Deactivated Links

[Exgrad]

Last edited by tetsujin1979 (https://foot.ie/posthistory.php?p=2069113); 18/03/2021 at 5:55 PM. Reason: deactivated link to that newspaper

If we're getting sniffy about links to certain papers you might want to go back and deactivate the link to the Sun that you posted yourself

https://foot.ie/threads/119079-Potentially-eligible-players-thread?p=1919847&styleid=6


Strange article from Neil O'Riordan in today's Sun: https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football...t-from-abroad/ (https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football/992614/we-should-focus-on-developing-homegrown-talent-and-not-on-recruitment-from-abroad/)
I think he has a point, just doesn't know how to make it.

[pineapple stu]

Last edited by tetsujin1979; 18/03/2021 at 5:55 PM. Reason: deactivated link to that newspaper
Seriously? That's ridiculous tets. We're adults here and don't need this sort of censorship.

[tetsujin1979]

Last edited by tetsujin1979 (https://foot.ie/posthistory.php?p=2069113); 18/03/2021 at 5:55 PM. Reason: deactivated link to that newspaper

If we're getting sniffy about links to certain papers you might want to go back and deactivate the link to the Sun that you posted yourself

https://foot.ie/threads/119079-Potentially-eligible-players-thread?p=1919847&styleid=6
thanks, I've deleted that


Seriously? That's ridiculous tets. We're adults here and don't need this sort of censorship.
nothing's been censored, if you want to read the link, copy and paste it into the browser.
All links to that paper have been deactivated for some time now.

[pineapple stu]

Not the point tets. It's not for you to be inconveniencing the rest of us by deactivating links to places that you don't like. It's remarkably petty and not appropriate for a mod.

[CraftyToePoke]

All links to that paper have been deactivated for some time now.

Is this a site wide decision or policy or your mod section only ?

[John83]

It's being discussed on the mod forum. Please return to topic.

[elatedscum]

I’d personally like to know that I’m clicking on the sun before I am, so I can make an informed decision. I’ve had situations ages ago where a) a link began with google and was a redirect to the sun, so there was no way of knowing until you clicked and b) where it was hyperlinked text with the same result.

Personally I avoid it at all costs. I’d never buy the sun and I don’t want my actions through clicks and ad revenue funding a machine with so much blood on its hands.

[Trequartista20]

Standards ~ Its nice to have Standards even if they can be a bit tricky, to get correct all of the time ! !

Do those Stadards only apply in the evening, though?

[Trequartista20]

I've never removed a link, and I wouldn't stop anyone from posting a link, I just deactivated it. If you want to read the story, select the text, right click and open.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

[seanfhear]

Do those Stadards only apply in the evening, though?
That would be letting Standards Slip.

[elatedscum]

If a talented Irish journalist who happened to work for the Irish Sun posted a particularly relevant and interesting article, why shouldn't the link be posted?

I think you’re assuming the workers are more divorced from the institution than they are. I know journalists, both of the footballing variety and the non that have turned down better paying offers to work at the sun on the basis of morals... People don’t happen to work somewhere, it involves a large degree of choice...

[Diggs246]

Which is a bigger rag the sun ie the daily mail

[pineapple stu]

What about the Irish Times' role pimping up the property bubble, to the extent of giving up editorial independence when buying myhome? The bubble and the creak wrecked a lot of lives here

[DeLorean]

Yes, I've no major issue with the fairly pointless activity of deactivating links for the gutter press, which can be as easily reactivated as the deactivator suggests, but it all seems a bit subjective and personal in nature for my liking. But I guess the jury have reached a decision. :D

[pineapple stu]

(Also, this is probably better moved to Off Topic rather than clutter this thread)

[backstothewall]

this was what was discussed in the mods forum:

Full disclosure - I have a close friend from Liverpool, and there's at least two other members of the forum who know him.
He was at Hillsbrough, not in the Leppings Lane end, and obviously never buys that paper. I've donated to the Justice for the 96 campaign, and a few years ago took part in the memorial walk in the Phoenix Park - https://twitter.com/tetsujin1979/status/455009219700613120
I don't buy the paper, and don't read articles on their site. I've told people who send me links via text/email/whatsapp/etc to their site that I'm not going to open it and not to send me links to the site.
Disabling the links is my way of supporting the movement - I'm not stopping anyone from reading the article, the link itself is still there as text. Most browsers will still allow you to select the text and open it as a link.

