Why do BSL online sites block feedback?

 Argument for preventing feedback

Privacy Concerns: By preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites, users can maintain their privacy and avoid potentially harmful or unwanted comments.

FACT: 80% of BSL sites DON'T use sign language to write own  posts.  The claim all deaf are bilingual is unproven, even opposed.

Accuracy of Information: Allowing unfiltered feedback could lead to inaccuracies in sign language translations or information shared on the site, which could be misleading to users.

This means any challenges, or statement of real facts, can be blocked and the poster banned, if this undermines their 'message'. Only 1% of the deaf community has a qualification in BSL.

Respect for Diversity: Preventing feedback can help create a safe space for all users, especially those who may be more vulnerable or sensitive to negative comments.

Deaf BSL diversity is to discriminate, if you don't sign, you don't get in, and has nothing to do with inclusion or listening to others.

The argument against preventing feedback:

Accessibility and Engagement: Feedback can enhance the user experience by allowing for interaction, collaboration, and learning opportunities among users of sign language on the site.

Improvement and Growth: Constructive feedback can help site administrators and users make necessary improvements, updates, and corrections to the content and services offered.

Community Building: Feedback can foster a sense of community and connection among users of the site, promoting inclusivity and mutual support.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites may have some benefits such as privacy protection and maintaining accuracy, allowing feedback can also promote accessibility, engagement, improvement, growth, and community building. 

It is important to strike a balance between ensuring a safe and respectful environment while also encouraging participation and fostering a sense of community among users. Ultimately, the decision to allow or prevent feedback should be carefully considered based on the specific goals and needs of the site and its users. [BSL-Only?]

And Today's survey is?

Answer the BSL questions and win £100, easy isn't it!  Once again the RNID has loaded survey questions to trawl the BSL community for complaints so they can launch another campaign.  5 major questions were almost entirely about the BSL user, not other deaf or hard of hearing. It is hugely disappointing that the RNID again has used BSL as leading part of hearing loss awareness, and again, blurring the differences between deaf and others with hearing loss with this minority BSL community, which is a major contention of disputes regarding what awareness is about or even for.  

As regards to BSL questions, the RNID appears to display poor awareness of how this 'community' actually functions, campaigns or operates.  Most don't integrate or include themselves with mainstream things or people, and wouldn't if they could, they will obviously insist this is because society is ignorant of their needs, makes no  effort with them and cannot sign.  Does the RNID really need a survey that will state the obvious?   Why has the focus of the RNID gone back to sign users only again?  This is the BDA's issue, and they, DON'T include other deaf or hard of hearing, why do their work for them?

Despite no RNID/BSL members of note and a never-ending historical gripe from BSL using deaf the RNID dumped the only sign using CEO the charity ever had, because he had no idea what inclusion meant and treated the RNID charity as his own private deaf club to the detriment it was alleged, of the majority of the RNID Hard of Hearing membership.

What the survey didn't ask, were the real questions as to why insufficient efforts are being made to compromise with mainstream regarding a willingness to really engage.  All we read are demands for mainstream to change to suit them, and relentless 'blame' aimed at them. The every first thing anyone with hearing loss would do is to tell people what works for them, a high percentage of mainstream people WILL attempt to include, but, a high proportion of those with deafness and loss won't SAY what works for them, or, opt for a system that doesn't really work effectively for them to offset how serious their communication issues really are. 

Insert the question do you REALLY know what format works for you? or maybe 'When  using the NHS have YOU been offered signed support you never use?' or even 'