SuttaCentral
Okay, so can we also consider that censorship might not be all 100% bad? I agree, ‘censorship’ has negative connotations. But we do need to moderate this forum.
And then the question we need to ask is how should we strike the right balance here? Keeping in mind that we cannot make everyone happy all the time, but as Kay said above we do have duty of care and need to protect and represent all the users of this forum, to the best of our ability?
Of course some posts will need to be deleted (pornographic posts, violently graphic posts, hate posts, racist posts, sexist posts, spam posts…please delete them). On the other hand, if one started to censor independent views about the suttas, independent views on the nature of dhamma, then obviously one has gone too far and this forum will be finished. But where does one draw the line between those two extremes? It is completely reliant on the judgement of the person with the power to delete. At the end of the day, it is a judgement call. There is no avoiding that.
My Heart and Metta go out to all those hurt by this sad incident. 
That was my point. Censorship is actually too generic a term, as it embraces three different notions that were all thrown in the linked article in one bucket: a brilliant example of political sophistry (pretty much as folks on the right love their ‘security’). I will now try to come up with a possible classification of censorship types (it is all pure conjecture, so feel free to object 
)
Institutional censorship of violence and discrimination inciting speech is one thing. One cannot call people to harm or even kill other people, one cannot call people to discrimination against other people. One cannot say ‘I think gay people should be killed’ (should we spolier-ize this one?) or ‘I think gay people should have less rights’, one can say ‘I think gay sex is abhorrent and sinful before God [but we live in a secular nation, so my personal position should have no legal bearing]’ or ‘I don’t think gay people should be able to participate in a marriage, although they should be able to participate in legal gay partnerships having exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriage’ or ‘I hate gay pride parades’, people very often perceive it as hate speech. The distinction may not always be evident because people sometimes tend to formulate their thoughts incoherently or in an unfortunate manner, but asking people for providing context for their statements is a good idea in that case. Even the most ardent proponents of free speech would agree that calling people to violence or discrimination should be illegal. The basic principle underlying this form of censorship is public and personal safety and the state’s concern to prevent violent crimes.
Self-censorship is another thing altogether. Broadcasting nation-wide a SWAT team storming a building where terroruists are holding hostages is something any industry should figure out is unacceptable on their own. Using racial slurs like
“chinks”, “ruskies” and, well, “niggers”
as forms of address instead of reporting other people’s words or use of language (as even the Nikayas do) should also be a tabu. What exactly is subject to self-censorship is a matter of social and industry-wide dialogue, negotiations and compromise, where every suggestions should be first carefully considered and one can expect to be stigmatized by other people if one goes to far in both directions. If it doesn’t happen, you end up with ridiculous suggestions like ‘clapping hands excludes deaf people - and thus should be probably stigmatized.’ The basic principle underlying self-censorship is a negotiation and figuring out of stigmatized behaviour by individuals and their associations as free subjects of a public discourse. An essential element of this censorship is that banning something is applied only to situations where the offensive, stigmatized or otherwise unacceptable content of the illocutionary communicative act (and not perlocutionary acts) is directly attributable to the speakers themselves, not when they are reporting other people’s words. If perlocutionary acts are found to have troublesome effects, it could be a wise idea to adjust the locutionary act as far as possible without changing the illocutionary act. In plain terms, if people are offended and one did not intend it, one could try to change the way one presents their idea (e.g. using the spolier function) without changing the actual message of their words, and if some people are still offended, then oh well. Of course, it is much more complicated in reality than this, and there are myriads of factors influencing the outcome (discussing things in an academic of philosophical context is different from discussiing them in a parliament), but this is actually the positive side of this form of censorship, whereas the ‘evil’ censorship usually has just one factor only. In fact, this censorship is so different from he other two that I even hesitate to call it censorship, more like respect and common sense.
Finally, there is an institutional authority-based censorship that outright bans certain discourses or statements ‘just because’, regardless of their context and the locutionary acts behind them. Because they appear implicitly offensive, because they can lead to people harming themselves, because they offend certain religious communities, and the list goes on and on. The distinction between the counter-violence censorship and this censorship is that there is no actual clear standard, no litmus test for defining what is worth banning and what not. In reality, much more often than not there is a certain ideological struggle going on under the carpet, and the winning ideology is usually the initiator of the authority-censorship. Examples abound: an open discussion of the evidence for biologically conditioned differences in sex behaviour (in humanities) or intelligence (in hard sciences too), open social discussions about problematic elements of certain cultures and religious traditions, less subjective discussions of past political events like wars or universal applicability of ideologies such as Western democracy, etc.
Now, I don’t want to imply this was the reason why LXNDR’s comment was partially deleted, my impression is that it was rather an amotionally induced involuntary violation of the unwritten conventions people use for self-censorship or informal communal self-control, if you will. The problem is that if someone with more power says ‘censorship can be good’, bases their argument on conflating quite different things (pretty much like Ven. Samiddhi conflated two meaning of dukkha in MN 136 or Ven. Nyanavira possibly conflated two meanings of sankhara in his Notes on Dhamma), and then proceeds to implementing censorship, in the end one will always have the authority-based censorship, regardless of what the original intent was. There are no examples in the history of humanity when this was not true.
I don’t know whether you have ever experienced censorship directly, I did both in Russia and in Germany. Its direct products were always dull, passive, shallow and uninspiring people. The very nature of any intellectual discourse is challenging the established views, be they yours or other people’s, intellectual inquiry is always disquieting, fear-inducing, anxiety-inducing, nibbida-inducing - as is the Dhamma. Formal censorship outside of the clearly defined limits of violence or discrimination inciting speech is the direct opposite of all this.
[sorry for the long comment and please don’t take it personal - I really do appreciate your work, your opinion and word of advice you and other mods occasionally give us ]
Hi Vstakan,
Much thanks for your contribution here, I really appreciate how you’ve carried the conversation forward, and intend to get back to some of the points you’ve raise a little later.
I’m in a bit of a rush now, but just a quick note - and not as a moderator ;-), just y’know, to try and help you do what you seem to want to do:
[details=Summary]Text put here will be put into the box[/details]
Hi Aminah,
that’s exactly what I did, it won’t work nonetheless. Mara’s work, undoubtedly.
is an example
Code:
[details=Here]is an example[/details]
It works fine.
It works
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Well, I just tried to edit my post and you can see what I got above.
My guess is is I use a summary thing initially, rather than edit it subsequently, it’ll be fine.
Just tried it in my particular comment. Nope, it doesn’t work. It works in the preview but not in the actual comment. I deleted the quotation markes, it still wouldn’t work.
I think Aminah got it
[quote=“Vstakan, post:24, topic:5115, full:true”]
Even the most ardent proponents of free speech would agree that calling people to violence or discrimination should be illegal. [/quote]
Hmm actually I do not think that is true. I’m sure there are many who would argue that “hate speech”, which can be a call for discrimination should be allowed and in the US is defended by the constitution.
I’ll take a bit of a different approach. I don’t see the act of the moderators in deleting this phrase: “so provided you came to the Dhamma… to escape suffering through death for good, it can be done at this very moment, why wait?” as harmful censorship. Most countries have laws, for example, that deal with censorship of certain statements and images. Justices in most of these countries have struggled with how to codify protective laws, and at the same time, allow for freedom of expression. On the subject of obscenity, one American Justice stated “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric;” " this sums up the impossibility of developing a definition of obscenity that isn’t hopelessly vague and subjective." (see ACLU https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship).
In my view, however, this is a significant Buddhist forum that is a reservoir for the Suttas and Dhamma, with a community of highly skilled and thoughtful people. We have to be mindful that many people come to Buddhism immersed in a dark cloud of suffering. We know that there are people with suicidal feelings and ideation that seek sanctuary in Buddhism. D&D is not a sports or foodie forum. I feel we need to be mindful not just of the audience, but of the Dhammic sense of compassion and wisdom that needs to be employed in such a forum. I feel we need to set and keep a higher standard than a foodie blog.
