Comment Moderation In Effect
Not sure if I have it right, but comment moderation is in effect now.
I'm sure most of you realize I have a major troll spamming my posts now. I don't know how else to deal with it. Feel free to make your comments, however, anything that seems to be that troll will be deleted.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 5:07 PM
46 comments
46 Comments:
Maybe you do have a flea problem after all.
It is about darn time Fred. I have a fan club too. I know who she is, and I am sure there may be more than one. No matter what I post about, they leave me nasty notes. So, I have no choice but to moderate. Best of Luck.
-boy
Ooh, a preventative measure.
Fred, isn't that like fluoridation? Or DUI stops?
How can such a staunch Libertarian reconcile this craven lunging for the comment moderation nanny?
Ditto, boy most likely to... Hang in there Fred - that guy's a real jerk. Word verification will slow 'em down.
Fred, it doesn't take much to delete comments and it discourages trolls pretty effectively .
On Wordpress you can block IP addresses, so you might want to consider switching over.
Good luck to you.
You block one computer, they go to another. And for all you know, you're blocking a library computer.
That last post was in response to Carson. Who knows how many posts are in between?
That's what concerns me about blocking IP addresses. I'd be too worried I'd be blocking someone I didn't want to.
Well Fred at least you flushed out at least one former anonymous troll, the zappoid.
Thanks Mr. Brownback.
Glad you're paying attention.
http://www.killuglyradio.com/hot-poop/2007/11/08/the-man-belonged-in-a-strait-jacket-2
Fred, I'm glad you're banning anonymous posters. It does kind of support the idea that regulation is a good thing.
Seriously, this is just another instance of the libertarian ethic withering on exposure to real-world problems.
Exceptions, exceptions, exceptions.
I don't think so at all, in this instance. This is simply a matter of me running my blog as I see fit. Not only that, but putting a stalker in the background where he should remain.
I'm not surprised Jeff sees this as some sort of victory for government. I am surprised Hoover does. I can't imagine that he published every letter to the editor that he's received, and I wouldn't think he would enjoy government forcing him to do so.
I'll have to say I'm quite disappointed in Hoover. I think I might have read him wrong.
"I don't think so at all, in this instance. This is simply a matter of me running my blog as I see fit. Not only that, but putting a stalker in the background where he should remain."
But drunk drivers, that's different. They should remain free, because they pose less of a threat than a spammer.
"I can't imagine that he published every letter to the editor that he's received, and I wouldn't think he would enjoy government forcing him to do so."
I don't publish every letter, but then I never championed libertarianism.
"I'll have to say I'm quite disappointed in Hoover. I think I might have read him wrong."
I think you must have!
Kevin and jeff, this is a private blog belonging to Fred. He has the right to regulate it as he sees fit. He has no guns to compel compliance whereas the government enforces its "regulations" with force. That is the difference between the libertarian view and the statist philosophy.
Hoover writes, "But drunk drivers, that's different. They should remain free, because they pose less of a threat than a spammer.".
Interesting, since I never said that. Apparently you missed the part where I said police should have probable cause to pull a car over, rather than checkpoints.We do have a Bill of Rights in this country, you know.
I know. That doesn't matter if just one child's life is saved.
This is interesting, and I'm wondering if Hoover might have made some anonymous comments here, although I won't go so far to say he's my super troll. Sounds similar, though, to some of the anti- liberty comments we've received here on this blog.
I never would of thought Hoover would do such a thing, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt none of those comments were his.
"Kevin and jeff, this is a private blog belonging to Fred. He has the right to regulate it as he sees fit."
Fred governs this blog, does he not?
My point is simply that he has now instituted the type of preventative measure he has blogged against – fluoridation and DUI checkpoints – pursuant to his libertarian philosophy.
"He has no guns to compel compliance whereas the government enforces its "regulations" with force. That is the difference between the libertarian view and the statist philosophy."
Does anyone force drunk drivers to enter DUI checkpoints at gunpoint? No. By law, there must be warning signs prior to a turnoff/detour route around the checkpoint.
Does the government force you to drink fluoridated water at gunpoint. Obviously not.
Both are sensible preventative measures which adherents to boutique ideologies like libertarianism are fond of railing against... and then they go and do the same thing when they have a problem.
Just sayin'.
"Interesting, since I never said that. Apparently you missed the part where I said police should have probable cause to pull a car over, rather than checkpoints.We do have a Bill of Rights in this country, you know."
