11 months without politics (1 Viewer)

[WDIK2]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. I had a discussion about politics and the media with my daughter a couple of weeks ago.

When are the "news" outlets and social media sites viewed/clicked on most often? When there is something controversial going on.
News outlets and social media sites sell their ad space and can charge more for that space based on the number of viewers/clicks.
Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

Wasn't a Limbaugh fan, but I always heard the anecdote that half the people listened because they loved him, the other half listened because they hated him.

 

[fatness]

Again, a massive failure to comprehend what I'm saying. You aren't hypersensitive to want "a place where we can engage in silly, yet meaningful discussions about all things non political."

You are hypersensitive because you got triggered by that place being referred to as a safe space. It's literally what it is. You are upset by that definition for some reason and lashing out/engaging in bully tactics. It's irony at its finest. The cherry on top is you can't even see it.

This could have been copied from any number of PSF topics. The persistent desire to fight (and its spillover to the rest of the site) is why that forum was closed. Thankfully.

 

[El Floppo]

Tough one as I do enjoy using this forum for most of topics out there - its sad that some of the biggest topics in the country today simply cant be discussed here. But as someone whose been a fan of this place from close to the start, I respect Joe and what hes built here. If it creates too much chaos then I get it - still love the place!

As an independent is there any place to read unbiased news and/or discuss without it being severely slanted from one side or the other?

I read BBC and Reuters feeds daily... I find those less US right/left biased

I tried both of them and overtime I placed them pretty far left, maybe half way to CNN. Upon reflection I was pretty disappointed.

That's surprising to me. I scan both Fox and CNN regularly as well and have found those two pretty regularly covering events and politics in a far less biased way than either of those US News reps. What's your usual source for news?

For instance, BBCs coverage of the US election is laying out both campaigns critically without seeming to support either. I see how they might lean left socially, but their election coverage has felt centrist and informational.

Have you tried AP? I've found it more fact driven than opinion.

AP has slowly been moving left, to me today it is solidly left. Its more news based than opinion based, so the bias is not as in your face but it shows up consistently in the reporting imo.

Interesting... I'll keep an eye out for that.

I still see them as strictly who/what/where/when type of reporting for news/events stories.

What kind of reporting are you seeing that shift left?

Completely evident in the tone of how the presidential race is being covered. Harris negatives are mitigated, Trump negatives are highlighted. The crafting of the headlines and the messaging is eye opening when you step back and look at them through the lense of how the "news" is being portrayed.

You also have to realize that to a hammer everything looks like a nail - people see what they want to see.

DJ and I are aware of that (speaking for him, but an easy guess).

That's why seeing specific instances would help explain it either way. Im not seeing what he's talking about, but Ill readily acknowledge I have my own floppo colored glasses on.

Ok... I checked the AP site again and it now has only Harris headlines- no Trump. They're not positive or negative to my eye, but maybe that's the kind of thing you're talking about? (although 30 mins ago there were Trump headlines).

Oh... Wait... Am I allowed to even say their names?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

I think in many ways, it is that simple.

Same with social media. They benefit from one thing - keeping you engaged and on the platform. They will use what they know about you (and they know a ton) to present to you things that will keep you engaged.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

 

[Psychopav]

I don’t understand the argument that people want the PSF back because you’re familiar with the people here. If you’re that familiar and seemingly like the people here to want to discuss politics with them, why on earth was everyone treating each other so badly when the forum was up?

Emotions got too high, and the current state of politics is ugly business.

Emotions get high when things get personal. Things get personal when people stop disagreeing about ideas and start pointing out insincere agendas or negative personality traits of the individuals they are talking to. That isn't limited to politics, but I suspect that because politics and religion tend to hit people closer to home than other topics, these are the areas that generate the most heated discussion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

 

[Psychopav]

Tough one as I do enjoy using this forum for most of topics out there - its sad that some of the biggest topics in the country today simply cant be discussed here. But as someone whose been a fan of this place from close to the start, I respect Joe and what hes built here. If it creates too much chaos then I get it - still love the place!

As an independent is there any place to read unbiased news and/or discuss without it being severely slanted from one side or the other?

I read BBC and Reuters feeds daily... I find those less US right/left biased

I tried both of them and overtime I placed them pretty far left, maybe half way to CNN. Upon reflection I was pretty disappointed.

That's surprising to me. I scan both Fox and CNN regularly as well and have found those two pretty regularly covering events and politics in a far less biased way than either of those US News reps. What's your usual source for news?

For instance, BBCs coverage of the US election is laying out both campaigns critically without seeming to support either. I see how they might lean left socially, but their election coverage has felt centrist and informational.

Have you tried AP? I've found it more fact driven than opinion.

As mentioned above im on abcnews now. My reuters and BBC was like 3ish years ago so maybe it have changed.

FWIW I tried Reuters daily aggregator for a while but came to the same conclusion. They claim to be unbiased but clearly are not, imo.

 

[Snotbubbles]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

I've found that most other political forums I've gone to were pretty similar to here. Mostly liberal posters, many of whom are simply looking for validation of their ideology and not really interested in honest debate.

 

[massraider]

Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

Yes.
This is sports, celebrity coverage, everything. News USED to be different, and now it's not. Rememebr that movie about the tobacco whistleblower, The Insider? That was the dramatic story about a news division being influenced by their corporate overlords. Today, that is the way news is handled. That movie wouldn't even get MADE today.


I am looking for Peter Gammons. I want Peter Gammons of everything. Gammons of basketball, Gammons, of economics, Gammons of world news, etc.

But what we have out there, mostly, is Stephen A Smith. Of everything.

 

[Harry Manback]

I've put more people on ignore the last three days than I did the first 25 years I was here

Oh no! What will I do!

Your hypersensitivity.

It's not hypersensitivity

You are hypersensitive

You are all worked up about this

I'm not worked up

Cliffnotes

Right? It's not a big deal to be hypersensitive, plenty of people are.

 

[Psychopav]

I've put more people on ignore the last three days than I did the first 25 years I was here

Oh no! What will I do!

Your hypersensitivity.

It's not hypersensitivity

You are hypersensitive

You are all worked up about this

I'm not worked up

Cliffnotes

Right? It's not a big deal to be hypersensitive, plenty of people are.

It may be a big deal to some people, which is why you should avoid posting about their (in your view) hypersensitivity. It's not arguing in good faith to attribute poor character traits to the person you are arguing with. It would be preferable to stick to the facts rather than devolving into an ad hominem.

 

[JAA]

Tough one as I do enjoy using this forum for most of topics out there - its sad that some of the biggest topics in the country today simply cant be discussed here. But as someone whose been a fan of this place from close to the start, I respect Joe and what hes built here. If it creates too much chaos then I get it - still love the place!

As an independent is there any place to read unbiased news and/or discuss without it being severely slanted from one side or the other?

I read BBC and Reuters feeds daily... I find those less US right/left biased

I tried both of them and overtime I placed them pretty far left, maybe half way to CNN. Upon reflection I was pretty disappointed.

That's surprising to me. I scan both Fox and CNN regularly as well and have found those two pretty regularly covering events and politics in a far less biased way than either of those US News reps. What's your usual source for news?

For instance, BBCs coverage of the US election is laying out both campaigns critically without seeming to support either. I see how they might lean left socially, but their election coverage has felt centrist and informational.

Have you tried AP? I've found it more fact driven than opinion.

AP has slowly been moving left, to me today it is solidly left. Its more news based than opinion based, so the bias is not as in your face but it shows up consistently in the reporting imo.

Interesting... I'll keep an eye out for that.

I still see them as strictly who/what/where/when type of reporting for news/events stories.

What kind of reporting are you seeing that shift left?

Completely evident in the tone of how the presidential race is being covered. Harris negatives are mitigated, Trump negatives are highlighted. The crafting of the headlines and the messaging is eye opening when you step back and look at them through the lense of how the "news" is being portrayed.

I wouldnt make those black and white statements. There are plenty of sites where that is not the case.

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

 

[JAA]

Your hypersensitivity seems problematic if you carry this into the real world. Best of luck.

It's not hypersensitivity to want a place where we can engage in silly, yet meaningful discussions about all things non political. As @Joe Bryant has repeatedly said, the PSF is not coming back, and there are plenty of other places in this world to discuss politics

Link for places to discuss politics?

yes please

Any other forum that allows politics? I don’t have an actual link cause well it is hard to go anywhere on the internet and not encounter political chatter.

Name one please.

I had one, but it was nasty and so leaning a single way it wasnt even enjoyable.

 

[Spartans Rule]

When are the "news" outlets and social media sites viewed/clicked on most often? When there is something controversial going on.
News outlets and social media sites sell their ad space and can charge more for that space based on the number of viewers/clicks.
Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

Yeah, it is that simple. News is a business, and controversy sells.

Fair, accurate journalism takes a lot of time and effort to produce, usually gets less clicks/views, and in our hyper-partisan society, probably gets labeled as biased by both sides. Media outlets trying to produce it either get corrupted by the need to make money, or they just go out of business.

 

[MTskibum]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ars is one of my favorite sites on the internet, however I avoid their political forum the same way i avoided the political forum here.

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ars is one of my favorite sites on the internet, however I avoid their political forum the same way i avoided the political forum here.

That's fair and understandable.

I typically don't post in the Soap Box, but I did find it much easier to read than the PSF was as there was way less trolling and trying to dunk on posters.

 

[Harry Manback]

I've put more people on ignore the last three days than I did the first 25 years I was here

Oh no! What will I do!

Your hypersensitivity.

It's not hypersensitivity

You are hypersensitive

You are all worked up about this

I'm not worked up

Cliffnotes

Right? It's not a big deal to be hypersensitive, plenty of people are.

It may be a big deal to some people, which is why you should avoid posting about their (in your view) hypersensitivity. It's not arguing in good faith to attribute poor character traits to the person you are arguing with. It would be preferable to stick to the facts rather than devolving into an ad hominem.

Being offended and lashing out because I accurately referred to FBGs as a safe space is objectively hypersensitive. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[Todem]

Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

I think in many ways, it is that simple.

Same with social media. They benefit from one thing - keeping you engaged and on the platform. They will use what they know about you (and they know a ton) to present to you things that will keep you engaged.

Correct and be fed ad’s from the people who pay them their revenue.

It’s pretty simple.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

 

[squistion]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

Agree 100%

 

[djmich]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

Agree 100%

oh god

 

[The Gator]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

Agree 100%

oh god

 

[JAA]

I realize it is not coming back, but maybe it could come back in a different form.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What type of form are you thinking of?

What if it was 'invite only' and/or if you break the rules just once, you are gone forever.

 

[dgreen]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

Yes, but Joe has been clear that the process to deal with these things is to use the Report feature. If nobody has Reported particular posts, they are unlikely to be dealt with.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Your hypersensitivity seems problematic if you carry this into the real world. Best of luck.

It's not hypersensitivity to want a place where we can engage in silly, yet meaningful discussions about all things non political. As @Joe Bryant has repeatedly said, the PSF is not coming back, and there are plenty of other places in this world to discuss politics

Link for places to discuss politics?

yes please

Any other forum that allows politics? I don’t have an actual link cause well it is hard to go anywhere on the internet and not encounter political chatter.

Name one please.

I had one, but it was nasty and so leaning a single way it wasnt even enjoyable.

The geek club?

 

[JAA]

Tough one as I do enjoy using this forum for most of topics out there - its sad that some of the biggest topics in the country today simply cant be discussed here. But as someone whose been a fan of this place from close to the start, I respect Joe and what hes built here. If it creates too much chaos then I get it - still love the place!

As an independent is there any place to read unbiased news and/or discuss without it being severely slanted from one side or the other?

I read BBC and Reuters feeds daily... I find those less US right/left biased

I tried both of them and overtime I placed them pretty far left, maybe half way to CNN. Upon reflection I was pretty disappointed.

That's surprising to me. I scan both Fox and CNN regularly as well and have found those two pretty regularly covering events and politics in a far less biased way than either of those US News reps. What's your usual source for news?