With that in mind, there are numerous peer reviewed and non-reviewed articles that discuss the harm that the internet can bring to those suffering in the darkest moments of their lives. ( http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2013-10-31-how-internet-affects-young-people-risk-self-harm-or-suicide ) Yes, just as in the old days when a “jumper” on the top of a building was met by shouts of “jump!,” we have people that are lingering on the precipice of suffering that need our care and consideration. Our moderators need to be ready to intervene appropriately in cases where content may act as a trigger for someone vulnerable. Adolescents, especially, seem to be vulnerable to messages or bullying concerning suicide, and again, we need to exercise the wisdom and equanimity that separates thinking Buddhists from others perhaps less skilled and less compassionate.
Moderation is needed, and yes, some censorship is needed. D&D is the gold standard for a Buddhist forum, and it is apporpriate that our moderators set a standard. I feel we are fortunate that we have at the helm Bhante Sujato, and a cadre of skilled moderators (most if not all, I am sure, not pro-censorship in any case) that will protect both freedom to express as well as protect those vulnerable. This to me, is the wisest and most compassionate position to take on this issue.
Good point 
Anyway, the very fact that they are able to discuss it and challenge the accepted point of view is evidence that in that particular case there is no systematic forcefully imposed censorship, that the social convention of classifying the pro-discrimination stance as hate speech is a result of discussing the issue withing the American society.
Moderating this statement is not harmful, on the contrary. Deleting it without prior attempts to mitigate its possible negative effects in other way is. We should be able to use challenging arguments, but we should also take notice of people that can be harmed by them, so going the Middle Way is likely to be the appropriate course of action.
Like in Russia, precisely. That’s how they banned a Sutta and Buddhaghosa’s commentary. Incidentally, Russia has extremely high suicide rates among teenagers, and, incidentally, the highest rates were observed in the less wealthy regions with the lowest Internet availability even before the censorship laws were introduced. Incidentally, this very censorship created an unprecedented hysteria around suicide-based ARGs, made them more popular and eventually led to more suicides. And purely incidentally, it is very probable that it was this censorship that created these ARGs in the first place.
wrt to the spoiler tag, I fixed it. Usually with markdown if it won’t work for no reason, putting it onto a separate line (separated by whitespace lines) makes it work.
In general, on the topic of moderatorship, I’ve used internet forums for about 2 decades, and been a moderator on several. A couple of truisms is that being a moderator is a thankless task, and no-one likes being moderated.
And it’s ridiculous to not expect moderators to not use “first delete then talk”, that’s exactly what moderators are supposed to do. The person whose content was moderated can always re-edit the removed content back in, but reformulated in an acceptable way. Moderators won’t always make exactly the right call, but fortunately having impeccable judgement isn’t part of the requirements, just generally good enough judgement and a willingness to communicate so that users who don’t understand why their content was moderated aren’t left without recourse.
In regards to moderating buddhist forums, it’s good to keep in mind the history of buddhist forums and how they eventually end up. Without learning from the successes and failures of other forums, it is difficult to know what the ballance should be in moderating a forum. We have the case of e-shanga, r/buddhism, dharmawheel and dhammawheel pre-2016.
E-Shanga: Got hacked and also sued, ended up destroyed. Today, it is remembered as a place of extreme repression.
Dharmawheel and r/Buddhism: A new subreddit has been created ( r/Buddhism1) for people who have left them due to unfair moderation. The situation is terrible there, but it does not concern me since they are mahayana.
Dhammawheel: The problematic “progressive” moderators that went Gestapo on the forum have been removed and the forum has returned to normal.
The majority of buddhist in the west tend to be progressives. They tend to only pick other progressive moderators to be mods along them. Progressives in general lean heavily towards the censorship direction rather than free speech. On SuttaCentral, all moderators are progressives and therefore it is very little diversity of thought. This promotes groupthinking with it’s dangerous side-effects. The main reason for groupthinking is high group cohesiveness.
- High group cohesiveness
Janis emphasized that cohesiveness is the main factor that leads to groupthink. Groups that lack cohesiveness can of course make bad decisions, but they do not experience groupthink. In a cohesive group, members avoid speaking out against decisions, avoid arguing with others, and work towards maintaining friendly relationships in the group. If cohesiveness gets to such a high level where there are no longer disagreements between members, then the group is ripe for groupthink.
deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression
Moderators on all forums are known to become more and more repressive over the time because absulute power corrupts in absolute ways. When there is no criticism of your decisions because everybody else thinks the same, things start to get out of control.
I have been banned here for sending a PM to Cara with some criticism of moderation, including these dangers of group thinking. I did not post my message in the topic I was complaining about because I did not want to look like trying to attack the moderation in public. I have sent PM with my honest intention of not seeing this place transformed into DW pre-2016 revolution. As a result, I was banned. And I know of another person who have been banned but moderators stated in public that he left by himself.
This will probably get deleted and I will be banned again. But if there is a modicum of honest intention about promoting buddhism and making this buddhist forum a better place, I hope the moderators will take this message seriously and contemplate a little on the fate of E-shanga, DW pre -2016 etc. That is how things tend to end up with buddhist forums. History always repeats itself when it’s ignored.
It is a hard job to moderate a forum, if one is honest about it, he should listen to criticism with an open mind.
Extreme moderation can ruin a forum faster than any trolls can. And we know that tends to be a big problem on all buddhist forums.
Tip 2: Mods Should Not Care More About the Site than its Owner
This tip is probably the most important. As the site’s owner, you have the most interest in seeing it thrive and succeed. Now don’t get me wrong, your mods must be interested in the site but it is a recipe for disaster if they care too much. Members that take the forum too seriously will also tend to take their role as a mod too seriously. You have probably encountered overly-serious mods at one time or another and you know what a buzz kill they can be. Serious mods tend to go “Gestapo” and strictly enforce rules and ban any poster who “threatens harmony on the site” (which to them, often means disagreeing with them). Serious mods kill a site faster than even trolls and spammers can and will drive away members in droves. Ideal mods do just enough to keep the forum running smoothly without taking the site (or themselves) too seriously. This is one reason I never tap a member as a mod who has asked to be a mod.
Tip 3: Never Make an Emotional Member a Mod
Related to Tip 2, never offer a modship to a member who is easily agitated or emotional. If a member is known to react strongly to perceived insults from other members or becomes hurt when disagreed with, as a mod they may inappropriately abuse their mod powers to “get back” at members who they think insulted them. Emotional mods tend to make arbitrary decisions in the heat of the moment and play favorites with your members - both very bad things.
https://support.prophpbb.com/topic1413.html
It is also important to have diversity of thought among moderation. Dhammawheel has survived precisely because of a huge diversity of thought among moderators, both in terms of buddhism beliefs as well as political beliefs. This has prevented group-thinking to some extend and allowed the forum to self-correct itself when the situation got totally out of control cause of the progressive moderators.
If there is a honest intention about providing good moderation, then let us listen to criticism and evaluate the history of buddhist forums. The attitude of “this is our forum, we do things how we want, you don’t like us go somewhere else” is not a good attitude to run a forum. The opinions of members should be at least taken into consideration. Members make a forum. Without members, the forum would be small and insignificant.
Now, after @blake 's comment I think it is a case of miscommunication and definitely not an abuse of power. If I were LXNDR I would also be pretty upset about having my comment deleted and having to suffer through an minor unexpected telling-off. I think I would have reacted differently, but the truth is I don’t know.
Anyway, the entire situation could have been prevented with a simple standard formulation like ‘please re-formulate your argument in a less overt manner for it to be restored’ or something along these lines. If the issue would not have been resolved, or if LXNDR would have felt the reason for deleting his comment was just way too ridiculous (as he probably did, I don’t know), then we could say we are having a serious issue on our hands. As for this incident, have the mods learnt the lesson? Sure. Should we roast them for this misstep? I don’t think so. Have we learnt a lesson about a mod’s work and our interaction with the mod team? Certainly.
