Moot: "sterile Facebook comments over provocative YouTube comments?" • Hacker News Board

Re: Moot: "sterile Facebook comments over provocative YouTube comments?"

#61

Post by droithomme » Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 9:42 PM UTC

404error wrote: post #60

droithomme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by accountability regarding these examples. Do you mean the ability of the corrupt police to track down and punish the people who outted their crimes?

What I was trying to get across is that commenters should own up and stand by their words and not hide behind the keyboard.

Amazing. So the journalists at your newspaper obviously do not protect their confidential informants, since this is your policy.

There is an extremely long history of what happens to whistle blowers and it isn't pretty. Do you deny that outting government, police and corporate corruption is dangerous and anonymity is often necessary to do so without one's self and family being exposed to great harm? What newspaper do you work for again?

Re: Moot: "sterile Facebook comments over provocative YouTube comments?"

#62

Post by ha470 » Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 10:05 PM UTC

mcantor wrote: post #56

What does "Sign in with Twitter to contribute" mean? Does that mean I get to contribute to the discussion by posting a reply if I sign in with Twitter? That's what "contribute" means to me, but it seems unlikely, especially given the relative paucity of posts in this discussion. I wouldn't bother making a comment here to ask; normally I would just sign in and see for myself. But this app wants permission to make post…

Thank you for this comment! You're absolutely right - there was no reason for us to ask for write permission - fixed that.

I also think you're right about being clear when directing people to sign in (or do anything that requires them to give up their privacy) - we definitely need to rethink this.

Re: Moot: "sterile Facebook comments over provocative YouTube comments?"

#63

Post by 404error » Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #61

404error wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I was trying to get across is that commenters should own up and stand by their words and not hide behind the keyboard.

Amazing. So the journalists at your newspaper obviously do not protect their confidential informants, since this is your policy. There is an extremely long history of what happens to whistle blowers and it isn't pretty. Do you deny that outting government, police and corporate corruption is dangerous and anonymity is often necessary to do so without one's self and family being exposed to great harm? What newspaper do…

Woah, I didn't say all that. We are a small newspaper and I really doubt we have informants.

Like I said before our "newsroom" doesn't do much reporting other than sitting in on Town Hall meetings and reporting on press releases, our police department isn't very cooperative with us.

I believe anonymity is important especially when someones life can potential be put in harms way. I believe this is why we have witness protection.

My frustrations are about the commenters who would rather spread hate than ideas or engage in friendly debate.

Re: Moot: "sterile Facebook comments over provocative YouTube comments?"

#64

Post by KL1234 » Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 3:12 AM UTC

missy wrote: post #20

I m used to Youtube comments being very rude and viscious often. It doesnt demand real users like Facebook argues it does, so i think you can have people say things they repress. I ve read some of the nastiest stuff on the comments. The majority of them I find are on something to do with popular culture as I think its a metter who is cool. So they swear alot. About topics like Religion it is obvious well known fact i…

>I think it shows us what some people really think and whata negative effect of unregulated users can cause. So a thing i appreciate of Facebook valueing real users but yutube on the other hand has great content.

I would say that for the most part describing youtube comments as resulting in "negative effects" is a bit close-minded. If you're on youtube, you should know how it works, how its userbase thinks and acts and shouldn't take it personally if you see something you don't like.

not knowing the video creators and therefore feeling no obligation to be nice or heed their feelings is just the nature of youtube. if you want to use the website, accept that. don't fault the commenting policy for the anonymity that it is based around.

Re: Moot: "sterile Facebook comments over provocative YouTube comments?"

#65

Post by missy » Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 10:36 PM UTC

KL1234 wrote: post #64

missy wrote: post #20

I m used to Youtube comments being very rude and viscious often. It doesnt demand real users like Facebook argues it does, so i think you can have people say things they repress. I ve read some of the nastiest stuff on the comments. The majority of them I find are on something to do with popular culture as I think its a metter who is cool. So they swear alot. About topics like Religion it is obvious well known fact i…

>I think it shows us what some people really think and whata negative effect of unregulated users can cause. So a thing i appreciate of Facebook valueing real users but yutube on the other hand has great content. I would say that for the most part describing youtube comments as resulting in "negative effects" is a bit close-minded. If you're on youtube, you should know how it works, how its userbase thinks and acts a…

Good points but I said " what negative effect of unregulated users CAN CAUSE ". I heged what I said and didnt make a sweeping statement. If I said "always cause" then you are right about saying im close minded if i said that.