Why do you support or oppose the unrecommend feature

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Why do you support or oppose the unrecommend feature

[Gman]

1. Support it for use on "K&R this thread if ________________" posts

as well as Obama bashing threads. Best thing since sliced bread.

[applegrove]

2. So far I like it. I really liked the Greatest Page today. I must admit I was

afraid at first. But it sorta made me more conscious of threads and if I like them are not. I don't run around recommending or unrecommending.... That just isn't me. I hope it makes for a much better Greatest Page. And then we can attract the blogosphere to our site as one of the stops on their day. I'm pleasantly surprised you could say.

[sandnsea]

3. Improves the quality of DU n/t

[onehandle]

8. Yep. nt

[MindMatter]

4. It gives the participants some important influence

There are, from time to time, people who evidently have very narrow interests, and flood the boards with repetitive posts that have the effect of hijacking this forum in service to their single issue. If the unrecommend feature will help discourage that single-interest bias, I'm all for it.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Theoretical: I support everybody having the ability to vote yes/no/not vote....

Practically: the Greatest page looks very nice compared to what it used to be.

[2Design]

6. I find I go through the list and do a lot of unrecommends

Howard Dean Said = rec'd
Al Gore said = rec'd
Michael Jackson = rec'd unless it is a negative about the coverage or whatever dirt the media hyped
Health Care = rec'd
Michele = rec'd unless it is negative press or BS then it might become hide a thread
Michael Moore = rec'd
Rachel Maddow = rec'd
There is little to recommend except the issues we all want but congress is not willing to give us - those are rec'd anyway
The Greatest page has become pretty blah with our standard issues and our government not doing enough to resolve them - but we get to rec'd and the rest fight amongst ourselves until we implode

Obama is NOT doing xxxx = unrec'd ( I did not want Palin or McCain and will still always vote Democrats into office no matter how dumb they vote or act because Republicans are worse on everything)


Palin = unrec'd and hide - tired of seeing her get air time here and on msnbc - we need to ignore her and stop giving her free press for her air head crap - we are only driving up her base of idiots.

Free republic = unrec'd
flame bait = unrec'd
conflict among dUers = unrec'd

Any RW Nut said = unrec'd (reminds me of msnbc spending too much time showing the oppositions message

No at first I didn't like unrec'd - now it is a game and augmented with hide a thread which before the last month I rarely used

[tularetom]

7. Maybe 3 or 4 times in the 4 years or so I've been posting here

have I even looked at the number of recommendations a thread has. Why the fuck do I need the opinions of others to tell me how to think.

Not that I don't respect the opinions of all (well anyway the overwhelming majority of) DU'ers, but I can judge the suitability of a thread to me better than anybody else.

Usually when I log on I glance at the greatest page posts but go directly to the discussion boards.

For me the recommend feature is useless. The unrecommend feature, twice as useless.

[followthemoney]

9. I like to tell people to shut the F**k up!

But I am too shy and well mannered to do it in person.

I get real mean behind the wheel of my Humvee, too. I don't like people driving on my road.

I change into something like superman when I can exercise power anonymously. Except I don't use my super powers so nicely.

Anyway, I unrecommend this comment.

[scarletwoman]

10. I had to vote "Robb is a dingbat" because, well, he is...

I sort of don't care. Except that I am basically opposed to the unrec feature. On the other hand, I've been having fun using it because it's evil and evil is fun. And I like having fun, so that means I sort of support it. But I know evil is bad so I don't, really. Which is why I voted "Robb is a dingbat".

[zeemike]

11. I oppose it for other reasons.

And I have explained it in other threads...and was told by the majority that it had no merit...and the majority is always right, right?

So now I am convinced that the people of California must have been wise to decide on Prop 8 the way they did....obviously the argument against it had no merrit.

[Laelth]

12. Oppose for a combination of reasons.

1) It's anti-rhetorical. It allows people to limit the exposure of other people's speech. It's not unconstitutional, because DU isn't the government, but it is censorship of a kind.

2) It makes people rude. Once people know they're in the majority, they feel more free to viciously attack those they know hold the minority opinion on a subject.

3) It limits discussion on the Greatest Page. We don't discuss whether or not 2+2=4. We all agree on that. As such, posts on the Greatest Page are hardly discussed because the OP must contain, b definition, an opinion upon which we mostly agree. I thought DU was a "discussion" forum.

4) I write controversial threads. I will be less-inclined to write them if they will drop like a stone. I like to generate discussion. This argument is related to point #3, above, but the unrec function is designed to shut down discussion. I don't think that's a worthy goal for a "discussion" board.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. "It makes people rude" .."viciously attack those they know hold the minority opinion"

I agree.

I was an Obama supporter during the primaries but I was saddened by the Lord of The Flies mentality of SOME Obama supporters.

Coincidentally, we see some of the same handful of "keepers of the faith" posting with glee that they will be able to cleanse the GP of "mindless" ant-Obama threads.

I never look at the greatest page so it's really no skin off my nose. To me, it's kinda like school prayer - pretty harmless ... but if the fundies and "keepers of the faith" are for it, I'm against it.

[BurtWorm]

14. I don't get the limiting others' speech thing.

It doesn't delete anyone's post. At most it removes a post from the Greatest List. Posts don't have a right to be on that list, do they? Before unrec, they were only there by virtue of being considered "great" by at least five people. And they were only there for 24 hours! Those five people may have been five colluding freepers, for all we knew, but somehow their chosen post is sacrosamct?

And let's just admit it--getting on the Greatest List used to be no major feat. Now at least if a post gets on there, it's on there because a supermajority cares enough to send it there and keep it there. Does that mean it's really "the greatest?" Is the "world series" really a world series?

[Laelth]

20. Some times it's good to censor.

You seem to recognize, in your post, that censorship is the goal of the unrec function. That's fine, if that's what we want to do, but let's at least be honest about what we are doing. With the unrec function we are trying to limit exposure to (censor) certain speech that we find undesirable.

The result of that may be good. YMMV. Something about it, though, sticks in my craw and just doesn't seem right on a liberal "discussion" board that I value for its openness and tolerance of divergent opinions. I hope that makes sense.

And thanks for the thoughtful and respectful response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

22. It's not censoring. The post remains published.

The number of links to it change. That's all. And only for 24 hours.

[Laelth]

23. It is a form of censorship. And that's completely OK because DU is not the government.

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

24. The limits of tolerance for other views on this board go just so far

and always have. Isn't it good, at least, that an unpopular point of view can remain on the board, despite being unrecommended? Does unrecommend tell us anything other than that the point of view expressed is not popular? Some people seem to think it means "unworthy of being read." That's not what it means to me. I don't think it should mean that to anyone. Posts unworthy of being read are deleted by the moderators.

[Laelth]

27. And that is the question.

I agree that our tolerance of divergent opinions can only go so far. Personally, I like that the mods have that say, and not the general membership. As I said, some censorship is OK--even necessary. How much do we want is the question, and who gets to do the censoring.

I have no answer for this. I just know censorship when I see it. I want us to be honest about what we're doing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

31. Unrec'ing is not censorship. Period.

Two different issues entirely.

[Laelth]

37. Sigh. As I said above, we have have to agree to disagree about that. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

40. Please give me a simple definition of censorship that includes unrec'ing a thread.

[Laelth]

46. Let me try, from a legal perspective.

Take "free speech zones," for example. Those are censorship, in and of themselves, and an abridgment of our 1st Amendment rights because they limit speech, but the Supreme Court allows them because the government has a compelling interest in protecting safety and public order. The Court doesn't say, "That's not censorship." The Court freely admits that it is censorship, but a form of censorship that the Court will allow because the state's interest in safety and public order is compelling. The point is that censorship doesn't mean "completely taking away your right to speak." Anything that even limits your right to speak (or express yourself in any way) is recognized as censorship by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Now, we have already agreed that the 1st Amendment does not apply to DU because DU is not the government. That means DU is free to censor at will, without any limits, and it does that. Mods delete posts, move threads to less-desirable forums, and tombstone posters regularly. In doing so, DU is limiting the rights of certain people to speak and express themselves here, and that's fine. It's still censorship, but DU has all right to do it. Personally, as I said above, I would prefer for the mods and the admins to have this power, and not the general membership.

Anything that gives the members the ability to limit speech (even just by keeping a thread away from the Greatest Page by unrecommending it) is censorship because it limits speech by limiting others' exposure to that speech--just like a "free speech zone" does.

I hope that makes sense.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

50. So if you don't mind mods and admins censoring, and you do mind the people of DU having that power,

you're clearly not arguing that unrec'ing is not democratic. You're arguing that this democratic form of censoring, as you call it, is less desirable than leaving the censorship task entirely in the hands of a small group of self-selected censors at DU. In other words, you think more democracy at DU is undesirable. Is that correct?

I disagree. But I appreciate your phrasing this in a way that makes clear which side of this debate is on the side of increasing democracy here at DU and which is on the side of containing it.

[Laelth]

53. Correct. Unrecing is very, very democratic ... too democratic.

You are absolutely right that I don't think DU needs any more democracy. It works quite nicely as a benevolent dictatorship (run by Skinner, Elad, and EarlG). The unrec function makes DU more democratic, yes, but it also marginalizes significant minority voices while amplifying the voice of the larger minority. I do not believe that is desirable. DU and the Democratic Party are big tents. We should not marginalize or attempt to silence significant minorities--neither here, nor in the party as a whole.

I wrote more about that here, if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6061846

:dem:

-Laelth

[Echo In Light]

34. I'm unsure if it actually silences non-moderate views, but I've noticed those who love it are...

...posters that I generally tend to have fundamental disagreements with re our system of governance. I guess if the bottom line point was to support the moderate status quo, and keep threads critical of Obama, or the two (one) party system, off of the 'greatest' page, than, given how America is, it's rather obvious that such a move would be implemented and favored by a majority.

I'm not making the fuss that some are re it, however...most lefty posters realize which types of threads the moderates hate and will therefore unrec based on personal preference/belief systems. They can't 'disappear' those threads, only keep them from the greatest page, which, really, who gives a shit when the important thing is to make the heterodox, dissenting views visible? That happens whether or not they attain 'greatest' status, or not ... in fact, perhaps even more so since posters can now identify threads they fully know would have made it before this new unrec option.

[Laelth]

39. Interesting observations. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

41. (For the record: I do not 'love' the unrec feature. I just find objection to it incoherent.)

I don't know how anyone can know anyone else's motives. You're basing your generalizations on conversations you've had or witnessed with lefties and moderates?

Aside from that, I agree with one key thing you say: who gives a shit?

:toast:

[gorfle]

15. I oppose it. because it is mob rule.

I oppose it because it allows the mob to decide what goes on the greatest page, and, worse, any controversial subject that happens to have 5 people who recommend it will instantly get hammered down as soon as it appears on the Greatest page.

This is why sites like Digg suck - the mob squelches unpopular opinions.

[BurtWorm]

17. Is that any different from the way it was before?

When any mob greater than 5 had the power to elevate a post to "Greatest?"

[gorfle]

25. Yes, quite different.

Because any five like-minded folks could elevate a post to the greatest page. Now, if all you have is five like-minded folks, you will be swept off of the greatest page as soon as you hit 5.

Before, if you had a few like-minded folks, you could "hang your banner", if you will, on the greatest page, getting exposure for your pet issue, regardless of the opinion of the majority. Those days are now gone. The majority will now tear down your banner as soon as it hits 5 recs.

[BurtWorm]

52. Why is it bad

that people will no longer be able to stuff votes to get their pet issues on the greatest page?

[NoPasaran]

16. Where is "Support because it stifles free speech at DU?"

I'm actually entertained by the way it feeds some posters' paranoia that The Man is telling them to STFU.

[pleideschick]

18. I support it with one exception: show how many negatives!

I mean, why do we get to see the number of positives yet not the other way around?

[myrna minx]

19. There have been some compelling arguments against the feature,

but the hyperbole "it's like the Nazis!! It's Orwellian!!! It's a fiasco!! It's a crisis!!" type of threads that have been posted and reposted make a mockery of true suppression, oppression and tyranny. To me it's a function on a message board that some people don't care for at all-- but it's not a crisis! or genocide! or like the Nazis!!! It's a message board function.

[Uncle Joe]

21. I oppose it because there is no visible accountability on the forum regarding the votes and

it distorts reality.

I'm amazed that many of the same people strongly supporting accountability/verifiability for their election votes would just go la la la la la over recommendation votes regarding any issue, subject or candidate here at D.U.

This new system also disenfranchises any minority vote treating them all the same, whether the vote was 5 pro/rec and 10 anti/unrec to 100 pro/rec and 105 anti/unrec, there is a vast difference in percentage between those votes whereas the first is 100% skunk and the second an approximate 5% squeaker.

