Dear Reader,
It’s been an “interesting” few days. As promised, we’ve let a “hundred flowers blossom”, and, for the most part it’s been interesting. But, and you probably guessed that there would be a “but”, there have been a few disappointments along the way.
So, for the benefit of some of you, might I offer the thoughts of Liberal Democrat Voice’s former Readers’ Editor, i.e. me.
Firstly, quoting from my piece a few days ago;
As you may guess from today’s content, Liberal Democrat Voice aims to be a safe place for some of that discussion. We’ll try to offer anyone with a constructive idea, even if it might be controversial, an opportunity to make their case. And there’ll be more of that tomorrow.
What that means is that we’ll publish ideas for debate. We personally might not agree with them, and nor might you. But, if you’re going to abuse the author rather than argue an alternative stance, we’ll reject it or, if possible, edit it to excise the offensive element. It makes our lives easier if you simply don’t do it. And, please, don’t assume the worst of the author, or of other commenters. Writing a clear, concise comment isn’t easy for everyone, and something that makes sense in your own head doesn’t always convey that same clarity to others. Question, don’t blindly attack.
Emotions are still high after a very difficult night on Thursday. There are those amongst us who were more emotionally invested than others, and who are still angry and hurting. I do get that. But lashing out at your colleagues probably doesn’t help.
And, I ought to remind our readers that not everyone here is a Liberal Democrat. Yes, the Editorial Team are, and you can rely on anyone whose name comes in orange highlight with the cute bird being a Liberal Democrat too. Everyone else is theoretically suspect… (wry humour alert). Oh, and I ought to remind those of you who are Liberal Democrats but aren’t signed up that you can register to out yourselves as Liberal Democrats.
We’ve received an uptick in people demanding, quite forcefully sometimes, to know why we haven’t moderated their devastatingly crucial comment within five minutes of their commuting the comment into the ether. I remind readers that we are a small (very small indeed) team of volunteers with other lives. We do this mostly for the love of it, and sometimes, some of you make that very difficult. We’ll try to get to comments as quickly as we can, but we need sleep, food and human interaction other than with you. We also have jobs, family and other stuff. And it’s nearly Christmas…
Finally, if you don’t think that we’re covering something, you can either write something for us yourself, or ask someone else who you think might be interesting to do so. They should, preferably, be a Liberal Democrat but not exclusively so. As a volunteer team, we have our own areas of knowledge and interest, but they are hardly likely to cover the full gamut of public policy, and I for one tend not to write about things I know little about.
So, there are some thoughts for you, and us, to reflect upon. And, in case I forget, a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to you all…
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and retains a sense of humour despite that…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Shropshire zoo seeks runaway 'beloved' capybara
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Steve Trevethan
Chris Moore
Peter Martin
Steve Comer
John Waller
53 Comments
I try to be constructively critical yet truthful and courteous. Probably because I speak my mind, my comments often face moderation and that sometimes makes me feel like a marked man and at times I was convinced that I was being censored. In fact, most of the time, my comments appear after a short delay. Recently, when I referred to Labour extremists in a derogatory way, my comment appeared with the offending word removed. I was quite touched by the effort taken to get my comment published. Quite often they just appear straight away.
I would say to people, be patient. I have gone through the full cycle of being impatient, angry, jumping to conclusions to being more relaxed and appreciative. The moderators have a job to do and they do it well.
I say to them sorry, well done and thank you. Without moderators there would be no site like this.
I’m sure the editorial staff here will not mind if I make the readers aware that my previous comment was held up for moderation!
As a known troublemaker, I have to concede that it is all my fault. But the delay was only about a minute, so maybe that is a bit like early parole on good behaviour.
It shows I was telling the truth so thanks, moderator, for backing up my comment!
My second comment was also held up. That proves how hard working the moderators are. It also means that I am becoming a pain so I promise to stop here and not keep this game going all night if this comment is held up too.
It just shows that you cannot bribe or influence these people with flattery or praise. But you can thank them and wish them good health, Christmas Cheer and lots of patience in the New Year.
Peter,
As a moderator, I sometimes find little slots of time when I’m not really doing anything else…
* Mark Valladares is on the top deck of a number 205 bus, somewhere just east of Baker Street Station.
Thanks to the LDV team for all your hard work. I’ve had my disagreements in the past but it must take a big commitment to run a site like this on a voluntary basis. It’s a great website.
Very much agree Eddie. It is a painful time – Liberals and Lib Dems have a century of electoral pain to draw upon but to lose Jo, all the defectors and to lose seats overall was disproportionately cruel and takes some processing. I do not envy Mark at al at all in having to run a cross between a counselling service and a political website. We are very thankful though Mark.
Just a reminder not to get upset if your comment is held up by the software. The software doesn’t care how you feel, and also doesn’t care whether any of us are around to moderate promptly or not.
Also please don’t get upset if your comment is rejected by a human moderator. Submitting a comment is like raising your hand to speak in a public meeting. The chair is not obliged to call you.
It might be good to put at the top of the comments some note that says “Not all people commenting are members or supporters of the Liberal Democrats.” (maybe directly under the bit that says “8 Comments”)
I remember quite a few posts from non-members who seemed convinced that they were the only non-member commenting on the thread.
I try to regularly mention that I’m no longer a member, but generally there is no way to know one way or the other, if the person doesn’t have their name in yellow.
Just to support what Mark has posted, basic common sense, decency and respect for the views of others.
I am so very very tired still ( as I get older it takes a lot longer to recover from such sustained activity, to say nothing of trying to catch up with so much else in life neglected), but I do have an article in my head on the day after election night.
But really posting this to see if a little birdy appears with my name, and i will address that after the prompt if it isn’t!
When one side of an argument has the red carpet and the other side is *awaiting moderation* it is hard not to just think it is just censorship. Which it is really.
I understand that some subjects are quite hot but how liberalism interacts with gender for example requires people to be honest if a happy medium can be found. It is important too as if not checked gender can and isbecome a new bigotry against men.
I get you have a hard job, maybe just censor less and let the chips fall where they will.
P.s if this post is moderated I will scream 😀
@ DJ Pocock,
LDV uses an automated moderation system, which means that we programme it to pick up on the use of certain words or phrases to hold back potentially problematic comments for human consideration. We’re the ones vulnerable to legal action if we get it wrong, in our capacity as publishers. If you’re guaranteeing our legal bills, I might take a more relaxed attitude in terms of our comments policy. You aren’t though, are you?
At the same time, we request that comments threads are not used to challenge or debate moderation decisions.
You might then put two and two together…
There does seem to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “censorship” too. This is a private website, independent of the Liberal Democrats, run by volunteers. We, the Editorial Team have the right to publish (or not publish) as we see fit, in line with our stated editorial policy. You have the right to publish your comment anywhere you seek to that will accept it, and not only do we have no say over that, we don’t fundamentally care either. Thus, you are being censored in the same way that a newspaper failing to publish a letter you send it is censoring you, i.e. not at all.
And the funny thing is that, when a comment is edited or rejected, the assumption is always that we’re biased against that person’s view. You have no idea what else we reject, or who from. What you don’t see, you assume doesn’t exist, incorrectly.
Finally, on gender, as in many other things, your definition of reasonable is not… definitive. It’s your view on a spectrum of positions seen as reasonable by others. Again, we’re the Editorial Team, we’ll define the boundaries of reasonable (not what we necessarily agree with) in line with our risk aversion.
I’m not saying I am right and intact would like a compernise on that one issue but it does seem like you can’t even have the discussion when you got to wait all weekend for your comment to be posted and at that time the thread of the argument is lost.
As for the private argument that does not really hold water, this is a public space for people to discuss de facto. Suggesting the owners have the right to do what they like in it is a very dubious principle for a liberal. Are we not against private clubs for the elite to discuss how to keep us out after all, golf clubs and leather seat clubs ect.
I am not sure what can be written here that would get anyone in legal trouble but supplying an address is a part of posting here so why isn’t it on the individual anyway. In fairness not an expert on the law but still…
Dj Pocock
In the last six months you’ve had 14 comments published here. 12 of those went straight through and were published. One took ten minutes to moderate and one took 14 minutes to moderate. (You’ve had others simply not published).
I enter the site about 20 times a day and night (sometimes at 3am) as do my colleagues. I can assure you that no comment gets held up all weekend (give me a specific example if you like) and most are moderated within 30 minutes.
Where did Mark say this is “private” like a golf club? It is privately owned – the editor holds the URL ownership of £1 I believe.
You mention the principle and liberalism.
Are you saying that if you send a letter to the editor of The Times, she or he must publish it because the Times is published? And not to do so is illiberal?
“I am not sure what can be written here that would get anyone in legal trouble”
Well that is the point isn’t it? Journalists spend weeks studying the law, in particular in respect to defamation, but the average reader has no idea. Which is why we need to be cautious.
Try reading this for starters:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/08/how-to-blog-without-breaking-the-law
“Finally, on gender, as in many other things, your definition of reasonable is not… definitive. It’s your view on a spectrum of positions seen as reasonable by others. Again, we’re the Editorial Team, we’ll define the boundaries of reasonable (not what we necessarily agree with) in line with our risk aversion.” Mark Valladares
I have great respect for Mark, and I absolutely agree that the LDV team is entitled to make judgements about what they are willing to publish.
However, I am concerned that Mark is indicating that the editorial team tries to judge comments on whether they are “reasonable”, rather that whether they are abusive.
We, as liberals, may have wildly conflicting views on many things, but the best way to challenge the reasonableness of the views of others is to debate rather than to suppress.
Yes, there will be limits, holocaust denial being one.
But we should be able to debate whether, and in what senses, a person may change their gender, or in what circumstances if any abortions should be legal, or whether paying for sex is inherently an act of rape, or whether anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic – all areas in which liberals, or people who think of themselves as liberals, will take wildly conflicting positions.
Of course, no matter what the position on a contentious issue, there will always be some on the other side who argue that this position is not reasonable and is therefore illiberal and unacceptable.
You don’t have to go far down that road before LDV becomes merely an echo chamber.
If a comment is abusive, by all means block it, but please do allow us to express views that you consider to be just plain wrong: other who also consider themselves liberal may wish to be allowed to judge for themselves.
Of course, defamation is a whole different ball game: the team is quite right to be cautious.
@ DJ Pocock,
In common with any other publication, we have the right to set our own editorial policy, and we do, based on our experience and personal stance on risk. We very openly display that policy on the site.
If you don’t like that policy, you have three options – ask us to change it (which, if we’re persuaded, we might do, although I freely admit that it’s unlikely), accept it or go somewhere else. We don’t have a stance on which choice is best for you.
Paul has already picked up on your personal “moderation statistics” and I will merely note that my anecdotal experience is that those who fall foul of our moderation policy tend to focus disproportionately on what is rejected than what is accepted.
Finally, there is a difference between liberalism and libertarianism. I suspect that this partly comes down to a differing comprehension both of consequences and the willingness to accept them personally, but I acknowledge that there are those who hold either philosophical stance and genuinely live by it.
just testing I get a birdy
@ Toby,
Fair comment. I tend to use reasonable in the context of my own lived experience and given my professional life, I might use reasonable where others might pick another word from their “vocabulary toolkit “.
However, defamation is merely one of the issues we face as an Editorial Team. Distraction by diverting a comments stream away from the subject under discussion, sheer unpleasantness, misrepresentation and, occasionally, even agent provocateurs, are issues we need to address and handle.
My definition of reasonable is a pretty broad one, I’d like to think. “Offensive” might be a fair equivalent, although there are subjects that, in our experience, do engender significant levels of outrage that go beyond simple unhappiness to vileness. We have a courtesy policy, where the use of “reasonableness” is, perhaps, more encompassing that “offensive”. Misrepresentation, for example, is not necessarily offensive, but is unreasonable.
And, of course, we are not automata, we have subjects that trigger personal reactions in individual team members. We manage that as best we can, but our friendship as individual team members is part of the chemistry that enables LDV to survive. If any of us are driven to walk away, it becomes harder to maintain the site, and you risk losing a forum many of our readers claim to value.
These are difficult issues for a volunteer Editorial Team. The pressures we are under both in terms of “feeding” the site with material and handling the sometimes utterly unbelievable expectations of a minority of our readers generate significant burnout in terms of Day Editors – they simply don’t want to handle it any more.
So, we will not be perfect – but we will do our best. Despite fairly constant levels of criticism over our editorial policy over the past decade, nobody has ever attempted to replicate LDV in another style. What that says about the complexities and sheer bloody hard work required in running a 24/7 political news and discussion site, I leave to others to judge.
@ Suzanne,
Hoorah!
In fairness I do not even just talk about what I can get through or not, more it is a case of what generally is allowed through or what gets censored. As the points Toby makes for example, if one flavour of liberalism dominates due to moderators slowing down or not posting counter points it is not fair debate.
Also Mark i am quite aware of what a libertarian is, I have some respect for some of their views but ultimately I reject it. I must wonder however why this has been raised, I am in truth not quite comprehending your final paragraph and I would be interested to know exactly what you mean by it and why you raised it as a point.
In short, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust, I don’t think that is reasonable for a blog discussion forum.
If someone wants to deny climate change then fair enough – and indeed we have had such debates here recently.
I have to say there is not too much to complain about with the moderation on LDV. The last time I can remember having something rejected was when I called someone the “village i_____t of LDV”. Except I didn’t hide any of the letters.
I think the way it works is that certain words automatically flag up an alarm which can increase your chances of going into moderation in the first place. So, a good rule is to avoid being too rude which I would accept I probably was in this case.
Thanks, Mark.
Unfortunately, the term “offensive” is also highly problematical: to close down a position, all you have to do is to persuade enough others that the expression of that position gives offence.
Taking offence is a right, but it should not entitle anyone to close down the viewpoint that offends them, or (as is often the case) to close down viewpoints on behalf of others who might be offended.
My reply vanished. Bravo well played.
@ DJ Pocock,
Your comment posted above (3.32 p.m.) is factually inaccurate but also implies that you haven’t read the original piece or my subsequent comments with any care. Like to comment?
@djpocock 3:32pm
No. It contained several trigger words for our system and was held for human moderation. It was published at 3.31pm today after you submitted it at 1.57pm.
You say it “vanished”. Well, describing getting an onscreen message saying “awaiting moderation” is an unorthodox use of the word “vanished”.
Sarcasm is not befitting. We are unpaid volunteers. Today we are working for pay, doing other voluntary roles, walking the dog, we are at the gym, we are catching up with rest, we are preparing for Christmas, we are communicating and living with family and friends etc etc.
It took us 94 minutes to publish your comment. Not a weekend as you previously mentioned.
@Dj Pocock
“My reply vanished. Bravo well played.”
In my personal experience, if a comment from me in LDV is picked up by the automated mod system I see a message telling me that my comment is awaiting moderation. OK – I get that – it just needs to wait for a human to check it out. Better a human checks it out that a robot. No big deal. But my point is – comments don’t just ‘vanish’.
Are you implying that you are not seeing such messages?
For the record – my comment at 4:15 was caught by the automated system, I saw a message that it was awaiting moderation and it has appeared around 18 minutes after I posted it.
Mark, Paul (and others),
I, for one, sincerely appreciate your efforts even though some of my own bon mots have bitten the electronic dust.
This is one of the few places I know where civilised debate and interesting viewpoints are to be found It can not be easy getting the right balance and it’s your own time which you just as easily spend on writing your own “War and Peace” or building a model of St Paul’s from matchsticks (either might be better than delivering LibDem leaflets).
It is a pity there are not more such fora, in this era of angry fanaticism.
I had the awaiting moderation message for an hour and then it vanished. But it came back now so my bad. I’m not trying to insult the mod team so please don’t misunderstand me. But it is an open forum and it seems like at times not to be.
Thank you, Innocent Bystander.
When I write a second-rate posting which rambles a bit and which doesn’t make its point very clearly – It generally gets published.
When I write something that really gets to the root of an issue. and would have made a real impact if published – It commonly doesn’t get through!
@ Toby,
Indeed, “offensive” has its obvious challenges too, making a precise exposition of our collective stance quite difficult, especially as Day Editors are given quite a bit of personal leeway in terms of how they might deal with specific situations. Some of us are more prescriptive, some more likely to edit rather than reject outright. Every day offers a new or unusual puzzle to solve.
Familiarity sometimes helps, sometimes hinders, and there are days when my patience stretches further than on others. I, indeed we, are human after all. That introduces an element of inconsistency to the process of moderation, which I freely acknowledge.
I guess that, in attempting to engage philosophically with our readers, I develop some sort of relationship with them – allowing them to gain a sense of how I might react in any given situation. Honesty and mutual respect are important in that sense, but it’s a long game, not a quick win.
But thank you for raising the points and challenging me to ponder upon them.
Yes, I readily agree with Mark that while the small group of editors/moderators try to be consistent, we do differ over borderline cases.
Not long ago I realised that I was online moderating comments at exactly the same time as a colleague – she trashed one and I published it, then I trashed one and she published it. It would be a miracle if we agreed precisely over every single one.
But we do our best, and the criterion we have in mind is whether the comment contributes to civilised debate or whether it sends the discussion towards a downward spiral. And we do stop any personal invective (even when we agree with it!)
It does seem as though during election time the site becomes more robust in its moderating towards certain people.
That’s how it feels whether rightly or wrongly.
I am curious though, once one is put on the naughty step, how long does one have to wait before they can talk freely again lol, It;s been a while since I have been on time out and as any good parent knows, overuse of punishment can sometimes be counterproductive 😉
Mark, Mary,
In relation to whether comments that may be considered offensive should be published, have you as a team explored the question of WHY particular comments might cause offence?
The fact of a particular comment causing offence should, I believe, be immaterial: it is all too easy for a faction to take offence in order to suppress opposing viewpoints, especially where religion, ethnicity or nationality are concerned.
No problems of differentation for me: everything I submit gets seemingly audited/censored!!! I know my place.
Toby:
“Mark, Mary,
In relation to whether comments that may be considered offensive should be published, have you as a team explored the question of WHY particular comments might cause offence?
The fact of a particular comment causing offence should, I believe, be immaterial: it is all too easy for a faction to take offence in order to suppress opposing viewpoints, especially where religion, ethnicity or nationality are concerned.”
Let’s try this Toby. If someone denies that The Holocaust took place in a submitted comment, I would not publish it. It would offend virtually every right thinking person on the planet, in my view, whether they be gypsy, homosexual, Jewish or none of those categories.
How does that strike you?
David Allen 18th Dec ’19 – 6:31pm
“When I write a second-rate posting which rambles a bit and which doesn’t make its point very clearly – It generally gets published.
When I write something that really gets to the root of an issue. and would have made a real impact if published – It commonly doesn’t get through!”
I would be careful not to paint yourself into a corner, David.
Since 2009, you have had 4317 comments published on this website.
In that time, we have rejected 268 of your comments.
So, by what you say above, 94.2% of your comments are “second-rate”, ‘ramble a bit’ and “(don’t) make (their) point very clearly”. By the same token only 5.8% of your comments ‘really get to the root of an issue. and would have made a real impact if published’.
Shurely shome mishtake? – Ed
Theakes
“No problems of differentation for me: everything I submit gets seemingly audited/censored!!! I know my place.”
Theakes – you’ve had 1837 comments published on this site.
Matt
It varies. We give time off for good behaviour.
But in cases of abuse of direct personal LDV team members (not in your case of course) we flick a switch so that the relevant users’ comment is not even reviewed – it just gets automatically slung into the permanent trash can – unless and until the person apologises to that team member. This as per the following text in our Comments Policy:
“As editors of a political site on the internet, the LDV team expects to be criticised. However, we will not tolerate personal abuse towards any member of the team. Anybody who breaches this rule will not be allowed to comment on the site at least until they apologise to the team member concerned.”
