I read "moral buoy" as "not using anonymity as a cover for being an ass. It's possible to engage civilly while vehemently disagreeing.
The BroJos have claimed they want this forum to be a conversation like you'd have with your running buddies. But your running buddies are anything but anonymous and unaccountable which definitely affects the tone of social interaction.
Being a "moral buoy" then really means behaving on an anonymous message board as you would if it weren't anonymous. There are a lot of posters here who do just that, at least when they post under their registered userids.
The difference having a conversation at a run with your running buddies is, that once you said it, it's gone.
In the internet, everything stays. So even if you act like a "moral buoy" you don't want to have all that talk out there in the public forever.
There are many differences between between social media and real life interactions, but my contention is that when posters use a registered (pseudonymous) userid they develop a reputation over time. When one sees a post by that user, it is read in the context of their previous posting history.
This has at least two effects.
First, when one knows that there is a reputational cost for each post, posts tend to be more tempered and well thought out.
Second, when one reads a post by a registered user their history is part of how one interprets that post. I respect that even certain posters who regularly post inflammatory drivel do so under a registered userid so you pretty much know what's coming is more of the same and best left alone.
I can't tell if you idiots didn't read the piece or have terrible reading comprehension. She literally writes about the positives and negatives of anonymity on the internet and then describes some possible options going forward, including preserving anonymity. Gotta tell you, it's hard to support freedom of speech when there are so many lazy idiots out there...
direct quote from her article:
" However, the anonymity of message boards is a liability because people can say what they wish without cost to their reputations. Anonymity permits vices to reign unfettered. So, what can we do to redeem these spaces? 1. Make Them Not Anonymous"
Comment section pointing out irunfar lives in a glass house.
She makes too many false assumptions. Also, the other message board she is talking about is her own platform, irunfar.com. They used to bash Jim Walmsley- he was too feeble minded; too fast; too weak; not the right physique; and they got called out and exposed and changed their policies. I stopped posted years ago after the “leaders” of the site continued to denigrate Walmsley.
I haven’t met a runner that has not visited Letsrun. Little is not an active participant so I understand the passive aggressiveness.
I like the anonymity. I provide information on the monthly that are insights of the run world no one knows about.
I am just a casual observer but your comments about Walmsley do not ring true from what I recall. There may have been people in the comments bashing Jim but Meghan and Bryon were not bashing Jim. And in fact it was Meghan who wrote a great piece detailing what she thought Walmsley needed to do to win and then he executed pretty much exactly what she had wrote whether coincidentally or not. Jim just wasn't racing long races all that smart and people called it out, thats not bashing. Once he started to dial things in just as folks like Meghan had said things clicked for him.
I enjoyed the article a great deal. Maybe I should reach out to her.
I don't know why she didn't just name us. She says in the notes she is talking about two websites. what is the other?
I like the idea of nudges. I thought of a popup like once a month that says - "Hey be nice. The person you are writing about may very well read it" would be decent.
What I'd like to see is specific examples of somethign that was written and how damaging it was to someone. It's kind of funny, she had the whole philosophical thing in there of "Is it better to not commit a crime but be accused of commiting one than it is to commit a crime and not be accused of it."
So if someone chokes and runs horribly (crime), it's better if fans don't point that out?
The reality is people are saying these things and thinking them regardless. The internet just lets people permanently realize they were said.
We could have a self-destructing feature like snapchat i guess. Anythign written negative about a specific person is automatically deleted after 6 months or something? But then what if the allegation reveals a pattern of absue? You might want that.
I can't tell if you idiots didn't read the piece or have terrible reading comprehension. She literally writes about the positives and negatives of anonymity on the internet and then describes some possible options going forward, including preserving anonymity. Gotta tell you, it's hard to support freedom of speech when there are so many lazy idiots out there...
direct quote from her article:
" However, the anonymity of message boards is a liability because people can say what they wish without cost to their reputations. Anonymity permits vices to reign unfettered. So, what can we do to redeem these spaces? 1. Make Them Not Anonymous"
Apparently, I read more than you, "bro."
There were four options, so it's not like ending anonymity was a required solution to keeping the redeeming value of message boards.
I don't know why she didn't just name us. She says in the notes she is talking about two websites. what is the other?
She says in the first footnote why she didn't name you: "[I]t is not obvious to me that they are unique in the landscape of sports fandom. [and] I also want to focus this conversation more broadly on character and why people often act poorly when they think that no one is watching, rather than to indict particular websites."
I can't tell if you idiots didn't read the piece or have terrible reading comprehension. She literally writes about the positives and negatives of anonymity on the internet and then describes some possible options going forward, including preserving anonymity. Gotta tell you, it's hard to support freedom of speech when there are so many lazy idiots out there...
direct quote from her article:
" However, the anonymity of message boards is a liability because people can say what they wish without cost to their reputations. Anonymity permits vices to reign unfettered. So, what can we do to redeem these spaces? 1. Make Them Not Anonymous"
Apparently, I read more than you, "bro."
Again, you illiterate imbecile, that’s one option presented, and there are three others that are not that.
" However, the anonymity of message boards is a liability because people can say what they wish without cost to their reputations. Anonymity permits vices to reign unfettered. So, what can we do to redeem these spaces? 1. Make Them Not Anonymous"
Apparently, I read more than you, "bro."
Again, you illiterate imbecile, that’s one option presented, and there are three others that are not that.
points 3, and 4 are soft-censorship.
her top priority was her point #1, "make them not anonymous."
the others are afterthoughts.
PS - don't get mad that simple commentary wrecks her arguments, which is ironically - in part - why she wants to censor people.
How about having two discussion boards that users can choose from? One as it currently exists and one where ALL users are NOT anonymous. I strongly suspect that the later would tend to be much more civil.
How about having two discussion boards that users can choose from? One as it currently exists and one where ALL users are NOT anonymous. I strongly suspect that the later would tend to be much more civil.
I can assure you that there is no discussion on irunfar. Megan pretty much shuts down everything.
I can't imagine they are doing that great. A couple years ago they got bought by another outdoorsy media conglomerate. They thought they would be the big players by now but that never happened. Partly because of their weird set of writers and partly of an overly guarded comment section.
Not a well written article, attempting high brow and including citations for an idea that is not that deep. The political crap and hate on this board is stupid. However, if you are here long enough, and you know how to pick the right topics and wade through the posts, you can come away informed well before news breaks in the mainstream. There is no way we are getting that if posting was attached to people’s Facebook and their name.
If you invested in AI then it would flag certain words and “nudge” the poster about their post before publishing. It would have to be accompanied by consequences, such as taking the post down automatically, not waiting for a moderator though.
I read the article. It was clear, well developed (a feature not respected by the LR hip-shooters), and focused on a point of view: Anonymously posting invites fly-byes, bullies, and trolls. It did offer some benefits on anonymous posting to be fair. I too think registered, authentic contributors are more responsible and careful with manners, facts, and plausible rhetoric. So I think the criticism that the piece is long-winded is a sign of the times: readers demanding capsulized, small bites, either-or stances (no complex processing—it’s too hard!), and immediate side-taking, without keeping an open mind and trying out contrary or challenging points of view. The piece was worth reading imo because of the thoughtful development, the lack of vituperation or sloganeering, or god forbid, insults and veiled threats—such as are more apt to occur on an anonymous board.
I have and will continue to read the board because, while I see the harm in the kind of things the author of the article mentions, I value the very cogent, sensible, and often well written material one finds among the dross! Viva LR!