While the anti/unrec people may be happy now, I suspect many attitudes will change when they find no verifiable accountability on issues or subjects in which they care deeply about but are in the minority.

The ideal situation would be to reflect both rec and anti rec votes on a thread, you could still require a 5+ pro vote margin to make the Greatest Page.

Even during elections, the losing sides votes are a matter of public record, they're not discarded down a Black Hole.

[CakeGrrl]

54. But are egos strong enough to see the full positive/negative count?

I wouldn't have a problem with seeing "10 Recs/12 Unrecs"; but would fragile egos be preoccupied with those 12 Unrecs, even though they'd have their wish to see the total number of people who Rec'd their thread?

[Uncle Joe]

58. It may take some adjusting in getting used to gauging registered pro and con votes but I believe

they will become all the stronger for it.

This is what democracy is all about, visible, verifiable votes, and sometimes it may hurt, but I believe the people of D.U. can only grow from that experience.

To me treating the minority vote as one and the same on any issue, subject or candidate with an ambiguous <0 is far more cruel as it gives no real guidance as to the feelings or intent of the people on an issue, subject or candidate, was it a close vote or a skunk? Was the vote 5 pro and 10 con or 100 pro and 105 con, that's a big difference in percentage.

In my opinion the dysfunctional corporate media have already created a bubble for the nation distorting reality, while concealing much of the truth and I believe D.U. becomes ill served by the doing the same.

[MoonRiver]

26. Do you have any idea why your thread is currently unrecommended?

I don't see any problem with this thread that would drive somebody to unrec it. But that is the bottom line as to why I think this feature is a disaster.

[Jennicut]

28. Because many posters are tired of threads about the unrec/rec thing?

Just a thought.

[MoonRiver]

29. It was an innocuous poll.

Why do the DU self-appointed censors hate polls?

[Jennicut]

38. People are just tired when a subject gets talked about to death

Sorry, just the messenger

[BurtWorm]

42. Very few posts on this subject need to be read by everyone on DU.

The same points are being made over and over and over.

:crazy:

[BurtWorm]

36. I agree with you.

[BurtWorm]

33. People are probably sick of this argument.

I have no problem with this poll or any of my posts on this subject being unrecommended. I have no illusions about these being "unGreat" posts. ;-)

[LostInAnomie]

30. Support: Because I like to hear the whiners cry about their "free speech" being "stifled".

[omega minimo]

56. Which you did anyway and now this "tool" enables you to be more of one.

[BlooInBloo]

32. I'm glad that Senate SCOTUS confirmation votes are 'yes', 'no', or abstain...

And not just 'yes' or abstain.

[pecwae]

35. Support it as a Democratic feature. nt

[Renew Deal]

43. The first answer is Orwellian

"increases democratic participation at DU"

It's in fact the opposite.

[BurtWorm]

44. You mean because more DUers are able to express their opinions about posts?

I really don't understand how you can think that allowing people who don't think a post is all that great a voice in determining which posts make it on the Greatest Page is somehow undemocratic. It's as though you think a poster has more rights than a reader on DU. Is that what you think?

[Javaman]

45. ahhhhhhh, stop!!! please, I'm begging you all, stop it!!

my eyes are starting to bleed from all of this inanity!!

it's simple, you don't like something, unrec it, you like something, rec it.

WHY. IS. THIS. SO. HARD?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

47. "because it increases democratic participation"

Sometimes pure democracy has its drawbacks, especially when a serious minority opinion is voiced. I say let that minority voice be heard and supported by its proponents and get on the greatest page without being ganged up on by the majority. Let others make their own contrary posts that get recommended. I personally don't care to see only the popular opinion gain prominence at DU.

[Quantess]

48. Kick for more votes

[apocalypsehow]

49. Support Democracy. Oppose histrionics. Thus I support the new feature. n/t.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Could not care less

and thanks for having that option.

This was tested over a year ago, and damn it the same people who opposed it back then, anyhow, could not care less.

[omega minimo]

55. Up til now, the Disruptors and Assholes were an aberration. This "innovation" caters to them

and reinforces their illusion that they are "the majority." They now have a greater illusion of power.

[TexasObserver]

57. Support it because it's fair, it's effective, and it's democratic.