As controversial as the use of polygraphs may be, there are for all intents and purposes only two websites with public forums devoted to the discussion of polygraph issues: PolygraphPlace.com (a for-profit, commercial website operated by a polygraph examiner) and AntiPolygraph.org (a not-for-profit, public interest website). A comparison between these two forums, both of which have been on-line for roughly eight years, offers an object lesson in the effects of censorship, as the former is censored, and the latter is not. The bottom line up front: the uncensored forum has roughly 6.5 times as many public posts as the censored one.

The PolygraphPlace.com message board was opened on 19 November 1999 and has been in continuous operation since then. Its moderators include Dr. Louis Rovner, a polygraph examiner with a Ph.D. in psychology. Introducing the forum, he wrote:

Quote:


Although Rovner claimed that "anyone who visits the board will have the opportunity to respond to your questions," this was never true of the PolygraphPlace.com message board. In fact, courteous, on-topic replies by polygraph critics have been routinely deleted and those posting them (including myself and Dr. Drew Richardson) have been banned.

In the more than eight years that the PolygraphPlace.com message board has been on-line, some 4,579 posts have been made to the public section of that forum. (The board also has a private forum that is open to polygraph examiners only. It has some 7,789 posts. They must have a lot to talk about that they don't want the public to know.)

By contrast, the AntiPolygraph.org message board, which opened on 29 September 2000, has been uncensored from the start. All points of view are welcome, and no one has been banned for voicing views in support of polygraphy. We don't fear the thoughts of those with whom we disagree. We welcome them.

The result: although the AntiPolygraph.org message board has been on-line nearly a year less than the PolygraphPlace.com message board, we have now have close to 30,000 posts (22,919 29,919 at the time of writing), or roughly 6.5 times as many posts as PolygraphPlace.com has on its public forum. The difference in the liveliness of the discussion and debate is as stark as the difference between West and East Berlin before the wall came down.

pailryder,

Thank you for your kind words. To be sure, PolygraphPlace.com's censorship is doubtlessly not the sole factor accounting for its forum's lower rate of activity. But I think it is a very important one, and quite possibly the most important one. Because AntiPolygraph.org decided from the outset to welcome the participation of those who may strongly disagree with us, the debate on AntiPolygraph.org has, on the whole, been more interesting and informative than that on PolygraphPlace.com. I think most fair-minded polygraph examiners would likely agree.

PolygraphPlace.com's regrettable decision to exclude polygraph critics has only served to impoverish the discussion there.

I would be interested in the number of lurkers out there who never post.

Do you have number of visitors by ISP number?

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 3:44am:


The forum does have a log (available only to administrators) that records the IP addresses of all visitors, but the data is retained for only six hours, and long-term reports are not generated. So I have no idea how many people who are not registered might regularly read this message board. However, at the bottom of the forum's main page, you'll get an indication of the number of "guests" that have visited in the past 15 minutes.

Do they even call what they do censorship over there?  Usually Orwellian terms are employed, like "elimination of non-useful information."  If people know the truth, they're harder to control; better to keep them stupid.

Anyway, I half suspect that some of the more intelligent polygraphers would even find this forum superior to that one: here polygraphers with views outside the mainstream can post them.  I'm sure that is discouraged over there.  They all just end up parroting the same party line.  Something about loving the "Dear Leader", I believe.

Ah!  What a glorious thing is censorship!  If something can't survive without it, you know it's gotta be good!

Hello George,

I am a relatively new user to this. I orginally came looking for some help for a friend of mine. But, the cite has proved to be extremely interesting, I have been learning quite abit.   

Censorship is never a good thing, even if we don't like what others have to say.   There is always something to be learned from others, even if it's how not to act a certain way.  There are those who can create "Black Magic" with their mouth, so to speak.

Ex:  Hitler burned books, banned what people could say, etc.  and used only his mouth to hypnotize thousands, getting them to do his will.

I think it's great that both sides get to voice their opinion here. I will certainly keep up with the cite and pass it along to others.

Have a great day.

harlequinn wrote on May 26^th, 2008 at 12:03pm:


Sorry, it may be the case that only administrators and moderators can view that page. In short, there are at this time (total posts = 30,090):

19 users with 250 or more posts, who have made a total of 10,693 posts
30 users with 100-249 posts, who have made a total of 4,481 posts
29 users with 50-100 posts, who have made a total of 2,100 posts
43 users with 25-50 posts, who have made a total of 1,476 posts
and the remaining users accounting for the remaining posts have fewer than 25 posts each.