Report abuse feature updated
A contentious issue on any website is abusive behaviour or spam. People want to debate issues without getting personal, and they don't want to see threads loaded with spam. DigitalJournal.com has always taken the issue of abuse toward other members seriously; we do our best to police the site and when we're notified about abuse we evaluate the issue and aim to resolve it.
However, as the site grows and as the community becomes increasingly involved in the day-to-day operation, we believe it's important to stay current and give more power to people.
We're introducing an addition to the comment thread today. Digital Journalists now have a say in policing the site and removing spam or abusive comments. If you are a Digital Journalist, you'll now see a link to "Flag as Abuse" on the bottom of every comment. For now this feature is only available to Digital Journalists. This feature is designed to stop abuse e.g. a personal attack against a site member, or to flag a spam comment. It should not be used to flag comments you disagree with.
By pressing this button, you will be minimizing the comment in your view -- it will fold in on itself and you will no longer see the comment. If others also flag it as abuse, our system will collapse it by default for all readers of the site.
We are bestowing more power and features on members of DigitalJournal.com so they can have a say in how it's run. If site moderators are busy editing, researching and attending to other business, this feature allows you to instantly provide input rather than waiting for a staff member to review an issue. It also gives power to numbers, where multiple people decide if a comment is abusive/spam rather than just site admin.
While we do minimize comments reported as abuse, it's important to note we also have a link to "Show comment." We believe it's important to remove abuse and spam, but we also want to do our best to ensure free speech prevails. With this system, an offender will see what the community deems to be abusive, and the nasty comments get scrubbed from the site.
As a final note: We don't anticipate this feature will be used often, but we've installed it for serious cases. It's for abuse only, not when you disagree with something -- only use it to report an attack on a site member, or for spam. Digital Journalists may lose their privileges if they unfairly or unnecessarily use this feature to flag comments that are not abuse.
This tweak replaces the "Report Abuse" button that sends a message to DJ admin. From now on, it's up to the community. If something is severe abuse, or if you feel a particular comment needs to be brought to the attention of site administrators, feel free to Contact Us to let us know.
Thanks again for everyone's input. We hope you enjoy and appreciate this feature.
blog:2958:9::0
| Comments (42) |
6 subscribers |
Subscribe To Thread 
|
-
I think this is an excellent tweak, and I do hope that it won't be abused by anyone. Good job!
-
Yes, this is an excellent move.
As you say it is up to us to use it judiciously.
It's not because people disagree strongly with a point of view that they should use this button in a gratuitous manner.
Power to the people? Yip, but as this tool shows, it comes with responsible behavior.
-
-
It's much different than previous incarnations Carolyn; we don't show upvotes or downvotes, and it's intended for abuse only -- not if you disagree with a comment.
In listening to feedback about how we police the site, we thought it would be important and powerful to involve you in the decision-making.
Thoughts?
-
Well done, Chris. One suggestion: it should be required to enter *why* the flagger thinks this is abuse. That way, you would understand the reasoning, and it could be mailed anonymously to the flagged to give this person an incentive to mend her/his way.
-
I would also suggest adding "comment abuse" or something similar to the Contact Us list box. It would be easier for you to identify them quickly.
-
I see it as an excellent move.
It would be good for those of us who have the power to use it to familiarize themselves with the Code of Conduct which I see as the guideline for any comment that is reported as abuse.
-
Good idea Chris. Thanks for the option.
-
Thoughts?
Well, we've been round this before and all the usual suspects are still involved :)
Every time there is a fight on this site it is about abortion, Christianity, homosexuality, Islam or the military. It never ends. CJers are abusive to each other. Period. There are two people going at it in a thread and they are both, in my opinion being abusive to each other. One is slandering a doctor and the other is slandering religion. It is always the same. Religion. Abortion. Homosexuality. etc.
I believe there are CJers who write these articles just to start these fights. I know that I have done this in the past and probably will do it again in the future. That is the point of journalism, to hook the reader, stir up debate on a 'hot-button' issue and watch the sh*t hit the fan, the chips fall where they may? Don't we get bonus points for page views when all these people are busy battling back and forth over the same old things?
Look, by pressing the button you collapse the comment, if others press the button DJ will remove the comment. So a bunch of like-minded people will band together and press the button and bingo, the comment will be removed. How is this different than before? How many other CJers have to press the button before the comment is collapsed? Four? Five?
If you don't want to hear/read stuff, block the user. My life is much calmer now that DJ has introduced this feature. Obviously I'm missing out on all the fun but I'm also missing out all the aggravation.
-
@ ■ Carolyn E. Price
Thoughts?
Well, we've been round this before and all the usual suspects are still involved :)
Every time there is a fight on this site it is about abortion, Christianity, homosexuality, Islam or the military. It never ends. CJers are abusive to each other. Period. There are two people going at it in a thread and they are both, in my opinion being abusive to each other. One is slandering a doctor and the other is slandering religion. It is always the same. Religion. Abortion. Homosexuality. etc.
I believe there are CJers who write these articles just to start these fights. I know that I have done this in the past and probably will do it again in the future. That is the point of journalism, to hook the reader, stir up debate on a 'hot-button' issue and watch the sh*t hit the fan, the chips fall where they may? Don't we get bonus points for page views when all these people are busy battling back and forth over the same old things?
Look, by pressing the button you collapse the comment, if others press the button DJ will remove the comment. So a bunch of like-minded people will band together and press the button and bingo, the comment will be removed. How is this different than before? How many other CJers have to press the button before the comment is collapsed? Four? Five?
If you don't want to hear/read stuff, block the user. My life is much calmer now that DJ has introduced this feature. Obviously I'm missing out on all the fun but I'm also missing out all the aggravation.
Very true. As well as the for or against religious stuff and related topics, I would add Obama and Israel/Gaza.
These subjects do tend to attract all kinds of disagreable and abusive debate. Like you, I am (with some success but not enough yet) trying to steer clear of it, and the block user button has made my life much more agreeable on the site. Just two uses were enough.
At the end of the day, people who want to write and polemicise that stuff will. That's their right, of course. My "duty" to myself however is to avoid it as much as possible.
-
@ ■ Carolyn E. Price
Thoughts?
Well, we've been round this before and all the usual suspects are still involved :)
Every time there is a fight on this site it is about abortion, Christianity, homosexuality, Islam or the military. It never ends. CJers are abusive to each other. Period. There are two people going at it in a thread and they are both, in my opinion being abusive to each other. One is slandering a doctor and the other is slandering religion. It is always the same. Religion. Abortion. Homosexuality. etc.
I believe there are CJers who write these articles just to start these fights. I know that I have done this in the past and probably will do it again in the future. That is the point of journalism, to hook the reader, stir up debate on a 'hot-button' issue and watch the sh*t hit the fan, the chips fall where they may? Don't we get bonus points for page views when all these people are busy battling back and forth over the same old things?
Look, by pressing the button you collapse the comment, if others press the button DJ will remove the comment. So a bunch of like-minded people will band together and press the button and bingo, the comment will be removed. How is this different than before? How many other CJers have to press the button before the comment is collapsed? Four? Five?
If you don't want to hear/read stuff, block the user. My life is much calmer now that DJ has introduced this feature. Obviously I'm missing out on all the fun but I'm also missing out all the aggravation.
Glad the block user feature works for you :)
As for collapsing comments: This is a test to see how the feature is used, and if anyone abuses it. We will be watching, and adjusting the number accordingly.
Also, we don't anticipate like-minded people ganging up on comments because this is abuse, not opinion. It's either an attack on someone, or it's not. That is why we avoided a downvote on a comment because that creates enemies and publicly showing a downvote number creates animosity. If we do get gang-ups, we'll deal with that when it happens.
