Last night I added an update to a previous blog post about comment moderation on blog posts as a result of an interesting development on a particular blog. I was particularly concerned because there appeared to be a rather regressive attitude towards comment moderation that appeared, to me at least, to be more about censorship than removal of offensive comments. This morning I discovered that the author of that blog has written a post making further comment on this. It is an interesting, if slightly disturbing, exploration on what the author believes was behind the comments and it very clearly presents a disturbing trend in blog management.
In his post, Roger points to a specific tweet that he believes was the root cause of the problem:
As the Twitter account in question is involved in the campaign to save libraries in Suffolk, it seems entirely reasonable that a blog post criticising said libraries should be drawn to the attention of local people fighting for the service. It strikes me that it was in no way rude or offensive or designed to cause Roger any particular grief. Rather it was pointing out that Roger expressed a view and that people might consider offering an alternative perspective about the libraries. This is crucial because people coming across Roger’s blog would have a rather one-sided view of Suffolk libraries that may not be entirely accurate. A comment forum provides a place to strike balance and demonstrate that whilst the author is fully entitled to express his opinion, there are others who do not share this experience. This is particularly important when negative perceptions of libraries are driving closures across the country (“they are irrelevant”, “no longer fit for purpose” etc).
Roger goes on to add:
I can only presume that one of the council officials, rather than addressing my post, decided to slip the word to his political allies that someone needed a thumping. For how else would my specialised blog come to the attention of these people?
There is no evidence for this statement simply an ill-informed slur. How did this come to the attention of ‘these’ people? Google. Plain and simple. How do I know this? Well, I’m one of many people who regularly search for blog posts and news stories about libraries. As a keen follower of developments, I like to see what is being discussed on the topic to keep informed. Roger’s post was (and I know this for a fact) emailed to a number of library campaigners (by another library campaigner) making them aware of it. As one of those campaigners was engaged in the Suffolk campaign, they felt (rightly) that they should make library campaigners in Suffolk aware of the post and the rather negative comments they contained. This was not a secret plot by council officials. Roger seems to forget (as many people do) that everything is indexed and searchable and it doesn’t need a council official to raise awareness of a particularly unfair attack on a service.
And what of these comments that so offended Roger? Well, they are really not much to get excited about. But before looking at them it might be worth reproducing just one element that caused offence to many readers:
And so it went on. Item after item of inefficiency, maladministration, neglect or wrong-headedness. In real terms, there was nobody in charge. Doubtless there is some woman somewhere who receives a salary to run the organisation. (You can tell that it is a woman in charge because the conversion of Ipswich library into a playgroup is something that only a woman would do). [emphasis mine]
Both the sexism and the disparaging remarks about children’s playgroups were certainly worthy of comment. And the comments themselves were not what I would describe as offensive:
“I couldn’t disagree with you more (and that’s ignoring your puerile sexism). … Besides, why don’t you head upstairs if you want to read in silence?”
“You just seem to want it to be for those who would want the same high brow books as yourself. You would be the first to complain if it closed. If the Tories get their way there will be no libraries left in this County- that should please you!”
“If you want there to be any libraries left, in Suffolk, you would be better served by using your blog to champion their place in the community, rather than making patronising and uninformed attacks on them and their staff.”
“‘Mummy, Mummy, what’s a misogynist? she asked…(blah, blah, blah, oh dear, my small female brain seems to have short circuited.)”
“You are correct in your assertion that women make mistakes. Your mother giving birth to you is a prime example of such poor judgement.”
Roger describes these as ‘personal abuse’ and that was why he removed them from his post. Out of the five I think it is fair to say that three of the comments certainly did not warrant removal at all. The author has made a public attack (and allowed a comments field below, presumably for discussion) and people have entered into a debate with him. It is particularly interesting that he chose to remove the one that suggested there was a room in which he could receive the silence he had wanted, which rather underlines the drive behind their removal.
He goes on to refer to some comments I made (see updated section on previous post):
The sincerity of the last comment may be judged from the fact that, after I banned this commenter, he kept trying to post under other user names, determined to “get at me” somehow. And what kind of commenter first screen-grabs his comments? Only one who is out to cause trouble. And needless to say, when I posted a comment on the originating blog, complaining about their action, it was silently deleted.
Two things worth picking up on here. It is a lie to say that I posted under different usernames. I posted under the same one each time (my name) and each time my comment was deleted. If Roger has any evidence that I did use a different username I suggest he presents it or retracts his comments. Furthermore, in relation to the screen-grabs Roger asks what kind of person does such a thing? Well, a sensible person who has seen reasonable comments removed for no good reason. Obviously I am going to screen-grab the comments as I do not wish to be accused of being rude and offensive when I can provide the evidence that suggests otherwise (this is a classic tactic by disreputable bloggers – remove the comments and then claim they were offensive without the reader actually being aware of whether this was actually the case).
It is a shame that Roger had to resort to both the removal of comments in his previous post and to engage in a rather deceitful attack in his subsequent one. Remove the sexist remarks from his post and, in fact, Roger had some interesting and noteworthy comments to make on his experiences with libraries (regardless of whether you agree with them or not). It is sad that he decided to undermine his views by resorting to insulting language. There was really no need to do so.
For anyone interested in a classic study of playing the victim, I sincerely recommend reading Roger’s post. But there is also a serious point to be made here. People like Roger do not like debate and discussion. They write posts on blogs not because they want to interact with other people and engage in discussion, but because they have a particular viewpoint that they think is right. Anyone who deviates from this or demonstrates that the author is, in fact, wrong is silenced. The beauty of this is that it enables the author to make wild and inaccurate assertions whilst simultaneously provoking offence and refusing anyone the right to reply or defend themselves or other parties. The problem with this is that these assertions are public and remain so, entirely unchallenged. This is a very dangerous thing. The great potential of the internet lies in its ability to encourage discussion, debate and the sharing of ideas. Any attempt to clamp down on such discussion (whilst playing the ‘victim’ card) is deeply worrying. This does not mean that ‘anything goes’. Remarks that amount to hate speech should be removed and condemned. Comments that contradict a particular perspective should not. Roger professes to care about ‘freedom of speech’, yet he is part of a growing group eager to shut it down. Freedom to express ideas is absolutely central to the development of the internet. Attempts to regressively police it in such a way should disturb all those who seek to defend freedom of speech.
Subsequent to this post, Annie Johnson also posted a comment which was also removed:
