Re^5: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship.

P.S. Before anyone misunderstands this statement: Being a supporter of free speech does not mean that you support any of the truly idiotic and wrong opinions that it allows people to express. The point was more generally that whenever a government says "it is illegal to express opinion X", that's censorship (unfortunately no matter how upsetting you may find X).

On the internet, except in a few places, everyone is free to start their own website and post whatever opinion they want, so the "censorship" argument is almost always complete junk. It's the equivalent of someone whining they didn't get let into some club by the bouncer - they're free to make that decision not to let you in, and you're still free to go party somewhere else.

Comment on Re^5: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts. by aaron_baugher (Curate) on May 31, 2015 at 13:09 UTC
Besides, we already have censorship; we just call it consideration. So the question isn't whether we should have censorship, but whether this particular kind of posting should be added to the list of those that may be considered. The page on consideration says: You may consider nodes which are "highly offensive" (in terms of being not-safe-for-work). You should NOT consider nodes for having factual errors. In this case, neither of those really covers the problem. The posts aren't offensive in the sense that you wouldn't want your kids to see them, and they're often factually incorrect or misleading, so technically they might fit in the second category. But is it really a factual "error" when you're doing it intentionally even after being corrected multiple times? And isn't it offensive to intentionally waste people's time and try to reduce a site's usefulness? I'm sure that whoever wrote "factual errors" there meant mistakes made out of ignorance or sloppiness. A week or so ago, I made a mistake in a piece of untested code. Someone pointed it out and I updated my code, so the correction provided a bit more information for the learner. That's how it's supposed to work, and why "factual errors" should be replied to with corrections instead of reaped. But that doesn't work as intended in this case, because the "errors" are being made intentionally. At what point does that rise to the level of "offensive"? If posting 10 links to porn sites should be reaped because they harm the site's effectiveness, why not 10 nodes saying, "Here, use this bad idea which I'm presenting because I have a personal grudge against some members of this site"? Aaron B. Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.	[reply]
Re^7: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts. by Anonymous Monk on May 31, 2015 at 20:32 UTC
When a node is reaped, Anonymous Monks can't see its original contents. The way I understand Eily's suggestion is that posts labeled "this post has a low reputation" would be hidden by default, like `<spoiler>` tags, but still revealable to anyone (including Anonymous Monk visitors) who wants to read them anyway. If it were implemented like that, it wouldn't even be censorship at all!	[reply] [d/l]


Welcome to the Monastery
	PerlMonks