For instance, BBCs coverage of the US election is laying out both campaigns critically without seeming to support either. I see how they might lean left socially, but their election coverage has felt centrist and informational.

Have you tried AP? I've found it more fact driven than opinion.

AP has slowly been moving left, to me today it is solidly left. Its more news based than opinion based, so the bias is not as in your face but it shows up consistently in the reporting imo.

Interesting... I'll keep an eye out for that.

I still see them as strictly who/what/where/when type of reporting for news/events stories.

What kind of reporting are you seeing that shift left?

Completely evident in the tone of how the presidential race is being covered. Harris negatives are mitigated, Trump negatives are highlighted. The crafting of the headlines and the messaging is eye opening when you step back and look at them through the lense of how the "news" is being portrayed.

Yeah... I tend to be hyper aware of how headlines are crafted as click bait these days- and so often show clear bias either way. Even for non political news it's interesting to see.

I'm in the AP site now and not really seeing what you're talking about. Not disagreeing with you, but would like to see a specific example of what you're seeing so I can understand better.

Anytime I see an article with the word "slammed" in it I refuse to click in

 

[Harry Manback]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

"Social Pressure" means bullying right? You like to bully when you have a crowd, do you?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

Agree 100%

oh god

and here we go....

 

[the moops]

Mostly liberal posters, many of whom are simply looking for validation of their ideology and not really interested in honest debate.

Please stop. delete this post and I will also delete this reply.

 

[MTskibum]

Being offended and lashing out because I accurately referred to FBGs as a safe space is objectively hypersensitive. Sorry if that offends you.

What I have taken to do on some niche video game sub reddits is when a person asks a question I click on their recent content to get an idea of how well the idea of me providing help will be received.


When I click on the below page I see an entire page of posts of just trolling without any real discussion about topics.

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/harry-manback.666/#recent-content


Where as if you choose most peoples here:

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/mtskibum.29873/#recent-content


@Harry Manback
What is your goal with your style of posting, can you explain why you are posting in such a way to invite arguments back towards you?

I never posted in the political forum, does this name calling go back years and I just don't understand it?

 

[Harry Manback]

Being offended and lashing out because I accurately referred to FBGs as a safe space is objectively hypersensitive. Sorry if that offends you.

What I have taken to do on some niche video game sub reddits is when a person asks a question I click on their recent content to get an idea of how well the idea of me providing help will be received.


When I click on the below page I see an entire page of posts of just trolling without any real discussion about topics.

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/harry-manback.666/#recent-content


Where as if you choose most peoples here:

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/mtskibum.29873/#recent-content


@Harry Manback
What is your goal with your style of posting, can you explain why you are posting in such a way to invite arguments back towards you?

I never posted in the political forum, does this name calling go back years and I just don't understand it?

What name calling?

 

[JAA]

they can't help but believe there are people out there that want nothing to do with the one side verse the other side.

Where do all the people go that want nothing to do with either side? To me that is really where I get frustrated. If you talk with someone on either side and don't share their belief then you automatically are on the other side and are evil. What happened to being in the middle and liking aspects of both sides of center? Basically if you are in the middle you are evil to both sides. Crazy to me.

False dichotomy. I believe history will show how horrible these times have been with them.

 

[Schmeabs]

Mostly liberal posters, many of whom are simply looking for validation of their ideology and not really interested in honest debate.

Please stop. delete this post and I will also delete this reply.

geek club has a lot of political posts

 

[JAA]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. I had a discussion about politics and the media with my daughter a couple of weeks ago.

When are the "news" outlets and social media sites viewed/clicked on most often? When there is something controversial going on.
News outlets and social media sites sell their ad space and can charge more for that space based on the number of viewers/clicks.
Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

Wasn't a Limbaugh fan, but I always heard the anecdote that half the people listened because they loved him, the other half listened because they hated him.

Yup

Dallas Cowboys and Notre Dame. Everyone had an opinion and thus wanted to watch.

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

I've found that most other political forums I've gone to were pretty similar to here. Mostly liberal posters, many of whom are simply looking for validation of their ideology and not really interested in honest debate.

