhere near 50.1% support for an openly socialist candidate in the US. Despite the complaints, he lost fair and square.
87Kuiperdolin
That goes back to way before Mitterand. Front Populaire demagogues in the 30s were already calling everyone else Fascists (while signing the Munich agreements and including a literal WW1 deserter).
88prosfilaes
>87 Kuiperdolin: Front Populaire demagogues in the 30s were already calling everyone else Fascists (while signing the Munich agreements and including a literal WW1 deserter).
As I said, that seems like a you problem. Front Populaire signing the Munich agreements says more about them than it says about their opponents. Given that militarisation is generally considered a fascist property (though Communists and totalitarians in general seem to be fans of it), I'm not sure why the Front Popularie including a deserter is relevant, or an argument against their opponents being fascists.
As I said, that seems like a you problem. Front Populaire signing the Munich agreements says more about them than it says about their opponents. Given that militarisation is generally considered a fascist property (though Communists and totalitarians in general seem to be fans of it), I'm not sure why the Front Popularie including a deserter is relevant, or an argument against their opponents being fascists.
89SandraArdnas
I'm having a headache from the ongoing political discussion here, which really isn't the topic of this thread. Could you guys move it to pro & con where it belongs. My brain will implode if I read again how oversimplifying and throwing labels like there's no tomorrow is not outrageous
92.mau.
>89 SandraArdnas: I'd add my 2c. LibraryThing is a place about books and libraries. While I have no problem in chatting, and even in talks about politics, I believe such talks should be made in specific boards, which people may choose to read or not.
93norabelle414
>89 SandraArdnas: Yes; I'm hoping Tim isn't expecting any additional feedback on >1 timspalding: because anyone who might have given some is now ignoring this thread
94melannen
So when this thread first went up, I was not strongly in favor of pre-emptively limiting or censuring political speech on LT, but I did say it might be a good idea to be prepared against the day people were really starting to get banned from larger, better-suited sites, and might come here to regroup.
This might be the that time.
See also: the call to armed insurrection currently sitting like a steaming pile at the top of the previously near-dormant Political Conservatives group.
This might be the that time.
See also: the call to armed insurrection currently sitting like a steaming pile at the top of the previously near-dormant Political Conservatives group.
95proximity1
"I (heartily) heart"
>12 paradoxosalpha:
(Damn! I wish I'd written that!)
&
>15 cpg:.
and that!
+10,000
______________________________
Apparently, the mass-hysterical scape-goating going on---so thoroughly analyzed and decrypted in the work (esp. Violence and the Sacred)
by René Girard --- is being astutely observed by some people.
>12 paradoxosalpha:
..."even the phrase "fake news" suggests its own unhealthy cognitive bias--not skepticism, but paranoid adherence to a given narrative."
(Damn! I wish I'd written that!)
&
>15 cpg:.
and that!
+10,000
______________________________
Apparently, the mass-hysterical scape-goating going on---so thoroughly analyzed and decrypted in the work (esp. Violence and the Sacred)
by René Girard --- is being astutely observed by some people.
