No More Censors

The folks at The New York Times couldn’t have been nicer while we had our blog there, but one thing that always bothered me was that there were way too many rules and restrictions regarding what we were allowed to post.

I’ve got a lot of pent-up rule-breaking to do, but I’m too lazy to do it myself, so this video (NSFW) will have to suffice for now.

TAGS:

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 11

View All Comments »
  1. madbassoonist says:

    Economists gone wild.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. madbassoonist says:

    I notice that comments are moderated, and won’t be posted if abusive. A double standard?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  3. Jeffrey says:

    Can’t watch the video yet (still at work), but so glad you left the NYTs.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Andrew says:

    Censorship had its advantages… at least the site would load everytime I opened it!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. AaronS says:

    Steven, it is little more that our adolescent behavior to say “naughty” words just because we can. How many movies have been ruined for me because someone just HAS to drop the F-bomb in a movie that would otherwise be a reasonable movie?

    There are times when our intellectual opinions are strong enough that we are rightfully glad the censors are gone. But, really, if Freakonomics is about (oh, my!) letting people say bad words, then Freakonomics is not living up to its potential.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. hippydippyweatherman says:

    This content may contain material flagged by YouTube’s user community that may be inappropriate for some users.

    still a few censors.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. 164 says:

    The comments section at Freakonomics always provided thoughtful discussion and mostly informed debate. If anyone has read unmoderated blogs recently, there is a big difference. Yes, the NYT moderators went a little to far, and didn’t have much of a sense of humor. However the language in the above comment #6 offends me and adds zero value to the discussion. If this is a work friendly blog, please moderate that comment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Brandon says:

    Someone commented about the irony of the post contrasted with the moderation of the comments. I found this a funny observation, yet I assumed that moderation was reserved for comments that are particularly inappropriate and also irrelevant. I proceeded to voice my opinion in a comment that I took a good amount of time to type out and it was one that I felt was relevant and appropriate. It contained one word that is considered foul, but given the context in which it was used it didn’t feel derogatory (I was demonstrating the arbitrary nature of a word’s “cleanliness”).

    Yet I find that my comment was not posted, and if it was, it was taken down by the request of another user. 164 says: “If this is a work friendly blog, please moderate that comment.” I don’t know if this was directed at my comment or not, but if it was, then I’d like to point out the hypocrisy. Given your current system of moderation I wouldn’t be surprised if these comment ever sees the light of day, but I would like to convey my disappointment to the moderators. I really enjoy this blog, but if my voice gets silenced simply at the request of another user, or at the use of a single world that you so hypocritically consider to be censor-worthy, then this community is not one I want to be a part of. I’ve never really thought of any of my opinions as radical, but clearly I am not mainstream enough for this blog.

    One would think that the author of this post would be open to a discussion on the nature of foul words, especially one that criticizes the arbitrary nature of “foul” words. Your moderation says otherwise. I guess you can take the bloggers out of the NYT censorship, but you can’t take the NYT censorship out of the blogger. And in response to 164′s comment. If the minor use of dirty word in the comments section of a blog makes it “Not Safe For Work”, then I think this entire post should be “moderated.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • 164 says:

      I think the censorship under discussion is concerning topics and views, and not so much individual words that are used for shock value. It is great that we may be able to discuss here topics that are critical of the New York Times and their sponsors for example.
      The comment in question was from “DaveyNC” that said “(bad word) There, I said it. I feel better now.”
      As was pointed out, there was zero value added to the discussion. The word offended me and was unnecessary.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0