The other mods have supported disabling the links, as long as each change is clarified with the following "Links to that site disabled on the Ireland subforum in support of the Justice for the 96 campaign"

I should have been clearer about the reasons behind the change, my apologies

I'll add all this to the stickied post later

Continuing the off-topic theme, but I think the mods will like this post.

I support the decision 100%. Their lies about Hillsborough were obscene, but at least a long time ago in another country.

But their campaign of support for Soldier F, and their contribution towards whipping up the abuse of James McClean, one of the players we all come on here claiming to support, has all happened in recent years. It's a disgusting rag and I feel happier knowing it won't be tolerated on this forum.

I've used this forum for at least a decade. In that time I've disagreed with the mods, and have said so. At some point in the future I will disagree with them again, and will probably say so, because i have a pretty big mouth. I hope to get a bit wiggle room when that time comes. But their decision is correct.

Don't Buy The Sun

**** The Sun.

[tetsujin1979]

Discussion moved to Off Topic.

Summary for anyone who doesn't frequent the Ireland forum, I've been disabling links to a newspaper's site for some time without complaint, until today. It was discussed among the mods, and the policy will continue in the forum, with the clarification "Links to that site disabled on the Ireland subforum in support of the Justice for the 96 campaign" included as the reason

[pineapple stu]

I support the decision 100%. Their lies about Hillsborough were obscene, but at least a long time ago in another country.

But their campaign of support for Soldier F, and their contribution towards whipping up the abuse of James McClean, one of the players we all come on here claiming to support, has all happened in recent years. It's a disgusting rag and I feel happier knowing it won't be tolerated on this forum.
The problem with that is are you going to be consistent in that approach? I've mentioned the Irish Times' role in the financial downfall of the country in the 2000s; why not boycott the Times over that? It's a fairly major issue that has affected all of us in one way or another. Or Trequartista's point (still on the other thread I think) about the ultimate ownership of all the papers anyway is also quite valid.

I agree with DeLorean; it seems silly to delete links because of a football match 30 years ago in another country.

[sadloserkid]

The Mail has been rabidly anti-Irish at times too. I despise The Sun and would never open a link to it either but I'd wonder why The Sun alone is deemed worthy of being chopped too. It's a pretty crowded marketplace is the gutterpress.

[John83]

The problem with that is are you going to be consistent in that approach?
He feels strongly about this one issue. It creates a very minor inconvenience and highlights bad behaviour relevant to the football community. He is not obliged to wage every moral crusade going.

[pineapple stu]

No, I acknowledge that, but the point of moving the thread to Off Topic is to create a more general discussion of the topic.

[SkStu]

No pun, no sun, no fun mf’ers!!

[CraftyToePoke]

He feels strongly about this one issue. It creates a very minor inconvenience and highlights bad behaviour relevant to the football community. He is not obliged to wage every moral crusade going.

Without wanting to corner and isolate the guy, its not one issue, it was the puns too. And other minor skirmishes in the Ireland section are seeming to put the regulars there backs up en masse and its something he should probably bear in mind a bit more. The puns was his personal preference and this also is. He has managed to get this one passed and good luck to him, I am not about to argue in favour of The Sun ( or any British tabloid for that matter ) generating revenue here, fair enough.

But, the point made on where to draw the line, other anti Irish sentiment in other papers particularly, has huge merit here. Plus this is not our battle, is there a section of Liverpudlian society boycotting some paper because of how it reported on the Croke Park shootings or Bloody Sunday for example ? I would doubt it, nor would I expect them to.

This is the Ireland section of an Irish football forum, but here we are with Premiership infatuation and loyalties as though this is somehow our conversation to have, and it isn't, it doesn't belong here.