@Paul
I dont think I have ever abused anyone on this site, if I had, I would certainly apologise profusely.
I am curious as to why I have been on the naughty step for such a long time though and wonder how much longer the rehabilitation and corrective behaviour therapy is going to take lol 🙂
Matt
Of course you haven’t abused anyone – which is why I wrote “not in your case of course”.
It varies between a few weeks and several months on average.
“It varies between a few weeks and several months on average.”
In which case I must be the outlier that ensures the average is a several months, given pre-moderation has been applied to me for several years.
And, genuinely, I don’t understand why, as I have never written anything at variance from what is permitted from other posters.
Paul,
“Let’s try this Toby. If someone denies that The Holocaust took place in a submitted comment, I would not publish it. It would offend virtually every right thinking person on the planet, in my view, whether they be gypsy, homosexual, Jewish or none of those categories.
How does that strike you?”
Thoroughly agreed, and not a difficult call at all.
Except that surely there are some pretty massive underlying reasons why such a comment would be both offensive and upsetting, and it is precisely those underlying reasons that should make this such a clear judgement to make.
In any case, I’m guessing this is not the only scenario in which LDV has ever rejected an offensive comment.
Are there any prospects of the LDV team considering principles that could be applied in order to distinguish between a comment that may offend some (or even many) people but is essentially a legitimate expression of a contentious viewpoint, and a comment that is offensive for underlying reasons that ought to justify its exclusion?
On the other hand, I would like to thank the moderators for removing a recent comment of mine in which I was being a complete ass. Apologies.
@Paul Walter “In short, if someone wants to …”
Over all I think the approach followed by those running this site is fair even if it is occasionally a little frustrating to see a post held up (especially if permanently!).
However I just want to flag up an example where censorship on a specific topic has the potential to cause problems in the future. Earlier this year any post was blocked or removed if it referred to a certain incident involving an MP who might later have replaced Vince Cable as leader. If that candidate is in the running to be leader in 2020 I would suggest a more relaxed approach as avoiding discussion of that topic risks it returning later as an issue for that leader and the party. I can understand not wanting to provide ammunition for the party’s opponents, but they’ll find plenty anyway, and rehearsing the arguments here first might make it easier to rebuff those attacks.
Peter, Could you at least try using semaphore or some form of code to let us know what the heck you are referring to?
I have looked back at your submitted comments for this year and there is no such reference to any contender for the leadership.
So how do you know we rejected comments on whatever this topic is supposed to be?
Paul, as I said recently, Lib Dem Voice are usually very good about allowing a wide range of views to be expressed. But the situation that I think Peter is referring to, was a rare example of no discussion being allowed. I’m inclined to agree with Peter that comments should have been allowed, but I can see that it was a sensitive situation.
I think this was the only occasion in which comments of mine have been removed, if this helps
Well I am completely in the dark.
If there are legal implications (such as defamation or contravening the sub judice principle) we don’t publish comments, but as I haven’t got a clue what you are both referring to, I have no idea.
I see what you are referring to now.
The problem is that we are not lawyers or trained in the law or journalism. In certain sensitive situations we are unable to judge which side of the line certain comments go, so we have to err on the side of caution as we could lose our houses if we don’t.
I would add that the incident in question was covered in the mainstream media. So discussion of it was not “censored”. Twitter was very vocal on the subject.
I have learnt through experience, and I think most experienced bloggers would agree with this, that it is best to leave sensitive issues with legal implications to trained journalists who know how to exactly word such articles, and who are backed up by expensive lawyers at their beck and call.
The following link shows a very relevant, salutary example. An MP wrongly paraphrased a Sun article and ended up having to apologise and make a “substantial” donation to charity:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/jeremy-corbyn-spies-communist-czech-cold-war-ben-bradley
@Paul
Sorry for the vagueness. I realised there were certain sensitivities so was trying to allude to the topic without starting a conversation about that instead of the pros and cons of allowing discussion!