Post by Layla Littlenymph on Apr 10, 2016 11:51:52 GMT -5
Free Speech and the Reviews Process
As a strong free speech advocate, my radar goes off with any hint of the dreaded "C" word, censorship.
I have been on many sites where the quickest way to get moderated is to simply make a negative statement, or argue against popular opinion. Needless to say, I do not survive long at such sites, but by the same token, sites like that do not tend to survive long as well. In the event they do, they will most often be populated by a select group of people that take turns agreeing with one another.
Perhaps this is the reason that the most successful radio talk shows will move dissenting callers to the top of the list. Let's face it. While it is comforting to be among a group of like minded people, it can eventually become a little stagnant, especially in terms of creative output. Contrary to what everyone would like to believe, most any honest person knows in their heart that no one group or faction has all the facts and answers; nor do they have a monopoly on the truth. In fact, having our opinions challenged is the best means for developing them further.
Sadly, my belief in free speech is often shaken by those that do not believe free speech needs be tempered with a degree of responsibility. My most recent disappointment came about on the Steam Network, an online gaming platform. As I was looking through a list of games I thought to be interesting, I decided to read some of the reviews from fellow players. In order to post a game on Steam, one must actually own the game in question. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only qualifying factor. A large number of the reviews I came across were from players with less than an hour of exposure to the product being reviewed. Many of them had a time in game of mere minutes, by which I mean ten or less. In addition to these rather uninformed reviews, there were many that were nothing more than hit pieces on the publisher or distributor. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but a simple "this game sucks" is not really giving me the input that I'm looking for.
I posted a thread on Steam suggesting that reviews should be subjected to certain standards before being approved for post, and was met with charges of censorship. Not exactly something I am used to getting. I was told that sometimes one only needs five minutes to know a game sucks. I was told that it only takes one line to express utter disgust with a product. I was further told that there is nothing wrong with insulting the producers and distributors of the game if it is the honest opinion of the reviewer. Silly me. I assumed that a review should be about the actual product in question as opposed to an opportunity to air old grievances.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that I am seeking that most elusive of all things. That which is so rare as to be made from pure unobtainium. Yes, I want that one thing we all know to be virtually impossible...
I Want It Both Ways!
I want to be able to express my opinion in a review, yet yearn for the ability to read meaningful reviews by others, without having to wade through pages of thinly disguised vitriol, produced by uninformed writers. Is that too much to ask? Well, in all honesty, it probably is... or is it? Free speech can be a touchy subject, and it would be less than honest for us to expect genuinely free speech to be absent of unpopular and inflammatory comments, but does not free speech itself come with certain limitations? We all know the old adage about yelling fire in a crowded theater. We know that perjury and false witness are punishable under law. We also know that despite the overwhelming amount of slander we are exposed to during every election cycle, one can indeed be held accountable for slander... provided it is untrue, of course.
While I support the right of a reviewer to give an honest opinion, I also have certain expectations of the sites and publications which host user reviews. The purpose of a review is to provide me, the user, with informed insight to aid in my decisions. I feel that there is also a certain obligation of the host to protect the interests of the author and owner of the work under review. That is not to say that they should remove negative comments, but neither does it say that owners should be subjected to any degree of slander a reviewer wishes to publish. I am on the site with the intent of possibly making a purchase, and deserve the ability to make an informed purchase. The owner is on the site to sell their product, and deserves the right to have that product represented fairly. It is this commercial interaction between the producer and purchaser that makes the sites existence possible in the first place.
Free speech aside, it comes down to this. Regardless of whether it is digital or physical, a publication is not a democracy. The owner of a publication has right of ownership in determining what limitations they wish to impose upon any speech published. If this is not the case, what purpose is there for moderators? Call it censorship if you wish, but it is high time certain publications started exercising that right. Worthless reviews are a disservice to users like myself and the product owner alike. A review can certainly be negative. That is the risk the product owner takes. Above all else though, it should be fair and informative. Anything other than that imparts no value to the review process. If publishers can not ensure a fair and informative reviewing process, perhaps they should simply not bother to offer reviews at all. Let's step up the game publishers, and give the Trolls the old heave-ho. It would benefit the user, producer, and publisher alike to do so.
~LL
In the course of writing this, I happened to run across an article on the same subject, specific to the publishing industry. I have gone back and made some adjustments to my text to make it less focused on the gaming industry so that it can act as a companion piece to this rather well written article from The Writers Circle.
The article itself came to my attention as a Facebook post. I will embed the Facebook post below, which contains a link to the original article at The Writers Circle, so that you can link to it if you wish to participate in the discussions there. Since I have had some difficulty with Facebook links becoming broken in the recent past, I will also post highlights from the original article at The Writers Circle for the benefit of those that do not wish to link off site.
Authors Call On Amazon to Review Reviews Process
A staff article via The Writer's Circle.
One adage of our times seems to be “if it’s on the internet, it’s there forever.” This holds true for photos, news articles, and yes, even online reviews. One group of more than 1,100 writers is hoping to change this to at least some degree.
