Shared publicly  - 
 
My Google+ Block &Delete Rules:
The Google+ adventure has been fantastic but it's also been somewhat similar to Twitter in the spam department, but because of the G+ threaded comments, the spam has been more disruptive than on Twitter. I don't want to be unfair, so I had to think up a few rules, and here they are:

1. If you proposition me or make lewd remarks. After 2 of those instances, I classify that as harassment and you're blocked. Some of my friends said I'm lenient, and I should block after the first instance. So I may, don't challenge me.

And for the life of me I don't understand why you want those statements to be public when G+ has a private messaging feature. Is there some Alpha challenge going on here?

2. Conversation disruption via a sales pitch that's not related to the post.

I completely understand making sales pitches. If we don't toot your own horn who will? So please share your blog post links and solutions your company can provide, but when it's out of context with the conversation going on, when it's obviously yet another tooth whitening product, it's spam, and it gets deleted.

Google+ is positive, so play nice.

3. Any hate speech, as it is defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech Sorry, I'm not a republic, in my community, hate speech doesn't get a constitutional free speech pass. And before I block you and remove your comments you will get a scolding too.

I don't propose censorship, I wouldn't delete any opinion piece, or conversation between 2 or more people. Only the obvious and disruptive spam.
10
1
Mana Ionescu's profile photoMax McNally's profile photoJim Coffis's profile photoJim Kopeny's profile photo
4 comments
 
There is a subtle but important difference between the editing process and censorship. I think that in the digital world there is the expectation that we keep everything simply because we can. However, if you were printing a physical publication of some sort with user-submitted reviews you would act as editor and include only a subset of the reviews. I think most of us would not even think to consider this as censorship.

I personally think it makes total sense to curate your stream (both posts and comments). As the author, you are creating an experience for others. In order to create the most effective experience it's up to you to decide what is worthy. It would be a total shame for someone to miss thoughtful and insightful comments because (s)he was disgusted or annoyed by foul drivel others have left.

Removing comments that don't enhance the experience is the standard process of editing and calling it censorship is not really accurate. The person leaving the comment is more than free to say whatever (s)he wants on his/her own publication (stream). If you had control over the person's ability to do this too then it'd be more fair to call it censorship, otherwise it's simply curation.

Do we say museums are engaging in censorship when they offer an exhibit? Do we say a place of worship engages in censorship because they don't offer books from all religions? Do we say our bookstore engages in censorship because they don't offer every book ever printed?

There are people facing legitimate censorship with very real reprisals for their words in other countries. In my opinion, if you jump to the conclusion that you have faced the cruel hand of censorship just because a comment wasn't included then you need to check the facts and get over yourself.
 
The link to hate speech didn't work for me but that's not a problem. I think I know it when I see it. I'm a little torn about what to do with it sometimes except to respond by calling out the perpetrator. Sometimes I want to leave it to identify the bigots while more often I want to block to spare the subjects the hurt.
Also lewd remarks = hate speech imo.
 
+Max McNally thanks. Unedited streams have their value. I'm really only talking about extremes here.
+Jim Coffis the link goes to wikipedia. I'll try to edit it and maybe it will work a second time around. And thanks for helping me realize I misspelled lewd :)
 
Aw, I like your "lude" misspelling better...
Add a comment...