Our mods don’t really deserve much harsh crticism, and claiming they are sub-optimal mods because they are so-called progressives is not really fair, I saw far worse mods in libertarian communities allegedly valuing free speech above all. If you think they are not right, talk to them, it helps
What I found more worrying is the idea that ‘censorship can be good,’ I think it is very wrong and even dangerous to think so. Moderating is not censorship, it is moderating But again I don’t think this principle was acted upon here, it was just a case of miscommunication. We have learnt out lessons, whatever they are, time to move on, quietly and peacfully, without shutting the door with too loud a bang.
…
A fellow told another, just for rhetoric, to kill himself in a topic totally unrelated to the subject of suicide.
Moderators seeing that chose to clean the conversation of such absurdity.
The fellow got angry on having his words moderated and called it censorship.
Other people come in and start throwing all sorts of things in the fan - from actual systematic censorship within countries to pessimistic predictions on the future of this forum.
What is the point of this topic?
Don’t we have better things to do with our time?
The path is eightfold, there must be some homework left undone!
Let’s pick right thought, let us imagine how nice it may be to renounce point of views!
Let us imagine how nice it may be to abandon ill-will!
Let us imagine how nice it may be to have a friendly place to come and to explore the beautiful and immensely rich world of EBTs!
Peace people, peace! 
That is not what I said. What I said is that progressives in general tend to lean strongly towards censorship, and history of buddhist forums speaks for itself. The problem I raised is about complete lack of diversity in the StC moderator team. Even on the infamous dharmawheel and r/Buddhism there is diversity in moderation, to say nothing about DhammaWheel witch is the champion of mod diversity.
Having such homogenity in thinking among mods is a recipe for something to go wrong. I think the decision of the owner of DW to have a very diverse field of moderators was a great one. I strongly suggest a reading of the wikipedia groupthink page to be more aware of the dangers of lack of diversity: Groupthink - Wikipedia
Anyway, the entire situation could have been prevented with a simple standard formulation like ‘please re-formulate your argument in a less overt manner for it to be restored’ or something along these lines.
In my opinion, if someone makes a bad argument, the argument should be refuted through logic. Deleting an opinion is not going to make it wrong. The person might think about that opinion even without reading it somewhere. Therefore, it is best to refute the argument if possible. If it’s not possible to refute the argument, then it is possible that the argument is the truth and there is no reason to delete the truth.
And in general we should keep in mind that censorship of ideas simply doesn’t work and has way more downsides than upsides. I am not going to start a full lecture of free speech, on how censorship starts with good intentions and ends up like in communist countries, etc. In my opinion, censorship of opinions is terrible no matter how you rationalize it. Only censorship that should be present on forums is censorship of insults, personal attacks, etc. Censorship of ideas, no matter the idea, is always bad and unjustified. But what does my opinion worth ? I am not a mod and there is no mod sharing my beliefs, cause there is no diversity in the moderator field like on DW.
What I found more worrying is the idea that ‘censorship can be good,’ I think it is very wrong and even dangerous to think so. Moderating is not censorship, it is moderating
This is why I have claimed that progressive mods tend not to understand the value of free speech too much, how it works, why it’s good, etc. I have lived through the DW dark days when the forum was like a communist party meeting and you didn’t even have a clue why you got banned and your messages deleted. That is where things eventually gravitate towards. StC is not there yet but could well reach that point. All the conditions are in place for that to happen. This is what worries me.
I have only tried to ring the bell before it is too late with my best intentions. If this is rationalized as a personal attack on the mods and I get banned again, then we are already in DW pre-2016.
The main hazard is banning. If moderators don’t have the power to ban, and if the admins don’t use banning as a punitive measure then the potential for abuses of power are greatly reduced. I basically never support banning legitimate users (obviously there are spambots and stuff), even trolls*, because it eliminates the ability to appeal and creates an atmosphere of fear.
* Trolls are an important part of forum ecosystems. It can be compared to autoimmune diseases which happen due to an excess of hygiene.