Actually you did say that. Implicitly, you advocate that drivers who are too drunk to even turn away from a DUI checkpoint should remain free to work their magic on the roads.
"This is interesting, and I'm wondering if Hoover might have made some anonymous comments here, although I won't go so far to say he's my super troll. Sounds similar, though, to some of the anti- liberty comments we've received here on this blog."
Fred, how can you deny your troll his/her liberties? Isn't that a little, well, inconsistent?
Oh right, you had to make an exception. It is, after all, libertarianism we're talking about. The Swiss cheese of philosophies.
Nope. Different things:
You're talking about the power of government. I'm talking about an individual's blog, or your newspaper.
If someone sent letters in to your newspaper for publishing that pretty much said, "Kevin Hoover sucks. He's a homo. He doesn't know what he's talking about...", and you got them every day, regardless of the issue, would you publish them?
No you wouldn't, and you haven't.
Let's put this another way: Would you give Charles Douglas his own weekly column in his paper to run you down as a person? I doubt it.
I meant in "your" paper.
"Kevin Hoover sucks. He's a homo. He doesn't know what he's talking about...", and you got them every day, regardless of the issue, would you publish them? No you wouldn't, and you haven't."
Usually they say I'm anti-gay. Or pro-gay. And so on. And as long as they have a name on them that's real, I do publish them.
But you are correct - I wouldn't publish them if I got the same thing every day. The difference is, I don't espouse an impractical philosophy that prohibits preventative measures. Never have.
"The difference is, I don't espouse an impractical philosophy that prohibits preventative measures.".
Not sure that I have, either, although you think so.
So, because I want to throw out some ideas about liberty, I should publish every troll comment you send in?
I'll disagree with you on that.
And, yes, I deleted your "Super Troll" post, that came in with your others.
"Let's put this another way: Would you give Charles Douglas his own weekly column in his paper to run you down as a person? I doubt it."
It's funny you should mention Charles. Several years ago, he came into the office with a column. That was when his buddy Greg Allen was pushing his latest round of civil liberties initiatives.
So Charles delivers this column urging folks to sign the petitions. This was after he'd gone nuts with his various forms of highly personal and vicious agitprop. On the bottom of the page he'd written something to the effect of thanking me for considering the column, and that "maybe it's time to clean up my attitude" or something like that.
Nevertheless, the column was coherent and well-written, so I ran it. Why wouldn't I?
Then, the next week, a reader called me, incredulous. He pointed out all the evil rotten mean and nasty stuff Charles had done (that he knew of) and asked me why I would give him any space. Again, why wouldn't I if he had something intelligent to say? The caller rang off, and I swear I could hear him scratching his head in disbelief.
But you're right. I wouldn't run a column by him on any systematic basis, as it really would look like an endorsement of his excessive behavior.
"So, because I want to throw out some ideas about liberty, I should publish every troll comment you send in? I'll disagree with you on that."
Well, you aren't getting my point, so there's no point in my repeating it.
Wait. Let me try it this way.
Should a government-run blog publish every spam-troll comment? Or should there be moderation?
"And, yes, I deleted your "Super Troll" post, that came in with your others. "
Uh, Fred? That weren't me.
I'm not the one to be like others in the blogs and accuse bloggers of being one identity or another, but the similarity between your comments and the "Super Troll" seems pretty close to me.
Kevin wrote, "Should a government-run blog publish every spam-troll comment? Or should there be moderation?".
I suppose that depends on the purpose of the blog.
I think I see what you're trying to say. You're throwing out red herrings, though, imo. Kind of like people upset about libertarian opposition to gun control...:
You libertarians think anybody should be able to own a nuclear weapon....
Silly, at best. We're so far from there it's hardly worth discussing.
I'll have to say, I'm just flabbergasted by this idea that someone who runs a blog should just continually accept and publish personal insults. I find it extremely troubling hearing this same crap from someone who runs a newspaper.
Absolutely unbelievable, and scary to know this guy publishes stuff supposedly mainly mainstream people read.
But, difference is, I won't tell him to stop, at least as far as his newspaper goes. That's his business.
"I suppose that depends on the purpose of the blog. "
Ah. So there are at least theoretical circumstances under which the government may institute control. And whaddya know – it just happens to coincide with a problem you're having!
"You libertarians think anybody should be able to own a nuclear weapon.... Silly, at best. We're so far from there it's hardly worth discussing."
