I'd have no problem if these boards were better managed. Is avoiding slanderous, bigoted cyber vandals really my job. Can't some usage rules signal the need to review posters and their many screen names for malicious content? I remember when Steve was fighting for his life, these people were exploring the depths of depravity. I know these cowards are not really rooting for someone's death; they're just disenfranchised archetypes who've found mechanism for the attention they can not attract in their respective lives. Sad. But having to crawl through this kind of pathos to find reasoned opinions is getting much harder these days.
Many a time I nearly left, but then I'd find a gem that convinces me to stay. Your post is one of the intelligent ones that shows that there is intelligent life out there. Thanks.
I couldn't agree with you more wholeheartedly. I cannot believe the sort of lunacy, idiocy and puerility that abounds on boards where one would expect to have more intelligent people.
With regards to moderation, it may indeed be difficult to draw a clear line at times, but I think posts that can outrightly deleted are those that
- have just a wild claim in the subject line and nothing else
- people who post useless posts like "you're an idiot", "gggggggg" and other meaningless drivel
- obvious spammers asking you to go check out such and such a report, website, blog with fake supporters replying "I just subscribed" etc
- those who are attacking a person, not challenging an idea, assumption or view point. Just the other day I was on the ARNA board, and someone wrote a well reasoned post describing facts that would lead to a higher turnaround time than most people would like, and got bashed for it. That was just the latest example of idiocy and juvenile behaviour that shouldn't belong here.
- malicious posts whose only purpose is to gloat about how smart the writer is, how dumb the rest of the 'idiots' are for holding, use of racially insulting language or of the sort you describe during Jobs' struggle
I think that alone would cut out about 40% of the crap here. Yes, we can always use the ignore button. But I shouldn't have to scroll through posts just to find a post that says something. I am sure most of us would like to go the the board for a stock we're following, know that anything we click on there is worth reading and not a waste of time, and not have to trawl through so many posts to boot.
hmmmm.... the anonymity gives many the license to say whatever they want. Not sure how that can be regulated if it can be at all. And, if it can be regulated, would we want to? Who's to say or decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Really a slippery slope.
Yahoo! needs to exercise a modicum of moderation to remove the blatantly bigoted content that passes dor commentary on these message boards. Yahoo! is perfectly entitled to enforce community standards of decency, and it should do so. I don't fear the slippery slope. What I do fear is the drowning out of inteeligent debate by individuals who use these message boards simply as a vehicle to spew hate speech.