I refer to the article by blogger Limpeh FT: "CAPTURING THE VOICES OF THE SUBALTERN: THE TRS DILEMMA".
Without referring to any website in particular, consider that anyone exercising the level of editorial control you advocate could be exposed to more liability than they may already be exposed to. That's not a small step to take.
While it is of course your right to advise someone to do something which could lead to that person potentially taking on legal liability for inaccurate or false statements written by a contributor, I would certainly hope that such a person would consider such advice very carefully, including thinking through all the possible implications, before acting on it.
On my part, from a purely personal point of view, I think you are being naive in considering positives without also considering negatives.
And No. I don't find you guilty of idealism. I find that you give and are giving people poor advice.
Anyone who publishes content faces legal liability. But an argument -- maybe not a successful one, but still an argument -- can be made that if all a person does is offer a platform for someone to publish their content, the platform operator is not liable for the content provider's content. What you want the platform operator to do is actively contribute to the content, and therefore take on liability for the content.
In simple English. That increases the chance that the platform operator will get sued and then be forced to close down.
What you suggest is deeply unfair. Because there are those who cannot write, you would advocate a course of action which could strip those who can write of a platform.
TRS has a vision. Whether good or bad, it is theirs. You have the right to ask them to change, just as much as they have the right to -- and in my personal view should -- ignore you. That you do not see a point does not mean that there is no point. The internet is big enough for there to be multiple outlets of differing quality and quantity.
Really, this is why I told you that I find your views a bit cock. Because when you talk about those who are intolerant, self-absorbed and demand that the world change to suit their needs, I find that on occasion you need to examine the beam in your own eye. Everyone bears the consequences for their own words and actions.
I can empathize with the intent of TRS to publish nearly anything that is submitted to them, because I think there is value in having a ear to the ground on what people truly think. I would rather be exposed to ugliness and ill-informed opinions, and be aware that those things exist than to have them suppressed and to have those people silenced. I know of people who have been complaining about TRS and also Temasek Review when it first made its appearance, and demanding those websites to be shut down. But on the contrary I find that websites like TRS and (the now) TRE should exist because it would give the authorities and intelligentsia a reliably raw picture of heartlander sentiment - no matter how intelligible or irrational it may be.
But it shouldn't be left at that. I think that outlets like TRS have an additional responsibility to reinvent its image and mission statement by trying to ask writers from TOC or whichever to contribute editorials in simple English and simple concepts to issue replies to especially popular articles that are specially geared towards informing their readers on whatever they are complaining about.
We can agree to disagree; let's move on.
回春 & Davin