I love blogging... evidently.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment