The Moderation Will Not Be Criticized

Hurrah! We can all now have absolute faith in the moderation at CiF because Matt Seaton says that it looks like its broken - but it will not be mended. So there.

Here is Seaton's comment, which shows to the full the capabilities of his keen analytical mind:

mattseaton

18 Mar 2010, 7:07PM


@ MozP:

Sorry for delay; thanks for your patience. I'm not going to give immediate gratification here, because you referred me to this post:

JayReilly
13 Mar 2010, 12:50PM
As for moderation on fem threads, well, i've had more deletions than hot dinners, most of them overtly partisan. In one post (notable only because they actually explained the deletion to me) i spoke of how elements of feminism care little for "equality" but rather special pleading and rights grabbing for women, to elevate women to superiority without any regard to equality at all. I made the effort to make clear it was elements of feminism i was speaking about, not the whole movement, i cant remember the thread but in the context of the debate it was very measured.
So shocked was I by the deletion of my effort that i emailed for explanation, and got a rare response.
"The comment was removed as the implication that feminists are predominantly concerned with women's superiority over men was considered offensive." (quoted from their email)
Thats political censorship, no ifs and buts. There was no abuse in the comment, nothing off topic, nothing ad-hom, nothing but a view on a political (and very diverse) movement. And they deleted it. Not only is this political, partisan censorship (not "moderation", its censorship) but they actually admitted as much.
Imagine being deleted for implying conservatism was for the rich, or Labour for the rich, or secularism being concerned with X, or liberalism being concerned with Y. Thats political censorship.
There is no other political ideology/movement that is deemed so sacrosanct that non abusive criticism is "offensive".
I have also spent two spells in premod for discussing moderation. Question our censorship and we'll put you in premod. Nice.

The way JayReilly presents it, and makes his counter-argument against the mod's explanation, any impartial reader taking his account at face value would have to agree that the deletion decision looks dubious at best.

But, not that I don't trust JayReilly, but he is the polemicist's polemicist, as we all well know, so I'd need the full picture before pronouncing on the case and finding for or against. I'd need a link to the deletion referred to; to look at the precise content of that deleted comment; to examine the thread context; to discover whether, as the mod who corresponded with JR implies, there were independent abuse reports that led to a modding decision to delete; to see the full explanation from the mod, if JR is quoting only part of it.

Also, JR says his tone was beyond reproach, but he may not be the best judge of that: a reasonable argument can be interpreted as offensive if its language and tone are hostile and angry. Further, threads where the debate is about feminism/equality often have an edge of male anger against perceived feminist bossiness and self-righteousness that many female users find off-putting and borderline misogynist. I'm not suggesting that JR was guilty of that or a perpetrator in that regard; but it is part of the context in which mods have to judge what is offensive or abusive.

I am aware that this may just look like just so much obfuscation and flannelling on my part. But I'm not trying to duck the issue or be defensive. If you or JR will send me the link I need so I can locate that specific thread and deletion, I will follow through. And I don't rule out the possibility that our modding was trigger-happy on this occasion. I would never say it never happens, so if I'm directed to a specific instance where we got it wrong, then I'll hold up my hand and admit it.

But please understand that one such admission would not amount to a concession that the entire system is biased, arbitrary and effectively broken. That's not where we're headed with this, so please don't imagine otherwise.

Even on a thread which is conveniently derelict and dead, someone's keen sense of smell sniffs a stink.

Triffid100

19 Mar 2010, 11:12AM

Matt Seaton said:

But please understand that one such admission would not amount to a concession that the entire system is biased, arbitrary and effectively broken. That's not where we're headed with this, so please don't imagine otherwise

I'm a bit confused by this.

if we look at what has happened it's all started as many, many posters say they are unhappy with the moderation policy.
Matt S believes fundamentally that everything is in order. He agrees to review one case.
Superficially looking at the case it appears to be censorship by the moderators due to their own political beliefs.
Matt acknowledges it looks bad but says he needs more details - fair enough.

However, he then says even if it's proven to be censorship it's just a one-off because everything is wonderful. QED

Matt - seriously. How do you want posters to say to you that the moderation policy is being affected by political censorship? You refuse to investigate in case you find you have an issue. Considering the importance of this - it's to the core of free speech - I think the majority of people have been polite and calm.

So, what exactly would you like posters to do ?

