Daily Kos Standards

Though Daily Kos appears to be a straightforward "collective" on the surface, there is in reality a quite complex system for maintaining community norms in place.
Some of the interesting rules that I gleaned from the dKosopedia (Daily Kos wiki/encyclopedia) FAQ, which lays out the framework for diary writing:

12. Diarists are strongly encouraged to back up all assertions with facts (and preferably links to supporting materials) whenever possible. Use reputable sources whenever possible. If you can't find a reputable source that supports your position, then perhaps reconsider writing your diary.

14. Diaries which engage in wild speculation without any proof are strongly discouraged. Repeatedly posting diaries consisting largely or entirely of wild speculation is an abuse of site policy. Bear in mind that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

16. Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.

There is also a lengthy section devoted to conspiracy theories and a specific set of rules governing 9/11 consipacists (one of the infiltrator groups I am looking at) who are still posting on the site. Zuniga (Kos) himself even singled out this group in justifying the automatic banning of members trying to advance such conspiracies in their diary entries. It just goes to show that Zuniga is the private proprieter of the site and has final say on what ends up on Daily Kos.


Controversial Diary Topics

Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", e.g., "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

Addendum

Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned. Yes, this does include 'controlled demolition' of WTC 7.
Here is what kos has to say-

The conspiracists by kos
Fri Jul 08, 2005

Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.


Controversial 9/11 Diaries

DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.

Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.


An intriguing discussion of first amendment priveleges follows further down the page from the irascible kos. Zuniga makes clear that there are no freedoms guaranteed on Daily Kos, and I think members accept this as a trade-off of creating solidarity and an activist platform. However, it does beg the question of whether it is really a free marketplace of ideas when the minority is quashed or vilified. Can there be free speech when off-message posts are buried or tagged as “trolls”?


But, what about Freedom of Speech?

Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#Writing_diaries

So basically its Kos' way or the highway.