So used to be I thought if anyone owned a site like this.... and it seems to be a sort of cooperative "ownership" in here with "contributors" having some kind of "ownership", with Jason and Colton being public spirited sorts who take care of us for precious little "fun"..... I considered that "ownership" to have a large amount of perogatives associated with it. So the "owners" are entitled to make the rules, pick the mods, and even promote some sort of world view of their own. If members don't like what this is, they should just leave.
However, I've changed. The rumors/facts about Google and Facebook setting up algorithms which promote some users and sideline others deemed socially inferior have changed my opinion.
Anyone who sets up a social website open to the public should reconsider their rules on the standard courts have recently applied in the bakery shop business. If you're open to the public, you need to avoid any kind of discrimination, "otherizing", or selection criteria applied to users. The rules need to be unbiased. Yes, you can and should ban or sideline people for impolite, rude, obscene, or generally offensive behaviors, but not for having a unique or controversial point of view. If you're open to the public, you need to accept genuine people as they are subject only to general rules of socially acceptable behaviors.
examples of unacceptable behaviors/comments might include threats, bullying, or baseless insults. The term "fascist" comes to mind. Most people will apply the term to dictators like Hitler or Mussolini and apply rabid hate to the label. I like the underlying latin root as it applies to "network". A lot of business types are pretty high on "networking" as a way to succeed in business. I think businesses which make significant lobbying efforts who can control or even impact elected representatives are basically suspect on the issue of corruption. I think "fascist" applies to these types of actors. "communist" or "Marxist" could be "hate speech" in some folks ideas of things. I think the terms have objective value with reference to specific ideas or theories of society and government. Sure, I think the term describes a seriously deranged world view with no scientific meaning, and I think the proprietors of most governments claiming the mantle, even "progressives" are really a kind of statist/fascist clique. But even so, it's possible to disagree with people like that with civility.
At any rate, this site purports to be a Jazz sports fan community, and I think as long as you are a Jazz fan, you should have a place in the sun here. We can have Dr. Jones and others with some kind of conservative values right along with our utopian dreamers. My utopian dream is a society with very large measures of individual liberty and a well-restrained government with managers/elected officials who recognize that the people are in charge. I like the idea of basic human rights deemed inviolable by government, or at least only restricted for openly-stated necessities of management.... oh, like traffic rules on public roads, or keeping the world clean and fit for human habitation.
However, I've changed. The rumors/facts about Google and Facebook setting up algorithms which promote some users and sideline others deemed socially inferior have changed my opinion.
Anyone who sets up a social website open to the public should reconsider their rules on the standard courts have recently applied in the bakery shop business. If you're open to the public, you need to avoid any kind of discrimination, "otherizing", or selection criteria applied to users. The rules need to be unbiased. Yes, you can and should ban or sideline people for impolite, rude, obscene, or generally offensive behaviors, but not for having a unique or controversial point of view. If you're open to the public, you need to accept genuine people as they are subject only to general rules of socially acceptable behaviors.
examples of unacceptable behaviors/comments might include threats, bullying, or baseless insults. The term "fascist" comes to mind. Most people will apply the term to dictators like Hitler or Mussolini and apply rabid hate to the label. I like the underlying latin root as it applies to "network". A lot of business types are pretty high on "networking" as a way to succeed in business. I think businesses which make significant lobbying efforts who can control or even impact elected representatives are basically suspect on the issue of corruption. I think "fascist" applies to these types of actors. "communist" or "Marxist" could be "hate speech" in some folks ideas of things. I think the terms have objective value with reference to specific ideas or theories of society and government. Sure, I think the term describes a seriously deranged world view with no scientific meaning, and I think the proprietors of most governments claiming the mantle, even "progressives" are really a kind of statist/fascist clique. But even so, it's possible to disagree with people like that with civility.
At any rate, this site purports to be a Jazz sports fan community, and I think as long as you are a Jazz fan, you should have a place in the sun here. We can have Dr. Jones and others with some kind of conservative values right along with our utopian dreamers. My utopian dream is a society with very large measures of individual liberty and a well-restrained government with managers/elected officials who recognize that the people are in charge. I like the idea of basic human rights deemed inviolable by government, or at least only restricted for openly-stated necessities of management.... oh, like traffic rules on public roads, or keeping the world clean and fit for human habitation.
Last edited: