Northwest Indiana Discussion

So act properly, and not like the TROLL you are used to.

Written to overturn an earlier ruling regarding moderation of posts, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says:


"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as
the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).


According to Jonathan D. Hart of Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, in Washington D.C., "... the dominant view is that a web publisher does not take on responsibility for message board postings merely because it edits those postings. Instead, a publisher would be libel for the content of message board postings only if its edits gave rise to or aggravated the libel."

Another area to be concerned with is your privacy policy. While some users think anonymity is a right they have in your virtual community, it might be a good idea to remind them that in some extreme cases, records may be handed over to authorities.

As with most things on the Internet, the legal aspects of publishing user content on your site change frequently. It's important to stay up to date with legal rulings about publishing online.

For example, Hart noted, "The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing a decision of an intermediate appellate court that concluded that a Web publisher can be held liable for third-party content once the publisher has been put on notice of the libelous nature of the speech. In the view of the appellate court, once a Web publisher is informed that a message board posting is libelous, it would become responsible as the publisher of that posting if it failed to take it down."



Jennifer Scott, Online Editor at nwitimes.com, wrote in an email, "The Times does not encourage staff members to participate in discussion nor is it banned. I think the reporters and editors would have to be very careful in what discussions they participate and it would be wise for them to avoid topics in which they report."

On June 8 of this year, The Times posted a message saying that all nwitimes.com employees would be identified as such on the forums and that no reporters or editors would be participating in the discussion.

Even if they don't interact with the community officially, though, they can still be an extra set of eyes to catch small problems on the forums before they become big problems. Get to the weeds before they grow out of control. As Chris Willis put it, "Know who should not be in your community."

Speaking of anonymity, there's something to be said for making forum users use their real names. It's a tough question. If you force people to use their real names, you might get higher quality posts (or, at least posts not as offensive), but less people might sign-up and participate. If you're moderating, though, giving people a little anonymity and watching their interaction with the community, you might end up with more signal overall.


Chris Willis on anonymity:


"... there is a natural reward for participants to be more forthcoming if security issues can be addressed properly. Greater disclosure can result in greater trust, reputation and more meaningful collaboration.
"From my observations, anonymity is more than a name. People seem helpless to not share intimate or personal details in their conversation/interactions that they would rarely share with coworkers or neighbors."

I think at this point it's best to let the members of your community decide if they want to use their real names or not. Some publishers might try to force people to use their real names to participate as a quick fix for Internet trolls, but if you look at sites like Slashdot and K5, you can see that with the right moderation you can maintain a pleasant plant/weed ratio while allowing anonymity.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050623mallasch/

Nice guy I am, I will not divulge his "secret", but suffice to say Mark Kiesling has not followed the above rules for reporters/editors.

On June 8 of this year, The Times posted a message saying that all nwitimes.com employees would be identified as such on the forums and that no reporters or editors would be participating in the discussion.

Just as a point of order, that does not rule out their correspondents since they are freelance. So there's a fine line there. Just for a for instance.

edited

I'm glad i never got BANNED!~~~

I can attest to that.....

edited

I'm not so bothered by the non-citations.

The way I see it anymore it's about the only way any REAL news ever gets disseminated to the public.

you mean it wasnt just a coincidence that he stopped posting when i outed him?

Actually, a "lively" debate was going back and forth in the ILLINOIS topic, when someone mentioned that Kiesling was friends with the Calumet City F.O.P., and the day after, the whole topic was gone. I have a good idea he was responsible.

He is still posting on the Times board.

You noticed that's what they were doing also .

I would tell my wife when I would post certain subjects that the Times and NBC would be carrying the stories in a few days.

I appreciate that they did because they would go in depth were I was only scratching at the tip of the iceberg.

They need the forum members and you all are invaluable and a threat because more people are seeing thru their game.

As a matter of fact almost every one of you have broke stories before the print news has picked up on it.

The toes that have been stepped on and the leaks in government offices are hilarious.

I over heard about indictments while using the bathroom at the movies in Hobart and posted it 3 days before it happened.

Ask yourself why they have erased every word of some peoples post

But some people only have a topic pulled and then banned

Oh I'm sure old George VanTil would like to see some of my choice comments about his pilfering get erased.

I hear he's asking the voters for 4 more years. Personally I'd like to see him get some time, but not in office.

YEA OKIE DOKIES!