Tets, if you had just asked or explained, I reckon broadly the members would have shrugged this one away, and let it slide, but again there was a high handed one line post, and little will to interact thereafter and you yourself have admitted you should have communicated it better although this had to be pointed out to you perhaps. You keep ending up cornering yourself due to this style would be my observation.

Anyway, on and up etc.

[John83]

Without wanting to corner and isolate the guy, its not one issue, it was the puns too...
He more or less lost on the puns issue. Yeah, he can improve on communication; that's acknowledged in how he's promised to mark any deactivated links of this kind in future. No one is perfect; but as issues like this arise, they've been dealt with, and I think it's useful to remember that Tets does a lot of good for the forum too.


But, the point made on where to draw the line, other anti Irish sentiment in other papers particularly, has huge merit here. Plus this is not our battle, is there a section of Liverpudlian society boycotting some paper because of how it reported on the Croke Park shootings or Bloody Sunday for example ? I would doubt it, nor would I expect them to.
If you want to argue that it should be forum policy, go right ahead. I just don't want that discussion to be an excuse to bash Tets.

[osarusan]

It's curation, not moderation.

Absurdly petty stuff tbh.

[Eminence Grise]

I’ve had a think about this over the weekend, not wanting to rush in. I can see both sides – I despise the Sun though equally I’d be militant if anybody tried to tell me what I could and couldn’t read (full disclosure: I read the Sun now and again, though at arms’ length - unavoidable part of the job). So here’s my tuppence worth.

Moderators, like referees, don’t get every call right but I believe they try to. Like a good ref, we rarely notice them. And, like anybody, they have their preferences. But unlike referees, we can hold them to account, as this thread does.

Tets has personal reasons for disliking the Sun that he’s now explained. I think they’re reasonable and sincerely held at a personal level, though they’re different to mine. I don’t necessarily agree with deactivating a link, but I understand the feeling that brought on his decision and I can live with it because his moderation is usually low visibility.

The issue seems to be more about a lack of certainty than censorship, bias or heavy-handedness, or equivalency of treatment for other media. The latter is a particularly slimy can of worms. I think moderation works best when we self-moderate and respect the limits of what we know is allowed. (For instance, I had a right go at Tets over the pun affair, but knowing the rule that came out of it I’ve been conscious to limit my use of them.) Would updating the published rules to reflect changes at site and forum level, and making them easier to find, be useful?

[John83]

Dahamsta has weighed in, and nixed this as moderator policy. It's his site; he sets the rules.

Perhaps Tets can make a personal request that people self-censor those links, more or less in line with what EG posted above.

[dahamsta]

Yes, I don't like the Sun or any of tabloids (or indeed most of a broadsheets), however the deletions were based on a personal preference and I don't consider that moderation, and to a certain extent it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Do we allow the Star? The Telegraph? Etc. Sorry.

My preference for news articles is and always has been to quote the first paragraph or so of the article and link it so it can be read in more detail, mostly because if you just link the headline people just won't read the damned things; Reddit is rife with this. But I don't think we should be removing sources altogether, when another site rule is that people should source their statements.

[osarusan]

I see this deactivating of links is back. In this post, the link has been deactivated.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/20787412/anti-english-argentina-song-no1-spotify/amp/

According to the mod, there is a policy in place about this:


Looks like the whole team was targeted, not just Delap. Also, we have a policy of not linking to the S*n newspaper. Ever.
I'm surprised any Argentinean would link to it.

As Dahamsta's post from a couple of years ago shows, there was no such policy then. Is there such a policy now?

[dahamsta]

Did tets not just deactivate it manually?

[John83]

He did. They're arguing that when this was discussed before, it was agreed he wouldn't continue to do that.

[dahamsta]

Ah right. Yes, the below stands. Tets, please don't delete links based on personal preference.


My preference for news articles is and always has been to quote the first paragraph or so of the article and link it so it can be read in more detail, mostly because if you just link the headline people just won't read the damned things; Reddit is rife with this. But I don't think we should be removing sources altogether, when another site rule is that people should source their statements.

[tetsujin1979]

sorry, I forgot what the agreement was. Since the original discussion, I don't think I've seen and links to that paper, so it hasn't been an issue.