I think you've proven quite handily that straw men are no match for you.
Fred, now that you've established via rhetorical forensics that I'm Super Troll, isn't it time you dropped the A-Bomb? You know... that I'm controlled by Arkley?
I mean, why mess around with petty personalization when you can go for the ultimate condemnation?
"Absolutely unbelievable, and scary to know this guy publishes stuff supposedly mainly mainstream people read. "
Even worse, they pay for it! What can they be thinking?
Yeah, right. Why not?
Hi Fred!
It is your blog and you can choose what you want to write and who can be on it.
We have been have to delete some nasty comments lately, too.
Hang in there, buddy!
"Even worse, they pay for it! What can they be thinking?"
Could it be that the quote attributed to P.T. Barnum was accurate? But the question answers itself.
Hang in there, Fred. You're the first blog I visit every day, and though I don't always have anything to add, you always make me think. Weren't you nominated for the Thinking Blogger Award?
Keep it up. Many of us out here love you.
Thanks, Carol and Rose.
"Kevin and jeff, this is a private blog belonging to Fred. He has the right to regulate it as he sees fit."
Yes, a private blog made possible because of the public nature of the internet, created by the government with the work done by the "educational-industrial complex."
"He has no guns to compel compliance..."
And he doesn't need them because there is rule of law.
"...whereas the government enforces its "regulations" with force."
And how else would regulations be enforced?
"That is the difference between the libertarian view and the statist philosophy."
That the former is naive and the latter pragmatic?
"I'm not surprised Jeff sees this as some sort of victory for government."
Government is an unfortunate necessity.
Sad to see that Jeff considers running a private blog the same as running government. He, and Kevin H. both seem to think that restrictions made privately should be the same as those made publicly.
I can't help but wonder what sort of "free speech" they'd be willing to restrict in the public sector?
Fred, you're great, don't get me wrong.
But discussions with you about libertarian principles quickly descend into logical fallacies, straw men, projection and personalization.
Point out a flaw in the theory, and one is suddenly an enemy of free speech, against liberty and a troll. You throw this slop at people... it seems like you could do better.
If we can behave ourselves now, we can all have lots of fun discussing things frankly and friendly-ly next year when people really get fired up!
I do see your point, Kevin - and it could be a fun discussion.
But Fred's troll has been really nasty and deragatory, with personal attacks of the worst and most hurtful kind. Makes me want to hurt the troll - at least the one I am thinking of, maybe there's more than one. I can only imagine how it makes Fred feel.
Blocking or deleting the comments is the only viable solution, in the same way you'd ask someone that rude to leave the table at the coffee shop, or have them escorted out of a bar. Same thing as not inviting the jerk to your house when you're having people over.
If Fred switched his blog over to wordpress, he would be able to zero in on exactly who the troll is, because the troll's IP address would come in WITH the comment, unlike the mjore haphazard way we get them with sitemeter and statcounter. I believe wordpress also has IP blocking - heraldo could tell you. The other nifty feature? You can actually EDIT the comments. Not sure how that works, but it could be kinda - dangerous.
Fred, it's an analogy. Just as a private individual has need to regulate, the community as a whole needs to regulate. My main point is that government is a useful but unfortunate necessity, just as you implementing comment moderation is a useful but unfortunate necessity. Of course you have to regulate your blog comments. Some people really truly suck. Of course there must be government regulation of capital activity. Some people truly suck. Unregulated freedom can work for a while, but someone always comes along an spoils it. It's the human condition. Suffering is part of it. Alleviating suffering is noble.
Fred, I respect you, and I appreciate you allowing my comments. May civil debate continue.
Well, Jeff, you're right, but it is a shame when all the good people have to suffer for the actions of a few. Wouldn't it just be simpler to have harsher consequences for those who violate trust and leave the others alone - that, it seems to me, is the essence of the Libertarian way - less restriction, greater individual responsibility.
It's pretty ridiculous that a high school kid cannot buy a can of spray paint - just because a few "graffiti artists" broke the trust contract - and that's just one example.
I hear that rose. An anarchist once said "Laws, good people don't need em and bad people don't follow em, so what good are they?" If harsher consequences would work, I'd be all for it. But who will police the police?
In that scenario - I agree, Good quote, too.
What's the one about only needing the good people to stand by and do nothing for evil to triumph?
Post a Comment
<< Home