Is AvWeb Done?

Klaus M

Klaus M

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 5, 2023
Messages
365
Location
Pacific NorthWest
Display Name
Display name:
Klaus
The staff at Avweb are considering the elimination of 'Comments'
www.avweb.com

Poll: Should AVweb Allow Reader Comments? (Please Comment) - AVweb

Last week, during a transition to our new content management system, we noticed some glitches in the commenting section and stopped allowing comments, temporarily, we assumed. Since then, the only emails we’ve received about the change have been in favor of leaving comments out permanently. We...
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com

Snowflakes are coming out in July :eek:
 
Like most social media nowadays, the AvWeb comments are getting a lot of political and borderline-racist commentary, with specific groups of people facing off on the same basic subjects with the same boring insults and sneering commentary. No reason AvWeb should have to host that, or WANT to host that.

Just because one CAN host comments, doesn't mean one MUST. Grab a copy of a print magazine; you'll see 4-5 letters to the editor in the entire issue. AvWeb's been getting dozens of comments on many topics. Why should they have to give a forum to anyone with a b*tch?

Ron Wanttaja
 
They ought to to turn off comments. There are plenty of forums and social media groups out there. Avweb would be better without comments. If they make the effort to moderate them, it would take excessive time away from writing articles, and will require more ads or other revenue schemes to pay for increased staff, or it will reduce the amount of content.
 
falconkidding said:
I like comments but love militant moderation when it comes to politics. Politics as a sport/entertainment nowdays bleeds into enough stuff and if you let even borderline things through then it instantly starts spilling over into other threads.
Click to expand...
Yep. Get rid of everything (on topic specific forums - e.g. this one) that pushes into politics. Nothing good ever comes out of those discussions.
 
kyleb said:
Yep. Get rid of everything (on topic specific forums - e.g. this one) that pushes into politics. Nothing good ever comes out of those discussions.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it can be good, but not for the original topic.
 
I sure wish that everyone used the same definition for catch words like 'Political'. "You're too Political" What does that mean?

Many bureaucracies are outlawing 100LL. Other bureaucracies are creating and/or increasing landing fees. Congress has attempted a number of times to implement 'Airspace Fees'. On and On and On....

How does anyone at all ever write the news story besides comment on it without being called the evil 'Political' word?
 
Klaus M said:
I sure wish that everyone used the same definition for catch words like 'Political'. "You're too Political" What does that mean?

Many bureaucracies are outlawing 100LL. Other bureaucracies are creating and/or increasing landing fees. Congress has attempted a number of times to implement 'Airspace Fees'. On and On and On....

How does anyone at all ever write the news story besides comment on it without being called the evil 'Political' word?
Click to expand...
It can be very hard to discriminate. But I trust the discerning poster to figure it out. When we start arguing about green policy or tax policy or red = bad, blue = good, or using code words to work our political biases into the discussion, that's a problem. When was the last time anyone had a rational discussion about COVID that didn't immediately turn into a red/blue debate by proxy?
 
Many of the news sites that I follow have opted (or essentially been forced) to close the comments feature. Too much vitriol. The host organizations didn't want to police the comments, and I don't blame them. They also didn't want to be associated with the nastiness that was taking over the comments, and I don't blame them for that either.
 
Actually with all our AI these days, why can’t a reader select their position on a sliding scale from “Total Snowflake” to “African Elephant Skin”, and comments are only presented in line with your particular sensitivity?

Maybe a button, “Only show comments I agree with”
And another button, “Only show comments that will throw me into a maniacal rage”
 
Klaus M said:
I sure wish that everyone used the same definition for catch words like 'Political'. "You're too Political" What does that mean?

Many bureaucracies are outlawing 100LL. Other bureaucracies are creating and/or increasing landing fees. Congress has attempted a number of times to implement 'Airspace Fees'. On and On and On....

How does anyone at all ever write the news story besides comment on it without being called the evil 'Political' word?
Click to expand...
I like the old justice stewart quote on obscenity "I know it when I see it"
wishy washy answer but if you set a rule then someone will torture that rule so I like the catch all no politics stuff.

All those topics are stuff that is allowed and can be talked about without "political" talk. Yes theres the POV that everything is political but it would be easy to talk about lead in gas without bringing in team red vs blue.
Or talk about airspace fees. Theres a difference between "the redemacans want to BAN freedom of movement and CONTROL what you do with your PRIVATE property those FASCIST/COMMUNITST" and "congress has proposed legislation that will introduce user fees for ATC services heres why i think thats adverse to safety in the NAS and heres what i/we are doing to fight against that"
 
!!!!! "African Elephant Skin Warning" !!!!

Decided to ask Leo The AI Bot the question in my last post. It would not give me an answer unless I agreed to sensitivity terms.

So last warning before reading this answer it may upset you and cause emotional reaction....

"You're too Political" What does that mean?​

When someone says “You’re too Political,” it often means that they perceive you as being overly focused on politics or that your views are too controversial. It can also imply that your political opinions are dominating your interactions or conversations with others.
Click to expand...
Possible reasons behind the phrase
  • Controversy: Your views might be seen as too liberal or conservative, and others might find them too divisive or provocative.
  • Overemphasis on politics: Your conversations or online presence might be dominated by political discussions, which can be perceived as overwhelming or off-putting to others.
  • Euphemism for “too liberal”: Unfortunately, the phrase “You’re too Political” might sometimes be used as a way to dismiss or belittle someone’s liberal views, implying that they are too extreme or unpopular.
What to do when someone says “You’re too Political”
  • Ask for clarification: Politely ask the person what they mean by their statement. This can help you understand their perspective and address any concerns they might have.
  • Focus on common ground: Try to find areas of agreement and shift the conversation towards shared values or interests.
  • Respectfully disagree: If you disagree with someone’s views, do so respectfully and avoid getting defensive or confrontational.
Click to expand...
 
I started reading avweb when it started. That was over 30 years ago. If the new owners provide value to me or not will determine if I keep reading- or stop reading and looking at their advertising. So far, I haven’t seen a negative change.
 
wanttaja said:
Like most social media nowadays, the AvWeb comments are getting a lot of political and borderline-racist commentary, with specific groups of people facing off on the same basic subjects with the same boring insults and sneering commentary. No reason AvWeb should have to host that, or WANT to host that.

Just because one CAN host comments, doesn't mean one MUST. Grab a copy of a print magazine; you'll see 4-5 letters to the editor in the entire issue. AvWeb's been getting dozens of comments on many topics. Why should they have to give a forum to anyone with a b*tch?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Well said
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've probably been on AvWeb since it was created (even have a few articles on it) and wasn't aware there even was an area for comments.
Click to expand...
That's what many of the people that DO participate in commenting have been saying all along. Most folks are not interested and don't care about group involvement and participation. Thank you very much for pointing out that life goes on just fine with political talk in comment sections.
 
Klaus M said:
I sure wish that everyone used the same definition for catch words like 'Political'. "You're too Political" What does that mean?

Many bureaucracies are outlawing 100LL. Other bureaucracies are creating and/or increasing landing fees. Congress has attempted a number of times to implement 'Airspace Fees'. On and On and On....

How does anyone at all ever write the news story besides comment on it without being called the evil 'Political' word?
Click to expand...
That sort of falls in to the COVID era of 'science.' If you label an action, such as masking or vaccination as being 'justified by science' then it is automatically expected to be above reproach and criticism simply because you applied the tag 'science' to it.

In other words, politics+science=undeniable truth therefore politics=undeniable truth.
 
Poll is currently (No comments) 51/49 with a delta of about 50 votes
 
I admit I don't really understand a "no comments" vote. If you don't like the comments, then don't read them, don't participate. Do we really need to eliminate them just because some people apparently don't have the willpower to resist reading them?
 
I think AvWeb is sending people out and holding a gun to these pilots head and making them read every word of every comment. :rolleyes2::frown2:
 
A local US port director (US-Canada Port) explained the word “politics” when we were discussing border crossing agent behavior.
He said it is comprised of two words “ poli” and “tics”
Poli meaning many , tics being blood sucking annoyances.
 
Southpaw said:
A local US port director (US-Canada Port) explained the word “politics” when we were discussing border crossing agent behavior.
He said it is comprised of two words “ poli” and “tics”
Poli meaning many , tics being blood sucking annoyances.
Click to expand...

Not the first person to say that definition. I've used it several times myself.

As far as Avweb is concerned, I have never looked at it. What they do is their decision. It won't impact me one way or the other.
 
AvWeb is the only place left that I know of that still allows comments other than sites like YouTube. All the other media companies threw in the towel long ago.

That said, I don't for a second think that eliminating comments means AvWeb is "done". I hope that AvWeb does whatever they need to do to stay in business, because there is a wealth of fantastic information there.

Sadly, most of it is old. The columnists they had 20 years ago were fantastic. Rick Durden, John Deakin, Don Brown, et al taught me a LOT about aviation. There's still no better explanation of constant speed prop basics than Deakin's "Manifold Pressure Sucks."

I really wish they could get a new person or people writing about ATC and other topics like those guys used to.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
AvWeb is the only place left that I know of that still allows comments other than sites like YouTube. All the other media companies threw in the towel long ago.
Click to expand...
A lot of it just plain money. If a company does NOT want racist, misogynistic, or violent posts on its server, then they have to have a moderation staff. Note what the POA moderation staff has to do, and imagine having to PAY someone to do that.

And the bean counters will want to know what's the return on investment for the moderation staff. It's always negative... no advertiser is going to drop a site because user comments aren't supported, but many WILL drop if their ads are apparently supporting hostile content.

There are plenty of sites online that DON'T limit discussions; no reason Avweb (or any other aviation media) has to host them. Spend the money on better content, not on a group of folks to monitor the sandbox.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I understand why some sites don’t want to deal with posts about inflammatory topics but it has gotten to the point where you are no longer allowed to even have a civil discussion about them anywhere. How do you understand different points of view if you aren’t allowed to talk to one another? People are becoming very polarized because the few places that are left to have a discussion just cater to the fringes and they leave people thinking that is how everyone feels.

This site is a good example. There are some posters on here that I respect and I would be interested to see how their views on certain topics do or do not align with my own but it’s not permitted. Maybe talking with anotger person who shares a common interest such as flying about polarizing topics may change or shape my view of the world but we will never know. Most forum hosts are too afraid to just put out a rule that says be civil in your discussions because when people aren’t civil and they get banned or their posts deleted they worry it’s going to look like favoritism or bias.

I don’t know what the solution is but with the internet becoming the main form of communication today something needs to change in how we talk to each other if we ever want to get back to having a less polarized society.
 
There is at least one forum that is unmoderated but it appears that we can't discuss/mention the forum's name here.
 
I really miss the Pelican Perch and other great reads from years ago. It’s a bummer they haven’t found a few new writers to take their places.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sadly, most of it is old. The columnists they had 20 years ago were fantastic. Rick Durden, John Deakin, Don Brown, et al taught me a LOT about aviation. There's still no better explanation of constant speed prop basics than Deakin's "Manifold Pressure Sucks."

I really wish they could get a new person or people writing about ATC and other topics like those guys used to.
Click to expand...

Then step up and start writing articles. John Deakin was not a journalist. He was a pilot that shared his knowledge.
 
Pinecone said:
Then step up and start writing articles. John Deakin was not a journalist. He was a pilot that shared his knowledge.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in that. I do have plenty I'd like to share about my experiences.

I do not, however, have a CFI certificate. Maybe that doesn't matter. :dunno:
 
kmacht said:
I understand why some sites don’t want to deal with posts about inflammatory topics but it has gotten to the point where you are no longer allowed to even have a civil discussion about them anywhere. How do you understand different points of view if you aren’t allowed to talk to one another? People are becoming very polarized because the few places that are left to have a discussion just cater to the fringes and they leave people thinking that is how everyone feels.

This site is a good example. There are some posters on here that I respect and I would be interested to see how their views on certain topics do or do not align with my own but it’s not permitted. Maybe talking with anotger person who shares a common interest such as flying about polarizing topics may change or shape my view of the world but we will never know. Most forum hosts are too afraid to just put out a rule that says be civil in your discussions because when people aren’t civil and they get banned or their posts deleted they worry it’s going to look like favoritism or bias.

I don’t know what the solution is but with the internet becoming the main form of communication today something needs to change in how we talk to each other if we ever want to get back to having a less polarized society.
Click to expand...
This site had a forum for talking about politics and such for quite a while. It was called the Spin Zone. I did learn things there.

Unfortunately, a handful of bad actors, most of whom generally didn't post in any other areas on the site, caused a lot of trouble. Also, someone who was on the MC will have to chime in, but I believe that well over 90% of reported posts were in the Spin Zone, and it was just taking too much time from a volunteer moderation group to keep up with it, so it was closed.

It's very unfortunate that it's hard to talk to each other any more, and that most communication mediums we have left will tend toward the extremes. Unfortunately, it's not profitable to be the host of those communications, so nobody does it. Facebook is a possible exception, but it seems that enough people like their echo chambers that many have switched to Xwitter, TruthSocial, and other places where they can only hear what they want. Or, they've just unfriended those they disagree with, which also isn't productive.

And that's too bad. I've had some very interesting conversations with my diverse group of friends on Facebook. I have interesting friends... A conversation about gun control gets really interesting when you are friends with a teacher who's also a gun enthusiast. I'm also friends with (at least) three people who have unfortunately had immediate family members murdered. So if I posted something about gun control, it'd get 500+ comments... And I hope some of my friends learned something and listened to people with different experiences.

Sadly, I also had people who decided to unfriend me, so I quit posting political things for the most part. Social media is important to me as a way of keeping up with many distant friends and acquaintances, and I've had some wonderful experiences as a result of social media, so it's not worth it to enter into those discussions. :(
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This site had a forum for talking about politics and such for quite a while. It was called the Spin Zone. I did learn things there.

Unfortunately, a handful of bad actors, most of whom generally didn't post in any other areas on the site, caused a lot of trouble. Also, someone who was on the MC will have to chime in, but I believe that well over 90% of reported posts were in the Spin Zone, and it was just taking too much time from a volunteer moderation group to keep up with it, so it was closed.

It's very unfortunate that it's hard to talk to each other any more, and that most communication mediums we have left will tend toward the extremes. Unfortunately, it's not profitable to be the host of those communications, so nobody does it. Facebook is a possible exception, but it seems that enough people like their echo chambers that many have switched to Xwitter, TruthSocial, and other places where they can only hear what they want. Or, they've just unfriended those they disagree with, which also isn't productive.

And that's too bad. I've had some very interesting conversations with my diverse group of friends on Facebook. I have interesting friends... A conversation about gun control gets really interesting when you are friends with a teacher who's also a gun enthusiast. I'm also friends with (at least) three people who have unfortunately had immediate family members murdered. So if I posted something about gun control, it'd get 500+ comments... And I hope some of my friends learned something and listened to people with different experiences.

Sadly, I also had people who decided to unfriend me, so I quit posting political things for the most part. Social media is important to me as a way of keeping up with many distant friends and acquaintances, and I've had some wonderful experiences as a result of social media, so it's not worth it to enter into those discussions. :(
Click to expand...

It was indeed true that nearly all of the "bad post" reports we got were for Spin Zone content; and it was nigh on impossible for the MC to keep up. That, plus hostile messages from butt-hurt folks who thought we weren't mean enough to the people whose posts they had reported. Just not worth it (and occasionally, one finds site managers being sued over stuff like that).

A very good friend of mine, a good-hearted student of the human condition, would ask for discussion of current issues (mostly political) on FB, and he promulgated to all participants that he would never tolerate hateful or offensive content. He expected commentary to be based upon (1) personal knowledge, and (2) reasonably-defended statements of policy and position.

Then, one day, a participant (one we both have known since junior high days - a *very* long time) unfriended him, telling him that if he couldn't simply adopt the aggressive position on a former President that friend no. 2 insisted upon, friend no. 2 had no interest in associating with him. This man was Best Man at friend one's wedding, a certifiable genius and, hell, an Academy Award winner in a technical area. He was so blinded by hatred that, faced with a Socratic conversation asking him to defend his very caustic statements with reasoned and factually-supported commentary, he opted instead to drop a turd and destroy 50+ years of friendship.
 
People keep saying, "free speech!", but our right to free speech is something the government isn't allowed to restrict. It doesn't apply to a privately owned website... just as the host of a private dinner party may choose to limit the discussion at his table. If you don't like it, eat elsewhere.

I'm a moderator on another aviation forum. We don't allow political discussion, because not only does it get ugly, it dilutes the legitimate discussion and makes people stay away who would otherwise have something useful to contribute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top