Alex Hilton is the self styled 'genius' behind LabourHome. Here's his latest barmy idea to make his site more popular - banning Tories from it. Way to go, Alex! The thing is, would anyone actually notice?
Judging from these figures, LabourHome is getting a derisory amount of traffic rival, compared to its Conservative inspiration ConservativeHome. LabourHome was bought by the New Statesman recently, who will be looking for results. If banning Conservatives from the site meets with the approval of Alex Hilton's new paymasters, it is a sad day for political debate on the internet.
50 comments:
They seem to have taken this down already. I have never been to LabourHome before. What a crap website!
I'm devastated.
With all due respect Iain, I don't think it's a move to make the site more popular, rather a move to make the site more usable for a community which already exists on there.
For a site which is designed for the use of Labour activists, it has been overwhelmed with Tory posters either posing as Labour activists or out-and-out Tory activists intent on disrupting discussion through insults and slander. There are several Conservative supporters who use Labourhome who are excellent debaters and generally add to the quality of the discussion who are unlikely to affected by the measures.
Isn't it a bit rich coming from someone who frequently moderates comments to start taking swipes at an 'open-mic' site? Or is it just because you don't get along with Alex, so you'd try a spin a news story?!
Pier, first of all let me correct you. I only ever moderate comments which contain swear words or are anonymous and abusive. Despite what my enemies may tell you, I never delete comments just because they disagree with me. A cursory look through most threads on this blog should show you that!
Secondly, I have always got on fine with Alex. Face to face he is completely charming. But he's the sort of person who slags you off behind your back or on his blog and then expects to be all matey when you next meet.
Imagine the outcry if I announced on here I was only going to allow comments by people who agreed with me! I have even had guest blogs from people who have written articles I fundamentally disagree with.
It's the mindset of banning the views of political opponents I object to, but it is all to prevalent among the old tribal left, which Alex delights in personifying.
Iain,
I wonder if it's because unlike your blog, or Guido, or PB.com, LabourHome wasn't ever designed to be an open-to-all blog.
If its purpose is to be a partisan organising site (like ConservativeHome or Daily Kos) then it would be fair enough to limit those of us who aren't members.
That said, there is a binary and inverse relationship between popularity and the need to police trolling. If you are as big as ConHome or Daily Kos, then there aren't enough trolls on the interweb to truly cause any serious disruption. If trolling is a problem, I would suggest that it is because Labour Home is still too small.
It's always a shame that a mainstream site feels the need to close its doors to people, but I can understand it in this case.
Once an arse...
Still, perhaps one should sympathise with Labour Party members like him, seeing as how they know they are going to be swinging from lamp-posts fairly soon.* It would depress anyone.
*Metaphorically, of course. I suppose.
Tell me Iain, am I able to post pro-Labour stuff on ConservativeHome without being either banned or the post deleted?
If the answer's no, then your article is so much hot air.
I'm sure if such an event occurred Voltaire would turn in his grave! Apologies for insinuating so, I will make more of an effort to do my homework next time. Equally, however, should you not inform yourself of the nature of the debate at LabourHome before writing up your entry? You failed to answer my point that the measures proposed are to improve the user experience of the existing members, as opposed to trying to secure more members. In the same way you feel the need to moderate swear words, LabourHome may feel the need to moderate Tory commenters for continually slating and flaming genuine posters. A cursory look at LabourHome will inform you that there are a fair few Tory posters who are respectful and enhance the debate, and they are respected by both Alex and the larger LabourHome community.
As for "I have even had guest blogs from people who have written articles I fundamentally disagree with."
Given that any Tory, even now, may post any blog, unmoderated, on the LH frontpage, would seem to match, if not better, your achievements in 'free speech'.
All political views are respected on LabourHome - have a look!
Ti Montgomerie can speak for himself, but I dont believe he has ever banned people who are not Conservatives from posting on ConservativeHome, as you can regularly see on his site.
So you agree with Hilton'sproposed ban. Well good on you. What happened to freedom of speech on the internet and genuine debate. I allow it here, why can't LabourHome?
...and for the record Iain, read the post itself, they're proposals, posted in a way to canvass the community to see what they would like (isn't that what they call consultative direct democracy?!). If you read the responses, you can see general opinion isn't in favour of a blanket ban on all Conservative opinion.
