SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Myself and other submitters have noticed that articles are being edited to change the tone and intent of our stories.
Soylentil McD has suggested that "Minor edits, spelling corrections, and such, are no problem and to be expected." but "I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth".
I agree with that. If the editors want to add their own two cents, they can respond inline like the rest of us. Their role here is to be responsible, not privileged.
The stories we submit are a reflection of our enthusiasms and beliefs, the tone and character of those posts is as much part of the submitter's story as the actual content. The community is what makes sites like SN and Slashdot before it, an eclectic community with a wide range of opinions, styles and passions will always be more active and interesting than a bland monoculture. SN's editors should embrace and encourage that diversity, not sabotage it to appease some corporate interests.
So what do other Soylentils think? Should the submissions be allowed to stand as a clear reflection of the community's intent, or should the editors change our submissions to suit their perception of suitability?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:28PM
When it comes to copyprotection laws there is very little controversy. Our current laws are purely a result of corporate corruption. These secretive negotiations are a result of corruption. Those that pretend to disagree are mostly shills. Criticism against corruption shouldn't be held back just because some corporate shill doesn't like it.
As far as lawsuits are concerned so long as no laws are broken we should have a right to our opinion and not allow corporate interests to scare us. Otherwise we will essentially make it easier for those interests to get what they want and that's bad for all of us. Just look at our existing copy protection laws and consider that our corrupt government is pushing hard to extend and expand them and make them worse, in secrecy, with only corporate interests invited (until it's almost too late). The outrageous nature of this shouldn't be toned down, if anything it needs to be toned up. Much of the reason these corporations got away with corruption for so long is exactly because corporate owned giant media outlets were part of the problem. We need to be part of the solution. Otherwise we're no better than any other site and how can we be expected to make a positive difference. We shouldn't let corporate interests scare us into conformity.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:43PM
This goes to the root of the problem. It is painfully obviously to you that the Good and True are on your side and all dissenting opinions are from shills, vagabonds and father-rapists. If article summaries are written up in this manner, you're going to kill readership, mainly because there are very few issues that present themselves so black-and-white. When the facts cannot support the sensationalized headlines and story submissions, why come here? At that point, throw in the towel and sell click-bait ads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:10PM
Not all issues are black and white but some are. And when they are there is nothing wrong with calling them out.
Also, as others have said, those that hold dissenting views should be allowed to comment and have their submissions posted as well. That's how the site can be overall neutral. Allow some on one side of a debate to publish their opinion and allow someone else on another side to publish theirs as well. The site doesn't support one opinion or submitter over another.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Monday May 25 2015, @04:04AM
When you have motivated and emotional submitters, and I would argue you get a lot of overlap between them and the ones who exaggerate and mislead (intentionally or not) with their comments and stories, they are more likely to flood story submissions with issues that are important to them. I just don't think it is in the interest of this place for article summaries to take that kind of tone.