Lawrence Auster: "A reader says, not unreasonably, that he was treated somewhat unfairly in the "Gingrich vs. Romney" thread ..."
Dude, the concatenation of human nature, your own personal nature, and your "gatekeeper" approach to blogging makes it inevitable that you are going to treat unfairly at least some who send responses to you.
Even without bothering to looking at 'Reader's' statement and Auster's response, I can state with honest conviction that the only shocker here is that Auster openly says that the reader's claim is "not unreasonable".
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm with you. I can't stand the gatekeeper approach to blogging.
Even if one didn't have the particular character weaknesses Auster has, or even if one had none at all, the gatekeeper approach guarantees that one is going to treat someone "unfairly".
As someone who practices the Gatekeeper thing myself - not to the lengths Auster apparently goes through (he apparently only takes comments via email?) - I'll double down and defect on this one.
There's a few ways to take "fairness" when it comes to blogs. One is when a blog admin violates their own rules. Case in point: Jerry Coyne's halfway house for angry misfits. Superficially, he claims to welcome critics. In practice, it's well known that Coyne cracks the banhammer on anyone he finds threatening, annoying, and/or who isn't shouted down by his idiot brigade. It's a popular internet gimmick - bloggers welcome people to post freely, but it's a setup. I think that's condemnable, but extremely common - and it's tailor made to be eternally defensible on technicalities.
There's also unfairness borne of too lax a blog standard, where you get one or a few voices dominating each and every discussion precisely because you're dealing with people with tremendous time on their hands who never, ever shut up. They determine the course of every conversation, usually off-topic, and they can do so because even if a comment comes in at 4am on Christmas Eve, they're aware and writing a reply in 5 seconds.
Then there's Auster's apparent kind of unfairness. And what's unfair about it is it means Auster has the final word on all conversations. Bringing up something off-topic as far as Auster is concerned? Bringing up something Auster just doesn't wish to discuss or see on his blog? Then it will never see the light of day. And when Auster wants to move on to the next subject, that's what will happen. You won't see a thread from 2009 with recent comments.
There's more to be said for it, but obviously there are tradeoffs. If Auster is unprincipled, it means he can make someone look like a fool unjustly, then kill their ability to reply. He can give bad info, and squelch corrections. Character weakness plays a big role in that kind of crap. On the flipside, Auster makes his comment policy crystal clear. You know what you're getting into if you bother reading him, or writing to him.
Blogs on controversial topics are plagued by really horrible comments, rotten combox behavior, and handfuls of maniacs. (Here's a fun drinking game: Pick a random Christian blog, and see if there's a comment there from truthoverfaith, Stephen Carr or any of the Cult of Gnu regulars. It's not so much a game as a recipe for liver poisoning.)
"As someone who practices the Gatekeeper thing myself - not to the lengths Auster apparently goes through (he apparently only takes comments via email?) - I'll double down and defect on this one."
You, before the fact, approve/disapprove which posted comments you allow to appear on your blog. I, after the fact, delete the utterly vile (or simply obviously trollish) ones left by trolls.
Auster is blogging from another planet.
As just a minor example, if one wants one’s comment concerning some content on his blog to appear with that content, one must submit it to him … and then he chooses what of it, if any, to post. And, he may choose to make a snide or snarkish comment upon your comment (I mean, upon that part which he posted), and you will probably not get the opportunity to object to that.
The above seems to be inherent in the nature of the approach.
If he doesn’t follow your reasoning (despite that it may be laid out in linear, point-by-point manner), he won’t just post it for the benefit of those who may follow it. He’ll ask you write it up differently … which sounds reasonable, until he bitches back at you that he doesn’t accept such lengthy submissions.
If he constantly misrepresents someone, say Mark Steyn, and you write him to explain this fact – and show him that and how he is doing so – you become his mortal enemy. And, also, obsessive.
This last has sometimes amusing follow-up results. For example, here … he seemingly simply cannot comprehend that I am for truth and honest argument and against rank partisanship and/or personal politics.
"Case in point: Jerry Coyne's halfway house for angry misfits. Superficially, he claims to welcome critics. In practice, it's well known that Coyne cracks the banhammer on anyone he finds threatening, annoying, and/or who isn't shouted down by his idiot brigade."
Ah ... Feser on steroids?
"There's more to be said for it, but obviously there are tradeoffs. If Auster is unprincipled, it means he can make someone look like a fool unjustly, then kill their ability to reply. He can give bad info, and squelch corrections. Character weakness plays a big role in that kind of crap."
My point, almost exactly. My fuller point is his approach all-but-guarantees such a result, even if the blog owner has no character weaknesses whatsoever. And, of course, there is no mere human being without some character weaknesses.
Ah ... Feser on steroids?
C'mon, that's not a fair comparison at all. Even critics admit that Feser's regulars are pretty damn polite and thoughtful, with some exceptions. They don't compare to Coyne's legion. And what bans have come down on Feser's blog are both few and public. Coyne's are many and private.
As for Auster, I'll hold off deeper commentary since really, I only checked out his blog today. I just wanted to go on record as approving of tight blog control. It's not common enough, and the advantages are many.
Here's one thing I can tell right off the bat. If you go to Auster's blog, you will get Auster's thoughts. If you write a comment, 99% of the time you're directing it to Auster, engaging something he said. Now, go to Reppert's blog. Victor's great, he's a joy to read, he's polite and civil. But he's not the main draw for *his own blog*. Half the comboxes for his entries don't even have much to do with the OP - they're derailed rapidly. And this is the standard on most controversial blogs.
I think for anyone who intends to make serious blog should consider these standards: if you spend more time in your comments section than in making new posts, there may be a problem. If your comments sections are dominated by people talking about something other than you posted in the thread, there may be a problem.
And, of course, there is no mere human being without some character weaknesses.
I'm of the mind that if one has character weaknesses that will severely impact their blogging under Auster's rules, changing the rules doesn't impact things so much as reroute how they manifest. Go to Vox's blog, and anyone can walk in and comment. The ilk will swarm you, and Taylor will act like a goddamn orangutan for pages.
"… Superficially, [Coyne] claims to welcome critics. In practice, it's well known that Coyne cracks the banhammer on anyone he finds threatening, annoying, …"
Ah ... Feser on steroids?
"C'mon, that's not a fair comparison at all. Even critics admit that Feser's regulars are pretty damn polite and thoughtful, with some exceptions. They don't compare to Coyne's legion."
I'm not talking about Feser's regulars, I'm talking about Feser. That's why I said "Feser on steroids". – When my arguments against certain of Feser’s wrong-headed arguments got too close to the matter, we found out where he really stands with respect to criticism.
If the comment section is really getting far off-track, then I think that mainly just means that the blogger doesn't have anything very interesting to say.
Huh, I had a response written up but either it was trashed or (vastly more likely) something ate it in a fit of irony.
Oh well. ;)
Post a Comment