It would seem that the problem might be that CiF is so used to deleting things which it just doesn't like and censoring opinions which do not match the ideology of the site that it never crossed the collective mind, throbbing in CiF Towers, that once this can of worms was spilled over the pages for all to see, it could not just be made to disappear as if by magic.

Still, no doubt the line of defence trotted out by Seaton will be accepted by everyone in the end:

You have proved that moderation on The Guardian's flagship internet site, CiF may be arbitrary, malicious, ideologically and politically motivated, completely disconnected from the stated community guidelines and possibly employed by moderators to pursue their own personal agendas - but we can promise that we are not going to do anything about it whatsoever.

Three cheers for Seaton for once again showing the brainlessness which seems to be a condition of employment by CiF and the monumental disregard and contempt CiF has for all those BTL who provide daily deluges of free content, without which Guardian Media Group would be losing even more money.

Hurr...

Matt Seaton: Moderators Cannot Be Wrong

Matt Seaton declares that there can be nothing wrong with the moderation on CiF, for the simple reason that the moderators are exemplary in everything and not to be questioned. 

"...I'm not willing to debate alleged political bias on the part of moderators, because their political impartiality is simply a given." 

We can all sleep soundly now we know that there is nothing wrong with moderation - because the people who do it are perfect.

Ahh, bless!

The Seaton comment:

@ MozP:

OK, how about unaccountable, politically motivated and inconsistent with anything in the Community Guidelines.

Why won't you debate this topic? Why won't you discuss individual complaints. Why is the moderators@ email address pretty much ignored? Why are you so scared to address the issue? Both you and Georgina run away as soon as the issue is mentioned. Stop it. Do your sodding job properly.

Hi MozP. Can I ask you something: would you speak to someone face to face in that fashion if you want them to do something?

Putting that aside, the general point is that I'm not willing to debate alleged political bias on the part of moderators, because their political impartiality is simply a given. It would be a disciplinary matter if a moderator was acting on a partisan ideological basis. And that would be incredibly stupid, too, because it would be rankly obvious within the first 15 minutes.

As for individual complaints, I assume you mean over deleted posts. This is where we all have to be realistic: this site generates thousands of comments every day. Moderators are having to make hundreds of judgments about deletions every shift. They are under considerable pressure. Is their judgment flawless in every case? It can't be. But neither will it be grossly wrong; and looked at in aggregate, over time, it will be fair and reasonable. We invite appeals by email, and guarantee that all are read, but the sheer scale of the enterprise means that there cannot be a judicial process for every deleted comment as of right for users. My general advice is if you get a comment deleted, you probably have a good idea why, so move on.

But you know what? Since I'm here adddressing this now, why don't you give me a specific instance and I'll look into it? That's a one-off offer for this day only. Tomorrow, I'm going to run away again and hide behind the moderators.

Steve Hill Sees CiF's Future

SteveHill has this to say about the moderation policy on CiF, which seems to be getting more infamous by the moment.

stevehill

16 Mar 2010, 6:02PM

Georgina

stevehill: of course it doesn't say that in the community standards, and of course LS wouldn't have been moderated for disagreeing with the writer - every day, on hundreds of threads, people are disagreeing with AT writers on Cif. It's how you say it.

Georgina: I've queried three moderation decisions in the last few weeks where I know I have breached no community standards, and my only crime has been to take a contrarian view to somebody else. And maybe that someone has been more "politically correct".

None of my emails ever received anything but an automated "we're all very busy we'll get round to you" response, but look them up if you wish (I assume you can).

I am forced to the conclusion that the faceless moderators are superimposing personal agendas onto their work and are not acting impartially but are effectively taking sides in arguments.

If you think what is happening is wholly in accordance with community standards, then the standards themselves are an ass.

CiF is treating not just Lord S, but the entire community, with contempt. The respect for "free" speech is just risible: the very name CiF is considered by many to be wholly satirical.

And there's only one way your organisation is headed once you become widely known for treating your own forum members contemptuously.

Monsieur le Jongleur Banned

I had resigned from CiF but noticed that both MontanaWildhack and 13thDukeofWybourne had popped back to make a parting shot after the WADDYA thread had descended into a type of striptease tableau in which the editors and moderators finally stood around in the nakedness of their own idiocy.

I was going to post what follows, but found that I have now been banned. So I couldn't.

Since both 13thDukeofWybourne and MontanaWildhack have come back to make comments about the circus which CiF has become, I will allow myself the same privilege.

The point is that it is now clear for everyone to see that the moderation exercised in practice has no relationship to the stated policy.

It is also clear that there is an ideological stance which is maintained by deleting and censoring anyone who does not toe the line.

There may be enough people who will keep commenting on CiF who are not bothered about principles - or as flexible about how one principle can be subverted to accommodate another - as the editorial and moderation teams.

Perhaps, though, this episode will make some of the people who thought that others who made an issue of moderation were simply grizzling because they had been deleted (fairly, of course, in their eyes) wonder whether a site which would proclaim the value of freedom of speech in one breath while gagging those who seek to exercise it in another is really something of which to be a part.

I do not want to be soiled by being associated with a site like this or with people who cannot see the squalor of the moral quagmire into which they jump when they give it tacit approval by fostering it and aiding and abetting its filthy intentions.

If there is a full, open and honest debate which allows the people below the line who contribute free content to discuss how moderation and ideology should operate, I will reconsider this matter.

Otherwise, I want no part of a site which can so proudly and idiotically parade its moral slovenliness and contempt for its users.

13th Duke of Wybourne Smoking Gun

Another page in the CiF catalogue of failure. This on The Untrusted from 13thDukeofWybourne:

I just received an email from cif moderation saying the reason my comment was modded from the QT thread last week was because (quote):

"It seems likely that the comment was removed as it was considered offensive in the context of the thread."

Two things stand out here:

1. The word "likely"- which means that there is no communication between mods and those emailing posters that have a modding complaint. The left hand mod does not know what the right hand mod is doing. Clearly there is no proper modding procedure.


2. Political- if my comment was removed as is "likely" as it was "deemed offensive", it is quite clear here that we have censorious, political modding on certain threads which again is against the modding guidelines.

If anyone saw my original comment, no-one could be offended by it, except for the most fundamentalist radfem. Which makes me suspicious that certain threads have specialist mods.

If the person emailing me doesn't know why I was modded the whole modding procedure is a sham.

And if LordS has been banned- complete shambles.
16 March, 2010 09:30

Lord Summerisle Banned from CiF

This posted on The Untrusted, but no doubt there will be more in due course.

Lord Summerisle said...

Hi all. I can't hang around long as I'm at work and this site can be problematic. I just wanted to tell you that the mods, in their infinite and most glorious wisdom, have banned me. That's all I have to say for now.

16 March, 2010 09:04

This is shaping up to be a glorious 4th birthday for CiF.

JayReilly and the Smoking CiF Censorship Gun

JayReilly posts this over on The Guardian's Comment is Free Waddya thread. It pretty much confirms what we have all known for a very long time: The Guardian employs censorship to control the message it broadcasts from its supposedly free and open blogs and comment sections.

Interesting debate. Smellthecofee - when was it exactly the UT lynch mob came for you? I dont recall it, not doubting your heroics would just be interested to read the details. I dont think i've ever been rude to you before at all. Which misogynists are you referring to? The UT is i think actually mostly female posters, 100% of whom are feminists.

Very sad news, the Duke's passing. He is also leaving the country soon, and has just written an excellent piece at the UT on Adam Smith. Since he is leaving CiF and the country and is a very widely liked poster here maybe the Graun could publish his article here (its better than most of the stuff published here anyway).

As for moderation on fem threads, well, i've had more deletions than hot dinners, most of them overtly partisan. In one post (notable only because they actually explained the deletion to me) i spoke of how elements of feminism care little for "equality" but rather special pleading and rights grabbing for women, to elevate women to superiority without any regard to equality at all. I made the effort to make clear it was elements of feminism i was speaking about, not the whole movement, i cant remember the thread but in the context of the debate it was very measured.

So shocked was I by the deletion of my effort that i emailed for explanation, and got a rare response.

"The comment was removed as the implication that feminists are predominantly concerned with women's superiority over men was considered offensive." (quoted from their email)

Thats political censorship, no ifs and buts. There was no abuse in the comment, nothing off topic, nothing ad-hom, nothing but a view on a political (and very diverse) movement. And they deleted it. Not only is this political, partisan censorship (not "moderation", its censorship) but they actually admitted as much.

Imagine being deleted for implying conservatism was for the rich, or Labour for the rich, or secularism being concerned with X, or liberalism being concerned with Y. Thats political censorship.

There is no other political ideology/movement that is deemed so sacrosanct that non abusive criticism is "offensive".

I have also spent two spells in premod for discussing moderation. Question our censorship and we'll put you in premod. Nice.