The Horror Writers Association (HWA), a nonprofit organization for writers and publishing professionals promoting horror literature, has recently written an open letter to Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos asking for a review of the policies around Amazon’s review system. Namley, it seems the HWA is seeking a way to remove reviews they deem as inappropriate in how spiteful it can be. Specifically, they want to be able to remove any review that:†
* “indicates the customer has not read the book, but only a small portion of it, such as a free electronic sample;”
* “includes spoilers which, once revealed, could significantly reduce interest in the work;”
* “includes negative personal remarks about the author; and/or”
* “is focused on the work’s price rather than its content.”
The HWA tries to make the case that reviews that would fall uner the list of characteristics above not only seriously negatively impact the author, but also negatively impact the experiences of other possible readers.
This isn’t the first time online online reviews have come under fire. Last year Salon.com published a story about author bullying in the reviews system on Goodreads. It specifically mentions one author who was bullied away from ever publishing her book because she was already receiving 2-star and 1-star reviews before she had even released her novel. Further, she was added onto user created lists such as “author should be sodomized” and “should be raped in prison.” Since that time, those lists and earlier Goodreads comments have been deleted, however many authors are still calling for companies to either stand up and take better care of their authors, or to give authors more power to fights these blatantly offensive reviews.
Since the HWA wrote its open letter, author bullying has made its way into the news in other ways. Independent author Todd Barselow created a Change.org petition also calling for Amazon to change its system to further help authors and to fight against author bullying.
One interesting name has found its way onto the list of more than 8,000 supporters: Anne Rice. When asked about being a signatory by†The Guardian, Rice responded “They’ve worked their way into the Amazon system as parasites, posting largley under pseudonyms, lecturing, bullying, seeking to discipline authors whom they see as their special prey. They’re all about power. They clearly organize, use miltiple identities, and brak about their ability to down vote the author’s works if the author doesn’t ‘behave’ as they dictate.”
Rice is no stranger to such bullies. Earlier this year she was the subject of many particularly unflattering comments and reviews after she spoke up against the way authors are treated on Amazon. Needless to say, she did not back down.
In the end, it comes down to book publishing platforms and review sites trying to strike the delicate balance between protecting the author, and allowing reviewers to get their true voices and opinions out into the world. Author organizations like the HWA, and authors like Anne Rice and Toss Barselow are trying to change the system and hopefully the proper balance will be struck. This isn’t about thick skin, or authors being upset about bad reviews: it’s about dishonest people hurting an author’s reputation and livelihood through intimidation and bad tactics.
You can read the open letter from the HWA HERE
The Change.org petition is available HERE.
You can read more about author bullying at Stop the GR Bullies HERE.
As a strong free speech advocate, my radar goes off with any hint of the dreaded "C" word, censorship.
I have been on many sites where the quickest way to get moderated is to simply make a negative statement, or argue against popular opinion. Needless to say, I do not survive long at such sites, but by the same token, sites like that do not tend to survive long as well. In the event they do, they will most often be populated by a select group of people that take turns agreeing with one another.
Perhaps this is the reason that the most successful radio talk shows will move dissenting callers to the top of the list. Let's face it. While it is comforting to be among a group of like minded people, it can eventually become a little stagnant, especially in terms of creative output. Contrary to what everyone would like to believe, most any honest person knows in their heart that no one group or faction has all the facts and answers; nor do they have a monopoly on the truth. In fact, having our opinions challenged is the best means for developing them further.
Sadly, my belief in free speech is often shaken by those that do not believe free speech needs be tempered with a degree of responsibility. My most recent disappointment came about on the Steam Network, an online gaming platform. As I was looking through a list of games I thought to be interesting, I decided to read some of the reviews from fellow players. In order to post a game on Steam, one must actually own the game in question. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only qualifying factor. A large number of the reviews I came across were from players with less than an hour of exposure to the product being reviewed. Many of them had a time in game of mere minutes, by which I mean ten or less. In addition to these rather uninformed reviews, there were many that were nothing more than hit pieces on the publisher or distributor. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but a simple "this game sucks" is not really giving me the input that I'm looking for.
I posted a thread on Steam suggesting that reviews should be subjected to certain standards before being approved for post, and was met with charges of censorship. Not exactly something I am used to getting. I was told that sometimes one only needs five minutes to know a game sucks. I was told that it only takes one line to express utter disgust with a product. I was further told that there is nothing wrong with insulting the producers and distributors of the game if it is the honest opinion of the reviewer. Silly me. I assumed that a review should be about the actual product in question as opposed to an opportunity to air old grievances.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that I am seeking that most elusive of all things. That which is so rare as to be made from pure unobtainium. Yes, I want that one thing we all know to be virtually impossible...
I Want It Both Ways!
I want to be able to express my opinion in a review, yet yearn for the ability to read meaningful reviews by others, without having to wade through pages of thinly disguised vitriol, produced by uninformed writers. Is that too much to ask? Well, in all honesty, it probably is... or is it? Free speech can be a touchy subject, and it would be less than honest for us to expect genuinely free speech to be absent of unpopular and inflammatory comments, but does not free speech itself come with certain limitations? We all know the old adage about yelling fire in a crowded theater. We know that perjury and false witness are punishable under law. We also know that despite the overwhelming amount of slander we are exposed to during every election cycle, one can indeed be held accountable for slander... provided it is untrue, of course.
While I support the right of a reviewer to give an honest opinion, I also have certain expectations of the sites and publications which host user reviews. The purpose of a review is to provide me, the user, with informed insight to aid in my decisions. I feel that there is also a certain obligation of the host to protect the interests of the author and owner of the work under review. That is not to say that they should remove negative comments, but neither does it say that owners should be subjected to any degree of slander a reviewer wishes to publish. I am on the site with the intent of possibly making a purchase, and deserve the ability to make an informed purchase. The owner is on the site to sell their product, and deserves the right to have that product represented fairly. It is this commercial interaction between the producer and purchaser that makes the sites existence possible in the first place.
Free speech aside, it comes down to this. Regardless of whether it is digital or physical, a publication is not a democracy. The owner of a publication has right of ownership in determining what limitations they wish to impose upon any speech published. If this is not the case, what purpose is there for moderators? Call it censorship if you wish, but it is high time certain publications started exercising that right. Worthless reviews are a disservice to users like myself and the product owner alike. A review can certainly be negative. That is the risk the product owner takes. Above all else though, it should be fair and informative. Anything other than that imparts no value to the review process. If publishers can not ensure a fair and informative reviewing process, perhaps they should simply not bother to offer reviews at all. Let's step up the game publishers, and give the Trolls the old heave-ho. It would benefit the user, producer, and publisher alike to do so.
~LL
In the course of writing this, I happened to run across an article on the same subject, specific to the publishing industry. I have gone back and made some adjustments to my text to make it less focused on the gaming industry so that it can act as a companion piece to this rather well written article from The Writers Circle.
The article itself came to my attention as a Facebook post. I will embed the Facebook post below, which contains a link to the original article at The Writers Circle, so that you can link to it if you wish to participate in the discussions there. Since I have had some difficulty with Facebook links becoming broken in the recent past, I will also post highlights from the original article at The Writers Circle for the benefit of those that do not wish to link off site.
Authors Call On Amazon to Review Reviews Process
A staff article via The Writer's Circle.
One adage of our times seems to be “if it’s on the internet, it’s there forever.” This holds true for photos, news articles, and yes, even online reviews. One group of more than 1,100 writers is hoping to change this to at least some degree.
The Horror Writers Association (HWA), a nonprofit organization for writers and publishing professionals promoting horror literature, has recently written an open letter to Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos asking for a review of the policies around Amazon’s review system. Namley, it seems the HWA is seeking a way to remove reviews they deem as inappropriate in how spiteful it can be. Specifically, they want to be able to remove any review that:†
* “indicates the customer has not read the book, but only a small portion of it, such as a free electronic sample;”
* “includes spoilers which, once revealed, could significantly reduce interest in the work;”
* “includes negative personal remarks about the author; and/or”
* “is focused on the work’s price rather than its content.”
The HWA tries to make the case that reviews that would fall uner the list of characteristics above not only seriously negatively impact the author, but also negatively impact the experiences of other possible readers.
This isn’t the first time online online reviews have come under fire. Last year Salon.com published a story about author bullying in the reviews system on Goodreads. It specifically mentions one author who was bullied away from ever publishing her book because she was already receiving 2-star and 1-star reviews before she had even released her novel. Further, she was added onto user created lists such as “author should be sodomized” and “should be raped in prison.” Since that time, those lists and earlier Goodreads comments have been deleted, however many authors are still calling for companies to either stand up and take better care of their authors, or to give authors more power to fights these blatantly offensive reviews.
Since the HWA wrote its open letter, author bullying has made its way into the news in other ways. Independent author Todd Barselow created a Change.org petition also calling for Amazon to change its system to further help authors and to fight against author bullying.
One interesting name has found its way onto the list of more than 8,000 supporters: Anne Rice. When asked about being a signatory by†The Guardian, Rice responded “They’ve worked their way into the Amazon system as parasites, posting largley under pseudonyms, lecturing, bullying, seeking to discipline authors whom they see as their special prey. They’re all about power. They clearly organize, use miltiple identities, and brak about their ability to down vote the author’s works if the author doesn’t ‘behave’ as they dictate.”
Rice is no stranger to such bullies. Earlier this year she was the subject of many particularly unflattering comments and reviews after she spoke up against the way authors are treated on Amazon. Needless to say, she did not back down.
In the end, it comes down to book publishing platforms and review sites trying to strike the delicate balance between protecting the author, and allowing reviewers to get their true voices and opinions out into the world. Author organizations like the HWA, and authors like Anne Rice and Toss Barselow are trying to change the system and hopefully the proper balance will be struck. This isn’t about thick skin, or authors being upset about bad reviews: it’s about dishonest people hurting an author’s reputation and livelihood through intimidation and bad tactics.
You can read the open letter from the HWA HERE
The Change.org petition is available HERE.
You can read more about author bullying at Stop the GR Bullies HERE.