There is far more genuine debate on LabourHome than you can ever dream of on here. Why don't you join up and find out? We won't hurt you...:-)
I've posted my comments at the appropriate place - on LabourHome - but if you really want to know, yes I do think LabourHome should be for Labour supporters only and obvious Tory trolls deleted post haste.
It was I who raise the issue with Alex tonight and Alex has demonstrated the kind of tolerance I wouldn't if I were in his place. Your post is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, but I've grown used to that.
Iain - because there is more to the internet than a communal megaphone for free speech.
There's no shortage of places for people to argue about politics. LabourHome's USP is that it is for Labour Party members and actvists to debate in-house issues/tactics/leadership. Why should they allow non-Labour members?
Nuts, I had a post half written as well.
I’d think by the look of their site visits they need all the bloggers they can get to pop along! Mind you, Iain has helped by putting a link & the trolls swamping their site must have also helped to make up the numbers :o)
I suppose for the die hard disillusioned, destined for the wilderness Labour supporters, having anyone Tory going along to their site must really grind with them, knowing these Tories & trolls are basically LOL at them with each word they write, I mean, how would we feel if everything our party had worked for was falling apart because of our own mistakes, self imploding because of the panic of losing power & then knowing your going to have to watch what is left of your lefty legacy taken apart by the incoming government, I’d feel a little sad too!
Oh! Come over all Déjà vu for a moment there!
Labourhome must feel like their party! Weak, venerable & nothing left to do but wait for that dreaded night when the votes for that much awaited election start to be counted, Mmmm! Felt a warm glow just then!
Anyhow! If Labourhome want to do the, hear no, see no evil bit mixed with censorship then maybe they should remember this wise saying!
“Censorship cannot eliminate evil, it can only kill freedom!
If they want to slam the door on the bunker I say let 'em rot inside. It will only hasten the downfall.
I wish 'our' side wouldn't include trolls -- we should leave that sort of behaviour to those who aren't any better.
If that is the real issue over there, and it has become a problem, then simple moderation should be sufficient remedy, as trolls change their ID as soon as their current one is blocked. It doesn't solve the problem. They learned this dodge on the newsgroups, years before 'blogs became fashionable. Moderation would be easy enough, owing to the low level of traffic.
Although I too am not impressed with Hilton's online behaviour, I can see that he needs to at least look at possible remedies.
Personally, I hate trolling, I don't much like anonymity of fake IDs (though I know there can occasionally be valid reasons for them) and I do wish that the whole of the online community would behave in a more mature way than some do at present.
Ooh! Sometimes I get so worked up about it that I could crush a grape...
I hope there's room in the bunker with Der Fuhrer. Must be getting a bit crowded.
Banning people? So much for the internet as a space for debate and openness.
We're all Conservatives now. I've voted Labour before but can't bring myself to do so again.
I'm precisely the sort of person LabourHome should be debating with.
Instead, banning debate only shows how desperate they are. To block out views they don't like shows they can't cope with alternative ideas.
Of course some Tories on there are too agressive. But the same goes for some on the Left yet would someone with Socialist beliefs get a ban?
Labour are in denial, blocking any dissenting voices risks reinforcing the impression they're adopting the bunker mentality: "ja, ve are vinning ze var, mein Kanzler, der Relaunch ist sehr gut."
As far as I could see, LabourHome isn't proliferated with trolls but people who were simply winning the online argument against Labour members.
The need to ban boils down to Labourites resenting people who can run rings round them with logic and reason.
PS - I was never allowed on Labour Home.
Apopros of bans, I (a frequent BBC apologist, and indeed employee) was banned from Biased-BBC yesterday.
I used the word "idiots" but nothing stronger than that. Hmm.
Anyone else heard a rumour that Jag Singh left Labour Home after the NuLabStatesman payday?
I suppose the point is Iain that Labour cannot take dissent - its the same at the BBC and the same over climate change. They are autocratic , tyrants, and the natural descendants of 17th century witch hunters.
But if Alex Whatever wants to ban other views, then let him. He only shows up his 'party' for what they are. You can go to the Guardian or turn on the BBC at any time of day to hear Labour views. I don't think we need to go to LabourHome let it die.
If you want the right to reply, you can do it here, and move the debate. All the little witch hunters need is a whiff of dissent and they'll be after it !!
The self-regard of Labour types continues to amaze. They clearly have some sort of clinical mental condition in which they can do no wrong - something we see from their familiars in government every day, and most odiously personified by Blair.
It is total twaddle that "A cursory look at LabourHome will inform you that there are a fair few Tory posters who are respectful and enhance the debate, and they are respected by both Alex and the larger LabourHome community." as "Pier" asserts. The locals at LH simply shriek abuse at any Tory poster, and indeed at any disgusted Labour poster who dares to acknowledge the disgraceful state into which their party and government have sunk.
If they can't win an argument with them (and they can't), they demand that they be banned.
It is twaddle that there is an "open mike" policy, because any thread via this "open mike" that the local neanderthals object to is dismissed as trolling and also removed.
They are fine with abuse as long as it's themselves hurling it. The objective of the site is to bury their heads in the sand and kid themselves everything's fine. Like Labour types generally they haven't the slightest interest in other points of view, they see the statement of such as a grievous provocation, and they live in a weird parallel world in which it's all going to come right for Broon because the economy's going to grow 5% next quarter. Really.
It would actually be quite a good thing for the Tories to get more floaters over there - and to all Labour sites - to be reminded of how nasty, arrogant and detached they really are.
@ Pier
"For a site which is designed for the use of Labour activists, it has been overwhelmed with Tory posters either posing as Labour activists or out-and-out Tory activists intent on disrupting discussion through insults and slander."
Say it isn't so! Does this mean the end of debate as we know it? Is this sort of behaviour restricted to LabourHome or does it happen elsewhere in the world? You've really got to watch out for those Tory Activists - they seem to be everywhere these days. I wonder if it isn't some sort of contagious virus doing the rounds.
If Labour Home is some sort of exclusive club for Labour supporters, so be it. I guess the membership is dwindling rapidly - must be down to single figures by now, surely? Anyway, maybe they should publish their Rule Book then, and we can all decide if we wish to be in their gang or not.
What exactly do you mean by 'respect' - a term which has been totally abused by NuLab, to the point where it has become a meaningless mantra. And what it God's Name is a 'genuine debate'? 'Genuine'? In whose opinion? Who decides? This is just censorship by another means. It's entirely a matter of opinion. It's typical of the appallingly slovenly intellectual processes of New Labour to seek to label everything in pejorative terms. This is yet another example of the attempt to control 'debate'.
Now, please wash your hands and adjust your dress before leaving.
I made one comment on Labour Home and got banned immediately as a pre-emptive measure , I assume, to stop me pulling the legs of their childish arguments like a helpless insect. Typical and there are two reasons for it
1 -The bourgeois slick willies slithering up the inside leg of the left establishment would not recognise a worker served on a platter and Labour’s support have not interest in blogs . The bulk of commenters are therefore lower middle class rightist able to de -construct the post and especially any shy Labour voter brave enough to smear his daub. The Knicker sniffer Hilton wants a nursery in which the slogans by which buying votes with other people’s money are sustained can grow.
2 The left find free speech hard because for them everything is political and a weapon in a straightforward way . Iain Dale by contrast , has published some appalling personal attacks , and has provided a platform for the Labour Party to the point that I have wondered if he worries more about his traffic than the cause. This is unfair of course Apart from of a sense of humour failure about the accusation he is jealous of Boris Johnson , he has an admirable “defend your right to say it “ outlook. He sees a blog as forum in which a community will gather its own momentum and to do so it must be allowed to connect up.
Dale sees strength in freedom Hilton see weakness in the same quality.
Dale = The West
Hilton= The Soviet Union
The blog rule bodies forth your position. Hilton ( in whose Lord Haw Haw-ish opinion Conservatives are the moral equivalents of child molesters )has shown once again that Social Democracy is like Warm Ice and when put to the test the democracy bit with its essential component , free speech , melts ...
(Solzhenititsyn said the thing about warm ice )
I see Praguetory was never allowed on Labour Home as I was also never allowed on it I wonder if Mr. Dale would consider some sort of award for this badge of honour.
As Mutley would have it "medal medal medal.."
There are some good, and thought ful, Labour blogs - eg Mike Ion, Luke Akenhurst where you can go for a debate or even a wind up.
Labour home is more of a loyalist message board, and just about as interesting. I thought of commenting there before, but just couldn't be bothered.
If the Labour Homies want to join Gordon in his bunker then let them. They have less than 2 years left now ....
Further thought - if you look at that Alexa chart, you can see that traffic to LabourHome ticked noticeably down during May. Why was this? Well, after their epic humiliation in the London Mayoral and the local council elections, Labouroids simply went into denial. They stuck their fingers in their ears, went la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you and refused to discuss the matter.
The bottom line is that Alex is proposing banning Tories from creating new articles on Labour Home but still allowing them to comment on articles.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about since that is exactly how both Conservative Home and this site are run - i.e. content by Conservatives, comment by anyone.
The only real difference is that Labour Home allows any Labour supporter write content, while Iain Dale's Diary and Conservative Home only allow Conservative supporters to write content by invitation.
Theoretically it is possible to scan all the ballot papers from the last election and then using the identifying numbers on those ballots, tie them to individual voters. Then, using the enormous surveillance powers this government has abrogated for itself, these could be linked to out ISPs. Thus Labour Home could indeed identify and prevent Conservative voters posting on its site. Is Hilton trying to do this? Are such surveillance systems already in use?
LabourHome is just crap. It should be shut down for its own good. It's just embarrassing. It doesn't really matter what they do on the website - there's nothing worth looking at or reading anyway.
I am a poster on LabourHome and one whom they consider banning.
I actually enjoy it: it's like the 1970s in parts but with some very good posters.
The usual nutters but better than Conservative Home.
I do not care if they ban me: and have said as much.
It's only the died in the wool people who think "all Conservatives eat babies and need to be kept away in case you catch a deadly disease or enter the real world" who want to ban us.
They have one thread on banning me already: it was inconclusive!
I actually think their site serves a useful propose with debate: most are so stuck in Marxist/Leninist/bennite rubbish that the real world is frightening . but exciting.
That is if they listen.
As usual, I do not swear or flame etc..(but some swear at me.. and are not banned).
Double standards...
LabourHome's true colours are Labour colours, and if non-supporters come along and disrupt it, there can be no complaing when they are banned. I would expect ConservativeHome to do exactly the same if non-Conservatives disrupted that site.
If banning people you think disruptive is wrong then I expect Tim Ireland will be making guest posts here within hours. Or this could be just a bit of political knockabout.
DB said - "LabourHome's true colours are Labour colours"
I couldn't agree more.
To David Boothroyd.
You obviously believe Debate = dirsuption.
Says it all.
No I don't. There is a difference between debate and trolling, although I know some right-wing bloggers believe there isn't.
@ David Boothroyd
Define 'disrupt'.
Define 'troll'.
Define 'debate'.
All are matters of opinion. You don't like what people say? Too bad. Or do you have some sort of rule book that we all should abide by? Where is it? Let's examine that before we get much further.
All blog owners have the right to determine whatever arcane rules they may wish to apply. Those commenting should simply take their chances.
LabourHome wishes to ban me? Fine by me, chum. I have no rights whatsoever in the matter - and I'd be damn stupid to think otherwise.
Chuck Unsworth, thank you. You start off looking like you're disagreeing with me, but when you follow the logic of your own arguments you end up in the same position which is that the people running Labourhome are entirely free to refuse to accept comments from whomever they want. Everyone else does it, including Iain, which makes his original post look at the very least misplaced.
Banning debate? Tosh. I'm merely suggesting Tories should be restricted to commenting on other people's posts, rather than being allowed to write their own articles, which is currently the case.
That would simply restrict free speech to the levels enjoyed on this website. Furthermore, you fail to note that I have put the proposal to discussion among the readers and contributors before deciding what to do - which isn't exactly a Stalinist approach.
And Iain, could you please find the quote (as it is in inverted commas) where I style myself as a genius?
And furthermore, I am absolutely certain I have offended you to your face, so I think the two-faced accusation is a bit cheap.
Are you peeved about the autofellation thing?
Alex Hilton
07985 384 859
alexhilton@gmail.com
Alex, let me introduce you to grammar. A quotation has two ". A single ' denotes irony. Something obviously lost on you.
As for your last question, I assume that subject is something you would know more about that me. I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I suppose it is merely another paradigm of Nulab Stalinism and the bottom feeders who blindly follow.(These days, with their fingers in their ears and their eyes closed) Alex Hilton is a perfect example of a slagger-off who can give it but cannot take it. I am surprised he could type the piece of twaddle above with his free hand, given that his other one is busy jerking off.
The Soviet Union , found Solzheniitsyn ‘disruptive'
David Boothroyd is right. Labour Home are quite free to ban who they like (me for example ) and behave in an authoritarian manner.
We ,however, are also free to draw the conclusion that that their instinct ,when losing , is both anti democratic and duplicitous . As Labour Home seeks to represent the Labour Party then we are also free to draw the obvious conclusions about New Labour’s inability to tolerate freedom in general.
In the pages of the Guardian and New Statesman for the last few months ,time and again their have been complaints that Labour are on the wrong side of the Liberty argument . They seem determined to become a small urban underclass Party battling the BNP.
I would be ashamed .As a Conservative I am vindicated and reassured . New Labour are the same scum they always have been.
I think you will find I haven't even referred to myself as a genius, even with irony.
Irony would be "The 'brains' behind the David Davis leadership campaign"
(...hmmm, or is that merely sarcasm?)
Weasel - I am perfectly capable of taking a slagging off - I shall not be crying into my G&T tonight.
:)
Autofellatio is the act of oral stimulation of one's own penis as a form of masturbation.
I doubt Iain has maintained his muscle flexibility enough to achieve this even if it were desirable .
Alex Hilton on the other hand looks quite alarmingly like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang .With his hideous face and legendary B O we can rule out an orthodox sex life.
(An auto-nasal-sodomite would be my guess)
Having said that , if he is , as he says , not banning comments isn’t Iain wrong and the own-arse-sniffer right? I hate to say it but there it is ....
Labour Home says of itself "the site targets supporters of the Labour Party, attempting to reinvigorate the party's base and grassroots".
Yes indeed. What is the measure of success here? Any sign of 'reinvigoration'?
And (it) "is an experiment to reach out to the millions of Labour supporters and voters who want their voices heard."
This indicates that millions of Labour supporters feel that their voices are not heard. Just like the rest of us, then. Otherwise why was it necessary in the first place?
It is in itself confirmation of the communications failure within the Labour movement.
Broon's Talking Bawgie (truly ugly title) said...
“They stuck their fingers in their ears, went la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you and refused to discuss the matter”.
I think you’ll find the chief advocate of la la is True Blue CoffeeHouse - never been known to ever make a critical comment about the Tories.
Unsurprisingly most stomach churning type comments “given that his other one is busy jerking off” from WW,
and “Alex Hilton on the other hand….with his hideous face and legendary B O we can rule out an orthodox sex life. (An auto-nasal-sodomite would be my guess)” from Newmania, illuminate precisely who are the real bottom feeders, and it could be perceived that expressions like Nulab Stalinism, Labouroids, NuLieBore etc. simply smack of absurdity and desperation, otherwise why wouldn’t there be more considered and thoughtful comments here; just like on LabHome, and not just venomous slagging off?
@ Anonymous 9:26 PM.
Sensitive little flower, aren't we?
"Stomach churning"? Are you sure it isn't something you've eaten?
Frankly you'd better not get anywhere near Devil's Kitchen. You'd probably have to be rushed to Casualty.
What does LabourHome want to be?
If they want to be a members-only site, it should be simple enough to arrange.
If they want it open to all, well they will get all sorts - and like any forum, offensive posters can be weeded out.
But if they want it open to 'all except people who disagree with us' (which is what most of them mean when they complain about Tories) then they have an unanswerable problem!
So, then Alex. I am neither a Tory or a Labour voter. I am a socialist - the proper kind who is lucky enough to be able to vote SNP and who does not support a government that lied us into an illegal war. You may not understand socialism - if you did you would not vote for a party that seems to deal in revenge, glib social engineering, tyranny, repression and the curtailment of personal freedom, (whilst at the same time stifling opposition).
Am I banned too?
Why would you want to comment there at all WW?
LabHome favour in-depth discussion rather than sexual innuendo and hyperbole, so what’s in it for you?
Post a Comment