View Full Version : Comments HERE When Comments Disabled at NewsOK.com



OKCTalker
11-01-2013, 07:54 AM
I'd like to hear your thoughts about creating a separate category at OKCTalk to discuss topics covered by NewsOK.com where comments are "disabled." I understand why comments are prohibited in certain stories - the murder of a child, for instance - yet the prohibition of others don't seem to follow any logic, and a little discourse/exchange might be healthy and insightful.

Would it be of value to have a single category at OKCTalk where these topics could be posted as separate threads, and then openly discussed?

Snowman
11-01-2013, 07:59 AM
I have seen a few times where the comments go to a dark place that would either not be expected (or sadly predictable though the story should not have been that controversial), then later be turned off.

If the setting is really inconsitent when originally published, I would guess it may be at the discretion of authors or low in the chain editors

Midtowner
11-01-2013, 11:38 AM
One reason the Oklahoman disables comments in those stories is that they could be held civilly liable for some things people might say. I don't think Pete would be interested in that sort of exposure either.

SoonerDave
11-01-2013, 11:44 AM
One reason the Oklahoman disables comments in those stories is that they could be held civilly liable for some things people might say. I don't think Pete would be interested in that sort of exposure either.

Seems to me that for stories of enough relevance a thread is almost certain to get started over here about anyway, so I'm not sure there's much marginal benefit in going to any special trouble for it.

Pete
11-01-2013, 01:00 PM
One reason the Oklahoman disables comments in those stories is that they could be held civilly liable for some things people might say. I don't think Pete would be interested in that sort of exposure either.


Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

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.

Pete
11-01-2013, 03:14 PM
^
Basically that act says that the Oklahoman, this site or anything similar cannot be held liable for opinions/information posted by others.


I get asked all the time to take down posts that others claim are erroneous, and I merely tell them to post a correction themselves. Of course, they almost never do.

bradh
11-01-2013, 03:18 PM
Comment sections of online articles are the doldrums of the internet, where the lowest of the low in society make a living.

No need for that here.

RadicalModerate
11-01-2013, 06:07 PM
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

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.

Dang. And yet another leaf of potential litigation yellows--or oranges or reds--and falls alongside the Internet Highway on the road to going nowhere fast in the name of . . . fun.
(bummer fer them lawyers 'n' such, but whut the heck . . .)

thanks, again, Pete.
(for properly perspectiVizing and eliminating a tiny bit of the Virtual fear =)

So . . . Is there, like, a "reason" that THEY didn't call it Title 5 instead of the more obscure Title V?
(just kidding)

Mel
11-01-2013, 06:15 PM
^
Basically that act says that the Oklahoman, this site or anything similar cannot be held liable for opinions/information posted by others.


I get asked all the time to take down posts that others claim are erroneous, and I merely tell them to post a correction themselves. Of course, they almost never do.

Thank you for putting that in English Pete.:wink:

RadicalModerate
11-01-2013, 06:19 PM
Comment sections of online articles are the doldrums of the internet, where the lowest of the low in society make a living.

No need for that here.

Are you sure about that?
Aren't they more like the Horse Latitudes?
(or, perhaps, closer to the Horse's Ass Latitudes?)
(sorry. i've always had a penchant for geography jokes)

kelroy55
11-02-2013, 08:30 AM
Comment sections of online articles are the doldrums of the internet, where the lowest of the low in society make a living.

No need for that here.

Are you saying people that make comments on news stories are the "lowest of the low in society"?

zookeeper
11-02-2013, 09:48 AM
Some newspapers have shutdown comments completely. It seems the total anonymity allows for the worst to come out. It's sad, but I don't bother even looking at comments on The Oklahoman.

bradh
11-02-2013, 01:08 PM
Are you saying people that make comments on news stories are the "lowest of the low in society"?

Not all, but the majority are. It's where unfiltered hate, racism, idiocy, etc live.

Midtowner
11-02-2013, 01:46 PM
The comments section is fairly well moderated by Facebook. You are required to use your real name and be a real person to use them. That keeps some of the crazies out. I've tested this policy before. Some kid was really getting personal and hiding behind a pseudonym. I reported him and he was deleted in minutes.

BBatesokc
11-03-2013, 04:42 AM
Several media outlets have implemented Facebook only login to post in their comments section - it helps to cut the comments down quite considerably, however, I predict as time goes by, more and more socially inept people will care less that their identity is known and the comment sewers will be back to their former glory.

Some states though have successfully prosecuted sites that tried to hide behind 'the Communications Decency Act' because it was determined they provided more than just a 'stage' for free speech and instead were an active participant in various ways that opened them up to other crimes and/or liability.

There was one in particular example (civil not criminal) I remember where a forum admin was found liable because, among other things, he had to approve each and every post and therefore had the ability to monitor and the jury felt his allowing the post was in effect an endorsement. Of course there were other elements I'm not clearly recalling. I think it was in some legal monthly publication I get from about 5-6 years ago. I'll look for it.

Somewhat related - but also completely different - is the current case against Mark Marek, the 38-year-old admin of a gore website that posts video content provided by others. Canadian authorities have charged Marek with 'corrupting morals.' Completely disgusting site, but I find the case fascinating and if prosecutors win, could set a dangerous precedent.

kelroy55
11-03-2013, 07:27 AM
Not all, but the majority are. It's where C, etc live.


I partially disagree with you, I've seen many good comments on an article and I've seen a lot of stupid ones. I think they balance each out out. I've seen unfiltered hate, racism, idiocy on here too.