This is a real-life test to see how it's used and how it goes. Keep us in the loop if you find it's not working for you.
-
I agree and would include not attacking people for the subjects they pick to write because again that attacks the person and not the topic. Any topic that is news should be important. My only concern is whether or not when there are personal issues with another writer, that people gang up and push the button when it isn't necessary. I do think Bart's suggestion will help with an explanation.
-
@ ■ Carol Forsloff
I agree and would include not attacking people for the subjects they pick to write because again that attacks the person and not the topic. Any topic that is news should be important. My only concern is whether or not when there are personal issues with another writer, that people gang up and push the button when it isn't necessary. I do think Bart's suggestion will help with an explanation.
That is the problem with curtailing freedom of speech, isn't it? Once one accepts limiting that freedom, it becomes very hard to find where the limit is. Some have argued that hate speech is the price we pay for freedom of speech, and there is a lot to be said for that.
For example: Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has said that the recently murdered George Tiller
"left this life with his hands drenched with the innocent blood of tens of thousands of babies that he murdered" and that organisations like Planned Parenthood, the National Organization of Women and NARAL are arch proponents of child killing and that they are enemies of children.
Is that the mere expression of an opinion, is it hate speech, or is it abuse?
-
@ ■ Chris Hogg
Glad the block user feature works for you :)
As for collapsing comments: This is a test to see how the feature is used, and if anyone abuses it. We will be watching, and adjusting the number accordingly.
Also, we don't anticipate like-minded people ganging up on comments because this is abuse, not opinion. It's either an attack on someone, or it's not. That is why we avoided a downvote on a comment because that creates enemies and publicly showing a downvote number creates animosity. If we do get gang-ups, we'll deal with that when it happens.
This is a real-life test to see how it's used and how it goes. Keep us in the loop if you find it's not working for you.
I would agree that a downvote would not be a good feature at all. It would be so easy to use it just to annoy people without having to justify why. The idea isn't to judge peoples' comments up or down, but to control abusive comment.
And, as some people have suggested here, "grouped" button use should be very carefully surveilled by the site..."Group" attacks would be very pernicious if allowed to happen.
-
@ ■ Carol Forsloff
I agree and would include not attacking people for the subjects they pick to write because again that attacks the person and not the topic. Any topic that is news should be important. My only concern is whether or not when there are personal issues with another writer, that people gang up and push the button when it isn't necessary. I do think Bart's suggestion will help with an explanation.
"Attacking the subject" is a part of free speech Carol.
It depends on what "attacking" is defined as being.
If someone thinks an article or its subject is irrelevant, that isn't a problem, as long as it's expressed without abuse don't you think?
For example, if someone had written to say that my recent article on, say, Carla Bruni, was irrelevant schlock cheap celeb and irrelevant gossip, that's fine, as long as they didn't attack me personally.
And it would be up to me to take the heat without overreacting in return, in which case it would be me who was out of line.
-
@ ■ Carol Forsloff
I agree and would include not attacking people for the subjects they pick to write because again that attacks the person and not the topic. Any topic that is news should be important. My only concern is whether or not when there are personal issues with another writer, that people gang up and push the button when it isn't necessary. I do think Bart's suggestion will help with an explanation.
You are correct to be concerned about the potential to gang up. Though that was always possible by using private messages to smear, particularly where cliques tend to form.
I recently received a most vile PM from a poster stating that I had been blocked. Despite his intellectual bullying and frequent inability to agreeably disagree I will not display that message here, even though it would show him in a truer light than he likes to project. Such a person, I see as quite capable of engaging in such smear.
-
However, as the site grows and as the community becomes increasingly involved in the day-to-day operation, we believe it's important to stay current and give more power to people.
High-sounding, but less about giving more power to communicate, than gagging, in my opinion.
Let us not forget that this is also a commercial enterprise and that abuse, or desire to silence, may originate anywhere.
-
I have decided after giving some thought to what Carolyn and Michael have said that I will block one of the people here at DJ.
