Promoting banned users at DKos

WB Reeves's Avatar

WB Reeves

26 Aug, 2018 09:49 PM

Is it now acceptable to promote individuals who have been banned from the site on the site?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/26/1789029/-Hey-progressive-white-people-it-is-time-to-talk-about-our-own-racism

If so, I think there are a lot of folks who'll want to take advantage of such a policy.

  1. 1 Posted by Otteray Scribe on 27 Aug, 2018 04:31 AM

    Otteray Scribe's Avatar

    I must be missing something. The story is about Robin DiAngelo's work. She is not listed as a user, and thus not banned. Who are you referring to?

  2. 2 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 04:36 AM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    The repeated reposting of tweets from banned user Bravenak along with an endorsement by the Diarist.

  3. 3 Posted by Otteray Scribe on 27 Aug, 2018 04:44 AM

    Otteray Scribe's Avatar

    OK. I see a problem. It will be impossible to monitor every retweet that comes along. Also, some retweets have value and add to the conversation, even if the person was banned for some past transgression.

    How would you propose to monitor (and sanction) every post and comment that cites tweets or quotes by banned users?

  4. 4 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 05:01 AM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    Um, I was asking a question about policy, not advocating for a policy.

    Let me be more specific.

    Are Kossacks allowed to repost and promote the product of people who have been banned from the site?

  5. 5 Posted by Otteray Scribe on 27 Aug, 2018 05:16 AM

    Otteray Scribe's Avatar

    Understood. I occasionally post tweets. Some from people who I know are not users, and others who may or may not be users. I have no way of knowing, and little interest in doing a name search. The latter may do no good anyway, since the tweet handle may not be the username.

    How is one to know whether such a user is banned or not? And...if the comment (tweet) is relevant, what is wrong with it if it is relevant and civil--status not withstanding?

    Seems to me, the suggestion/question is a solution in search of a problem.

  6. 6 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 05:54 AM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    I think not.

    More like the camel's nose in the tent.

    Unless, of course, banning isn't really banning.

    If banning is intended to deny bad actors the use of the site as a platform, then allowing 3rd parties to repost their stuff renders it toothless.

    Absent some clear.statement of policy, there's nothing to stop the wholesale reposting of their product on the site. That would be an awkward circumstance to say the least.

    Again, I'm not advocating for a policy.. I'm asking if one exists and if one does, what it is.

  7. 7 Posted by siab on 27 Aug, 2018 07:38 AM

    siab's Avatar

    Until you get an answer from Staff, I can say that in the ten years I have been here, I have not heard of a policy such as you have mentioned.

    One of the things it would do, first thing, is censure any user who put up a link to, say, "Delete my fucking account, kos" or any other classic diary by a currently banned member, so I don't see how any such policy would be likely to happen any time soon.

  8. 8 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 08:12 AM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    Am I not being clear?
    I'm not advocating for anything.
    I just want to know if it is policy that people can repost and promote banned users product, written subsequent to their banning, on Dkos.
    Any answer will have consequences but that's not at issue.

  9. 9 Posted by Otteray Scribe on 27 Aug, 2018 10:28 AM

    Otteray Scribe's Avatar

    I looked at the Rules of the Road, and then went back and looked at the history of rules. I cannot find any such policy, pro or con.

    Additionally, I cannot see any way to make such a policy work.

    Around Labor Day, when there is heavy road traffic, I planned to repost The Baculum King's iconic diary about highway safety. If there were such a policy, I would not be able to do that. Just one example.

  10. 10 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 05:51 PM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    Why are you ignoring what I said?
    What's archived on the site isn't at issue.
    My query is solely concerned with product written subsequent to banning.
    The admins already have the option to delete any archived material if they think it appropriate and necessary to do so.

  11. 11 Posted by Otteray Scribe on 27 Aug, 2018 06:06 PM

    Otteray Scribe's Avatar

    What is so hard to understand? I am a scientist. Research is part of what I do, and I researched the rules of the site. If there is such a rule, it is well hidden.

    There. Is. No. Rule.

  12. 12 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 07:25 PM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    Since when does being a scientist mean ignoring the actual point being raised?

    My question was about policy.
    I never said there was a rule.
    If there were such a rule, I wouldn't have needed to ask what the policy is.

    If you don't see any logical contradiction between banning a poster and then allowing 3rd parties to skirt the ban by posting the banned user's stuff to the site, then you don't see it. I disagree.

    That disagreement isn't really pertinent to my question though. I want to know what the site's policy, if any, is.

    In any case, it has nothing to do with science, scientific method or anyone's bona fides as a scientist.

  13. 13 Posted by sockpuppet on 27 Aug, 2018 08:09 PM

    sockpuppet's Avatar

    You seem to be nit-picking. Do you care if someone quotes or reposts anyone's tweets, banned or not? Really?

    I hope Admin ignores your concern-trolling. Policy is sometimes too restrictive around here already. (I was here when we were a loose band of progressive renegades. Only rule was, DBAD. So I've seen a lot of "rules" implemented since.)

    When Otteray Scribe, with his impressive credentials, says he's researched the issue, and there is no rule, that is good enough for me. Oh, you said, "not a rule, a 'policy".

    Well, why look for a controversy when one does not currently exist? Lord knows, we have enough on our DKos activist plates to deal,with right now with the mid-terms looming, who needs to be taking time or energy to deal with such a nitpicky issue as you're trying to raise here? Just sayin'...

  14. 14 Posted by WB Reeves on 27 Aug, 2018 09:40 PM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    Look I get it. You and others here would prefer that I hadn't brought it up. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
    None of which is germane to my question.

    I've really no interest in arguing about your notion of "concern trolling", what constitutes "nit picking", people's professional credentials, the use of material archived on site or any other topic that is irrelevant to my question.

    I just want to know what limits, if any, there are to reposting banned users on site. That's why I brought it to help desk rather than pursuing it in the diary.

    Why you or anyone would find the query so out of order is a puzzle but likewise irrelevant to the point raised.

  15. 15 Posted by Nova Land on 27 Aug, 2018 09:44 PM

    Nova Land's Avatar

    Do you care if someone quotes or reposts anyone's tweets, banned or not?

    Yes, I do. We had a serious problem last year and early this year of people breathlessly posting diaries based on the tweets of unreliable sources such as Louise Mensch, Claude Taylor, The Palmer Report, and others whose names escape me. Several people had to be warned / TOed before they finally got the message that such diaries were not welcome here. I don't think it's in the Rules of the Road but I'm pretty sure it is a DK policy that posting diaries based on tweets from unreliable sources such as Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor is generally not acceptable. And that makes good sense, since diaries like that harm the site's reputation.

    I think it would make good sense to have a policy regarding linking to / quoting from banned users similar to the policy regarding linking to / quoting from right-wing sources. It's not strictly against the rules to do so, and it's acceptable to quote from right-wing sources such as Red State to inform others here of what's being said over there. But it's not acceptable to quote from right-wing sources in order to push the right-wing talking points being spouted there. And in general it's not good to cite right-wing sources to support factual claims if there are non-right-wing sources which can be used instead.

    Many banned users were banned for posting divisive content. Quoting from them or linking to them is therefore potentially divisive. Therefore I think it makes sense for people to avoid quoting from banned users if there is an alternative non-banned-user source available, just as it makes sense to avoid quoting from right-wing sources if there is an alternative non-right-wing source available.

    Otherwise we risk a new kind of pie-fight, where people in one faction quote from and elevate the words and thoughts of a divisive banned user whom they liked and people from other factions retaliate by quoting from and elevating the words and thoughts of a divisive banned user whom they liked. Instead of looking at the ideas being presented, people will be pie-fighting because of the source of the ideas being presented. We really don't need more pie-fights as we try to focus on the upcoming elections, and we really don't need people trying to provoke pie-fights by bringing in quotes from divisive banned posters.

    If there's an idea one wants to present, there should be a non-banned user source available which expresses it. A policy encouraging people to avoid using banned users as a source of their quotes makes the same kind of good sense as the policy against using right-wing sources. There are times when it's okay, but in general people should avoid doing it.

  16. 16 Posted by democracy4u on 28 Aug, 2018 06:38 AM

    democracy4u's Avatar

    If you don't like the article just ignore it. Why are lukewarm people like yourself trying to quiet those you disagree with? If DailyKos blocks people because others disagree with what they share, then DailyKos will become the next Fox News, losing all credibility. No one should be blocked on here unless they threaten someone. Democray is built on dissent.

  17. 17 Posted by WB Reeves on 28 Aug, 2018 07:20 AM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    If you have objections to the policy,of banning, you really should be taking it up with the management.

    My question is about existing policy, so your complaint is misplaced.

  18. 18 Posted by Nova Land on 28 Aug, 2018 12:57 PM

    Nova Land's Avatar

    "No one should be blocked on here unless they threaten someone."

    You are mistaken. There are a number of things besides making threats which are cause for a poster being suspended or banned. Among these are using racist language or expressing racist sentiments; using sexist language or expressing sexist sentiments; using ageist or ableist language or expressing ageist or ableist sentiments; promoting conspiracy theories; insulting other posters; telling another poster to get fucked; expressing joy at the thought someone might be injured, killed, or raped; linking to right-wing sources in order to promote those sites; spouting right-wing talking points; and posting in a divisive manner in order to stir up pie fights.

    Those are some, but by no means all, of the things which people who post on Daily Kos are not supposed to do. Comments or diaries in which those things are done should be flagged by responsible members of the community.

    The question WB raised, and it's a good one, is whether prominently quoting and promoting banned users is something which is considered harmful to the community or not. It's not clear whether there is or is not a policy against quoting and promoting banned users, and it would be useful to know going forward if there is a policy in place yet regarding that and if so to get an idea of what the policy is. When is it and when isn't it okay to quote from and promote the work of people who have been banned from this site?

    There are times when quoting right-wing sources such as Red State or Breitbart is acceptable, but in general it's not a good thing to do here on Daily Kos. Most of us have a pretty good idea of when it is and when it isn't okay. Similarly, I think there are times when quoting a banned user -- even a highly divisive one -- may be okay. But most of us do not have a good idea of when it is okay and when it isn't.

    Two recent diaries have quoted from and praised the work of divisive banned users, and it's likely that more people will follow that example and do that as well if it is seen as being within the rules. It would therefore be good to get some guidance from the help desk on general principles regarding the quoting of divisive banned users before it becomes a problem and a source of controversy.

  19. 19 Posted by Benny05 (unveri... on 03 Sep, 2018 01:24 PM

    Benny05's Avatar

    I wish the staff would answer the question.

  20. 20 Posted by WB Reeves on 04 Sep, 2018 04:10 PM

    WB Reeves's Avatar

    So do I but it doesn't appear that they will.

  21. Moderator1 closed this discussion on 16 Oct, 2018 08:34 PM.

Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.

Keyboard shortcuts

Generic

? Show this help
ESC Blurs the current field

Comment Form

r Focus the comment reply box
^ + ↩ Submit the comment

You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac