horror forum - to get the "shock porn" threads off of OT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused - sensitive PPs, how do you rule on the story about the NYC nanny who murdered her charges? That was obscene by any stretch of the imagination, but lots of parents wanted to discuss it.

I have been a regular DCUM user since the website was launched and I don't agree that there is a proliferation of horror stories that are likely to alienate readers. I also wonder if those of you who are so outraged by this have ever subscribed to a newspaper in your lives? If so, you managed to survive daily material on tragedies through a print format, why not via the internet?

PP, if you can't see the difference between a legitimate news story and just posting gruesome details of children being hurt, then I can't help you see that difference. My problem is that there are some people who are posting the most horrible stuff, like "did you hear about THIS one?" just as something to shoot the shit about. To gawk and take a little side trip through someone else's misery. Who knows why? But let's not confuse it with something valuable.

There are fine lines to be sure here, and what is one peson's news item is likely to be someone els'es horror story. But honestly, I feel like half this shit is none of my business. Like "maggots found in baby's diaper" etc. That's just shock stuff. And that's NOT the stuff you see on the front page of the NYTimes. You can call it whatever the F you want, but this is NOT news, this is stories of news and violence and harm to kids being traded around as a form of ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more, nothing less. You're posting these for your entertainment and that of others. So don't cry around that I'm sticking my hands in my ears because I don't feel ENTERTAINED by torture stories. I think it's sick and the people who post the things are sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused - sensitive PPs, how do you rule on the story about the NYC nanny who murdered her charges? That was obscene by any stretch of the imagination, but lots of parents wanted to discuss it.

I have been a regular DCUM user since the website was launched and I don't agree that there is a proliferation of horror stories that are likely to alienate readers. I also wonder if those of you who are so outraged by this have ever subscribed to a newspaper in your lives? If so, you managed to survive daily material on tragedies through a print format, why not via the internet?

PP, if you can't see the difference between a legitimate news story and just posting gruesome details of children being hurt, then I can't help you see that difference. My problem is that there are some people who are posting the most horrible stuff, like "did you hear about THIS one?" just as something to shoot the shit about. To gawk and take a little side trip through someone else's misery. Who knows why? But let's not confuse it with something valuable.

There are fine lines to be sure here, and what is one peson's news item is likely to be someone els'es horror story. But honestly, I feel like half this shit is none of my business. Like "maggots found in baby's diaper" etc. That's just shock stuff. And that's NOT the stuff you see on the front page of the NYTimes. You can call it whatever the F you want, but this is NOT news, this is stories of news and violence and harm to kids being traded around as a form of ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more, nothing less. You're posting these for your entertainment and that of others. So don't cry around that I'm sticking my hands in my ears because I don't feel ENTERTAINED by torture stories. I think it's sick and the people who post the things are sick.

Well said, could not agree more. This is not the Nat'l Enquirer.

[Anonymous]

Please don't change it. We're all adults here. Some topics may not be to our liking, so we can make the conscious choice not to click.

Many of your (Jeff's) posts in this thread have been to question where to draw the line, and you make good point. It's so difficult to draw that line.

It's not like the topic is being blasted in people's faces. They need to consciously choose to click the thread, then click the news story associated with it.

The real world is not what we all would like it to be, but that's not gonna change. DCUM does not need to become a sanitized lal-la land that is not quite in touch with reality.

If kids were the main readers of this forum, I may think differently, but that's not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

Seriously? How can you want more information but also not want information that would make you upset? You really don't want to reach a compromise do you?

I am not one of the ones not wanting the info. I do not want a compromise as I do not think one is needed. I see the unpleasant titles and if I think the article will be pointless and upsetting I do not open it. I am not so fragile that reading a headline alone is going to induce a breakdown, and frankly if I were, I should not be on the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

Seriously? How can you want more information but also not want information that would make you upset? You really don't want to reach a compromise do you?

I am not one of the ones not wanting the info. I do not want a compromise as I do not think one is needed. I see the unpleasant titles and if I think the article will be pointless and upsetting I do not open it. I am not so fragile that reading a headline alone is going to induce a breakdown, and frankly if I were, I should not be on the Internet.

+1 I'm really beginning to wonder how some people function in real life, if reading a title is that traumatic for them. Just skip over it. Is it that difficult?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

Seriously? How can you want more information but also not want information that would make you upset? You really don't want to reach a compromise do you?

I am not one of the ones not wanting the info. I do not want a compromise as I do not think one is needed. I see the unpleasant titles and if I think the article will be pointless and upsetting I do not open it. I am not so fragile that reading a headline alone is going to induce a breakdown, and frankly if I were, I should not be on the Internet.

+1 I'm really beginning to wonder how some people function in real life, if reading a title is that traumatic for them. Just skip over it. Is it that difficult?

They feel as though the title has already scarred them for life....

[Anonymous]

DCUM would lose a lot of readers if all news stories were edited for content. There are many silent readers and a few vocal posters. If it links to a normal publication to me that is OK. That is, not "torture news" But I have never seen a link that was not a national news service, or local paper.

[Anonymous]

Just like to point out that Jeff draws lines all the time. Posts in general parenting (e.g. "Flying with my one year old help!") get moved to the travel forum. Posts in off topic (e.g. "my house smells like kitty litter") get moved to Pets. We're not talking about deleting threads... we're talking about moving them, just like Jeff does to threads in all other forums.

[Anonymous]

To 11:02 -

Except it's not a matter of misplaced subject, it's a matter of abnormal sensitivity. If we all wanted to have our fragile sensitivities about things we don't like moved or made into a new forum, then there's be a thousand different forums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just like to point out that Jeff draws lines all the time. Posts in general parenting (e.g. "Flying with my one year old help!") get moved to the travel forum. Posts in off topic (e.g. "my house smells like kitty litter") get moved to Pets. We're not talking about deleting threads... we're talking about moving them, just like Jeff does to threads in all other forums.

Yes, which is annoying. And yet, there's such sensitivity to moving the threads that many people actually don't want to see. I mean, what's the point of a pets thread? And yes, things like traveling with a one year old, that's 90 percent parenting and 10 percent traveling related, and it gets moved? (this comes from an airline pilot!)

I just don't get why there is this willingness to police whether a thread goes into pets or travel but not the willingness to put "baby cut into pieces by stepfather while mom videos" (made that up thank god) isn't an obvious candidate for the shock and horror news forum.

Those accusing others of over sensitivity - are you THAT sensitive that you can't just look at a different forum for that stuff, if you want it?

[Anonymous]

This is a sticky situation. On the one hand, some topics are so disturbing that people don't want them in the thread titles, because it is upsetting even to see the titles as we scroll past the topics. On the other hand, some topics are so upsetting that people feel sandbagged when they click on a relatively benign-sounding title and find the content gruesome. This sounds like a catch-22.

My personal bugaboo are the pedophilic threads, like "I caught my . . ." and "somebody saw my child naked.". Both the title and the content of those make me want to vomit. I can't believe they are posted by real parents concerned about their children's sexual privacy. If they were, they wouldn't be posting about it on the Internet! I think most of those threads must come from creepy weirdos.

[Anonymous]

On an open forum? Who do you think is there? Everyone is polly pure? It is the Internet after all.

[Anonymous]

It could just be a "current events" forum. All news stories could go there...

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure if I agree with censorship, but I don't understand why a new forum cannot be created for these types of stories. As far as how to make the distinction between newsworthy and shock-porn, The Smoking Gun manages to do it day after day. I like to think that Jeff has at least equal expertise in editing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a sticky situation. On the one hand, some topics are so disturbing that people don't want them in the thread titles, because it is upsetting even to see the titles as we scroll past the topics. On the other hand, some topics are so upsetting that people feel sandbagged when they click on a relatively benign-sounding title and find the content gruesome. This sounds like a catch-22.

My personal bugaboo are the pedophilic threads, like "I caught my . . ." and "somebody saw my child naked.". Both the title and the content of those make me want to vomit. I can't believe they are posted by real parents concerned about their children's sexual privacy. If they were, they wouldn't be posting about it on the Internet! I think most of those threads must come from creepy weirdos.

I personally think it's just the one creepy weirdo who posts those over and over again, but I could be wrong. Jeff probably would know.