Freedomain Radio

John Ess:

with that ridiculous atmosphere that the moderators refuse to intervene in

That's not entirely true, the moderators immediately closed Stef's thread on libertarian minds on the first request.

Did they ban the abusers? Why close the thread for the non-abusers?

"The folks at Liberating Minds have attacked my character, denigrated my wife, used unbelievably abusive language, infiltrated this forum, insulted my listeners, enabled abusive parents -- and fed "information" to largely hostile mainstream reporters. I did not particularly care about this for 18 months, until it truly began to interfere with my time and reputation, largely through their use and contact with the mainstream media. I dealt with this problem in the same way that I would deal with a server problem which was interfering with podcast deliveries. It was the highest priority item that I had to deal with at the time, and now that I have dealt with it, I am happily moving on to other issues."

I absolutely feel for you. These actions on the part of the limi community are completely vile and show what a petty group of people they really are. People like you are always lightning-rods for the scorn of mediocre minds. If they were actually interested in finding truth, they would do less shit-flinging and more logical refuting. I personally think it is a bad idea to engage with them. Simply putting the facts out there, as you seem to have done, makes it easy for sensitive people to see where the real integrity lies. 

With regard to the argument from priorty, I still have trouble understanding how it could ever be legitimately applied. Either a person's criticism is worth responding to, or it isn't. If it is worth responding to, then the point should be addressed, if not, then there is little sense in making an argument from priority.

There is a difference between a negative blogger and a stalker.

Stefan Molyneux:

Did they ban the abusers? Why close the thread for the non-abusers?

I think Peter is making an ironic observation. They're perfectly willing to moderate when a moderating voice arrives, but not while the animals run amok.

The bottom line with all other forums, is basically this:

They conflate "freedom" with an absolute, open-ended license to abuse each other.

This is why your thread was closed, and theirs was not: defense against abuse is simply not allowed in their world.

THAT is why we have to keep fighting here.

GregG:

Stefan Molyneux:

Did they ban the abusers? Why close the thread for the non-abusers?

I think Peter is making an ironic observation. They're perfectly willing to moderate when a moderating voice arrives, but not while the animals run amok.

correct

GregG:

This is why your thread was closed, and theirs was not: defense against abuse is simply not allowed in their world.

Agreed, from what I recall they only closed it as a tacit agreement they no longer wanted to discuss the thread.. Nothing to do with the abuse (I could be wrong on this, but I've lost the thread now)

pcrs:

John Ess:

with that ridiculous atmosphere that the moderators refuse to intervene in

That's not entirely true, the moderators immediately closed Stef's thread on libertarian minds on the first request.

I don't know what you mean.  Are you talking about the mises forum?  That's what I was speaking of.

John Ess:

I don't know what you mean.  Are you talking about the mises forum?  That's what I was speaking of.

From what I recall John you were on a different thread... The one pcrs is mentioning was Stefs thread regarding the limi abuse on mises (I could be wrong as I've lost the threads now)

John Ess:

I don't know what you mean.  Are you talking about the mises forum?  That's what I was speaking of.

me too, I saw a post of Stef on the Mises forum about Limi and this thread was closed by a moderator pretty fast. See Greg's comment for the rest.

Idea for a solution

The only real practical problem with the liberatingminds site is their visibility on google. Therefore, the solution is to create new pro-FDR websites to populate the first page of google searches, thus bumping liberating minds off the radar. People with some free time can create websites with pro-FDR content and related ideas, with enough interesting information and nice design for people to read them. The sites need to reference "Stefan Molyneux" and "Free domain radio" many times. Any other search engine optimisation techniques will also need to be used. That way, when a reporter or a potential listener does a Google search for FDR, they will find lots of supportive websites. Organise an alliance between various psychological institutions and FDR, so that trusted psychology institutions appear on the main Google page endorsing FDR. Create a 'sceptic' site which disagrees with FDR on minor points but ends up endorsing him. This is all part of public relations and branding, and it may be a practical addition to what Stef has already done to remedy the liberatingminds problem.

Let me know if you think this is a good idea. If it is, then I will create a new thread inviting people to collaborate on creating these new sites and filling them with great, entertaining content and forums.

 Alternatively, anyone could post something positive, inspiring, and informative about Freedomain Radio on their own blog, and make sure that Google spiders it.

If enough of us did that, it would (a) be a genuine expression of what we think/feel, and (b) would have a much greater impact on the google rankings than a single site....

Thoughts?

i think this is quite a good idea and i also thought that if people put links in their blogs to the page stef wrote about limi, and had a big title for it, liberating minds, then people would see that link first before the limi site itself.

I can give that a try.

actually, that makes sense. As long as the existing sites/blogs have more hits or more links going to them than liberating minds, your sites will appear higher in google. It is important to research search engine optimization techniques so that you know what to do. At least, that's what i've been told.