And Kool it isn't you as you are in my book very cool. :)
-
That is correct, but it was not what she wrote:
I agree and would include not attacking people for the subjects they pick to write because again that attacks the person and not the topic.
Carol was talking about attacking people for the subjects they pick to write. I think that she would not object to the subject itself being attacked, but since I cannot look inside her head, that is, of course, speculation.
-
@ ■ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
That is correct, but it was not what she wrote:
Carol was talking about attacking people for the subjects they pick to write. I think that she would not object to the subject itself being attacked, but since I cannot look inside her head, that is, of course, speculation.
Exactly Bart, you cannot see, so it is speculation.
Nor can I.
That's why I wrote;
"It depends on what "attacking" is defined as being."
Thanks.
-
@ ■ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
That is correct, but it was not what she wrote:
Carol was talking about attacking people for the subjects they pick to write. I think that she would not object to the subject itself being attacked, but since I cannot look inside her head, that is, of course, speculation.
You affirm that "Carol was talking about...." and that "I think that she would not object...."
Now that's speculation if ever I saw it. Or collusion.
:)
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
I have decided after giving some thought to what Carolyn and Michael have said that I will block one of the people here at DJ.
And Kool it isn't you as you are in my book very cool. :)
Thank you for your comments, Cynthia.
From the start, I voiced my objections to the blocking thing. There was an inescapable irony in that we are primarily about communication, yet the thread dealing with the introduction of the blocking feature ran to over 100 comments. So much is not talked about, or is touched on briefly, yet that thread was about EXCLUSION.
As far as you blocking is concerned, Cynthia, give it a lot of thought. I think you would be the last to say that one was beyond redemption. You're not scroll-challenged. To apply a gag may say as much about the blocker as the blockee.
-
@ ■ skeptikool
Thank you for your comments, Cynthia.
From the start, I voiced my objections to the blocking thing. There was an inescapable irony in that we are primarily about communication, yet the thread dealing with the introduction of the blocking feature ran to over 100 comments. So much is not talked about, or is touched on briefly, yet that thread was about EXCLUSION.
As far as you blocking is concerned, Cynthia, give it a lot of thought. I think you would be the last to say that one was beyond redemption. You're not scroll-challenged. To apply a gag may say as much about the blocker as the blockee.
I did give it a lot of thought Kool.
Right now there are some serious problems here at home and I don't want to deal with anything else that I find stressful. Maybe later I might unblock the person but I think it is better right now to have the person blocked.
-
Cynthia, listen. It is not worth it. This is a place where we post articles and comment to each other. If someone is really annoying you that much, block them. It is so much better for your sanity. As I said later you can always unblock or whatever, but don't let it ruin what is otherwise a pleasant experience for you.
-
@ ■ Carolyn E. Price
Cynthia, listen. It is not worth it. This is a place where we post articles and comment to each other. If someone is really annoying you that much, block them. It is so much better for your sanity. As I said later you can always unblock or whatever, but don't let it ruin what is otherwise a pleasant experience for you.
You are right Carolyn as that is exactly what has happened. With what is going on at home and the unpleasantness here It is just not worth it to have any communication with one person.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
You are right Carolyn as that is exactly what has happened. With what is going on at home and the unpleasantness here It is just not worth it to have any communication with one person.
Cynthia you take care of you. That's the most important thing.
-
Cynthia, you should decide what to do according to your own conscience, gut feelings and wishes. Block? Don't block?
That's not the question. There's no right or wrong here, just what you feel is good for yourself.
The blocking thing concerns no-one but you. It's a tool put at your disposition and it is not a subject of discussion or debate for anyone else.
Be good to yourself Cynthia. The rest is loaded for one reason or another.
That's why people got so uptight about it. People have agendas. That's fine.
Decide your own agenda, based on what makes you happy and not what would please anyone else....
:)
-
@ ■ KJ Mullins
Cynthia you take care of you. That's the most important thing.
Thanks KJ and hugs to you.