Thank you for sharing your experience

 

[MTskibum]

Being offended and lashing out because I accurately referred to FBGs as a safe space is objectively hypersensitive. Sorry if that offends you.

What I have taken to do on some niche video game sub reddits is when a person asks a question I click on their recent content to get an idea of how well the idea of me providing help will be received.


When I click on the below page I see an entire page of posts of just trolling without any real discussion about topics.

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/harry-manback.666/#recent-content


Where as if you choose most peoples here:

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/mtskibum.29873/#recent-content


@Harry Manback
What is your goal with your style of posting, can you explain why you are posting in such a way to invite arguments back towards you?

I never posted in the political forum, does this name calling go back years and I just don't understand it?

What name calling?

Name calling may have been bad, but every single one of your last 20 posts have been trying to get negative responses from the person you are directly responding to.


I am not trying to call you out on this in a negative sense, but I am curious, do you not think your last entire page of posts were 90% trolling posts?

Which is fine, I am not a mod and you don't bother me as a poster. I don't think I have read anything you have posted prior to this. I just am curious why.

Edit, ramble because i did not want to come off too negative. My accusations could be taken the wrong way, and I don't want them to.

 

[Chemical X]

this thread makes me sad.

 

[Gally]

they can't help but believe there are people out there that want nothing to do with the one side verse the other side.

Where do all the people go that want nothing to do with either side? To me that is really where I get frustrated. If you talk with someone on either side and don't share their belief then you automatically are on the other side and are evil. What happened to being in the middle and liking aspects of both sides of center? Basically if you are in the middle you are evil to both sides. Crazy to me.

False dichotomy. I believe history will show how horrible these times have been with them.

False how? This is exactly my experience. I talk to someone on one side and have an opposite opinion on one or two items and I am evil and on the other side. I have people on both sides of the aisle and I appear to be evil to both sides. I am just trying to be in the middle. I am not sure what's false about that.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you haven't read Tyler's article about "wetsuiting" in The Atlantic, I implore you to do so. Great article.

The ocean or the magazine?

I meant the magazine, but both I think. It was horrifying but it was also something that I related to in a very diagonal way.

This article?

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ha! I just checked this out. I have been at ars for 25+ years

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Do your own research,

I prefer the experts do the research and I read their findings

Which experts do you routinely rely upon?

Depends on the topic. Not going to go down this road though. I will leave it at my statement

Confirmation bias (amplified by search algorithms) and the Dunning-Kruger effect make it nearly impossible for many to identify suitable "experts". Meanwhile, just about every institution and academia itself have been summarily discredited by large swaths of the population.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ha! I just checked this out. I have been at ars for 25+ years

Do you mean you'd been on their other forums for 25 years but didn't know they had a political forum?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Voted today.

 

[Eephus]

Meanwhile, just about every institution and academia itself have been summarily discredited by large loud swaths of the population.

I think the large part of the population would prefer to sit in the theater and enjoy the show but there are always a handful of people who'd rather yell fire. Social media has amplified their voices.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I have no interest in seeing a resurrection of the PSF.

A new forum for Religion though, that would be very welcome if you could set that up. Unless of course the objective of religious threads is to proselytize, in which case, those posters would simply ignore it and keep posting in the FFA.

To be fair, I think it's a real point to ask if Christians (or people of other faiths) SHOULD do more evangelism and trying to get more people to follow Jesus. That's a pretty clear instruction in our Bible. That could be an interesting thread maybe at some point.

I've said it before, but if I believed what the Bible offers, I'd feel compelled to spread the word out of compassion for humanity. The fact it doesn't happen more often undermines the message imo.

 

[MTskibum]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Member's don't have advertisements. They were independently owned until recently, but were bought out by conde nast: wired, vogue, etc. I expect them to eventually go downhill, but i hope that decline does not happen for next 5-20 years. They sometimes have articles from an affiliate website/magazine that is not as well researched.

The site is big into cybersecurity while also having occasional articles about video games, cars, or other tech related stuff.

https://www.condenast.com/brands