@ ■ Michael Cosgrove
Cynthia, you should decide what to do according to your own conscience, gut feelings and wishes. Block? Don't block?
That's not the question. There's no right or wrong here, just what you feel is good for yourself.
The blocking thing concerns no-one but you. It's a tool put at your disposition and it is not a subject of discussion or debate for anyone else.
Be good to yourself Cynthia. The rest is loaded for one reason or another.
That's why people got so uptight about it. People have agendas. That's fine.
Decide your own agenda, based on what makes you happy and not what would please anyone else....
:)
Thanks to you too Michael and I just sent you an email.
-
KJ I just sent Michael an email explaining what is going on here at home if he doesn't understand.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
KJ I just sent Michael an email explaining what is going on here at home if he doesn't understand.
I saw that and that's why I deleted my comment. Sorry you tend to bring out the protective nature in a few of us Sweetie.
-
What's this BS about agendas?
The fact remains that the site functioned well for a long time without the blocking feature. And as far as being up for discussion, or not, there have already been over 100 posts contributing to that.
-
@ ■ skeptikool
What's this BS about agendas?
The fact remains that the site functioned well for a long time without the blocking feature. And as far as being up for discussion, or not, there have already been over 100 posts contributing to that.
I agree, but many other sites have including blocking functions of some type since a long time. Digital Journal has chosen a middle-of-the road approach by enabling the ostrich manoeuvre, while letting the commenting feature intact. I think it is a pragmatic approach to accommodate those who feel that they should be able to show the world what they think, but are unprepared to learn what the world thinks of it. It is a choice that does not fundamentally affect the primary goals of the site. Those who don't agree with it, are not forced to use it. It's like with gay marriage: it is allowed, not required.
-
@ ■ KJ Mullins
I saw that and that's why I deleted my comment. Sorry you tend to bring out the protective nature in a few of us Sweetie.
Thanks so much KJ as I do appreciate it more than I can say.
-
@ ■ skeptikool
What's this BS about agendas?
The fact remains that the site functioned well for a long time without the blocking feature. And as far as being up for discussion, or not, there have already been over 100 posts contributing to that.
The site may have functioned, but people have left this place en masse. This is not just a forum or message board, to some people this is their job and being powerless in the face of constant attacks is exhausting. The DJ staff is very busy and don't have time to "police" the website for trolls and nastiness at every turn, and the rules forbid people defending themselves by getting in someone elses face. Like I said before when you have no course of action it is very bad for your mental health. I have one person blocked on here and feel all the better for it.
This new feature is wonderful in my opinion because nobody should have to sit back and just take someone instigating them, attacking their character, or trying otherwise to start crap. Now Digital Journalists have a hand in moderating the website, of course now we can moderate AND write articles all for pennies an hour! Those guys in the main room know how to pinch pennies lemme tell you! lol
-
Cynthia hun, if you need to block someone do not feel guilty. You are goin through enough right now, you don't need someone instigating you. I hope things get better for you at home.
-
@ ■ Samantha A. Torrence
Cynthia hun, if you need to block someone do not feel guilty. You are goin through enough right now, you don't need someone instigating you. I hope things get better for you at home.
Thanks Sam. Right now though I just found out my friend Bert K. is out of his pain. I was able to see him yesterday, give him a kiss and tell him I love him.
-
I am so sorry Cynthia. Brings back memories for me about my step-dad so I feel for you. It is hard to see someone just slowly fade like that.
I said a prayer for Bert like I told you I would, the same I said for my step-dad. That If God must take him, let him feel no pain. I do hope he was not in pain when he passed. Before Larry died, his nerves were damaged or something, the nurse told us he was not feeling pain. It was as much of a blessing as I could have hoped for.
-
@ ■ Samantha A. Torrence
I am so sorry Cynthia. Brings back memories for me about my step-dad so I feel for you. It is hard to see someone just slowly fade like that.
I said a prayer for Bert like I told you I would, the same I said for my step-dad. That If God must take him, let him feel no pain. I do hope he was not in pain when he passed. Before Larry died, his nerves were damaged or something, the nurse told us he was not feeling pain. It was as much of a blessing as I could have hoped for.
Thanks Sam.
Bert was in terrible pain. The only relief was the morphine. He is better off now but he will be so missed. He always had everyone laughing.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
Thanks Sam.
Bert was in terrible pain. The only relief was the morphine. He is better off now but he will be so missed. He always had everyone laughing.
My condolences, Cynthia. [Hugs]
-
No collusion at all with Bart, but he has indeed voiced exactly how I feel. Attack the article ideas not the choice of subject nor the person writing it. I had someone ask why was I writing about Scientology at all and that the subject wasn't news. There are often sarcastic remarks not related to the article, and my friends and readers outside the Journal have noticed it, as has my intern this summer. Sarcasm is defined as a form of verbal abuse when done repeatedly and aimed at getting someone angry, again if it is done repeatedly.
Samantha is also right in that there have been "gangs" who have quite literally took the person rather than the subject on or the subject in an attack mode not name-calling the person but name-calling people described in the article itself, which is itself provocative. That went on a lot during the political season and still happens. For example, if someone writes about an Obama pick, one doesn't need to read that the person is a stuffy, pig-headed bastard from another journalist on this site. I think we can all describe features of people with less inflammatory language. Why take the tone of our angry readers?
I also notice that people have said they have certain emotional problems themselves (actually defined them as PTSD, etc), and in mental health circles it is known that certain issues will trigger one's own "material." So perhaps we might want to consider whether responses are coming from that at times and give pause a bit. Choice of subjects are the writer's choice, and sometimes people will personalize them, when that isn't the writer's intent.
We might also want to consider whether or not it is appropriate to relate one's own emotional material on a blog that is visible on a news site that anyone from the outside can access. Why? Because if you write something and are ever sued or asked to be a witness, that material will be used against you. I know that from being in depositions as an expert witness. Writers are public people, whether citizen journalists or not, and bloggers can be sued just like anyone else. So there are many reasons to be cautious. Physical illnesses are a different matter because they don't get to the thinking processes, which would be questioned in any court. I state this as a caution, and no one needs to believe me per se, but asking an attorney would get you this same advice.
My particular tone likely sounds what one person has called "high and mighty", which again is a personal diatribe, however that's likely true. My hope, however, is that people will apply certain moral standards in their interaction--which is supposed to be part of how people interact in the workplace. Otherwise it is toxic. I admire the staff for trying to come up with solutions that I believe might work. I have only had to block one user and that person is someone I have known ten years who follows me wherever I write and attacks anything political, often without even reading what I write. I have since had great relief in not having to read it.
-
@ ■ Carol Forsloff
No collusion at all with Bart, but he has indeed voiced exactly how I feel. Attack the article ideas not the choice of subject nor the person writing it.
Thank you for the clarification, Carol. I am glad to see that I am not entirely senile yet, and that I still understand English.
-
@ ■ Samantha A. Torrence
The site may have functioned, but people have left this place en masse. This is not just a forum or message board, to some people this is their job and being powerless in the face of constant attacks is exhausting. The DJ staff is very busy and don't have time to "police" the website for trolls and nastiness at every turn, and the rules forbid people defending themselves by getting in someone elses face. Like I said before when you have no course of action it is very bad for your mental health. I have one person blocked on here and feel all the better for it.
This new feature is wonderful in my opinion because nobody should have to sit back and just take someone instigating them, attacking their character, or trying otherwise to start crap. Now Digital Journalists have a hand in moderating the website, of course now we can moderate AND write articles all for pennies an hour! Those guys in the main room know how to pinch pennies lemme tell you! lol
I agree with this comment. (Except for the last part, which I don't know anything about. I haven't had pennies pinched yet! lol)
Add a Comment
|
 |
|
Email this blog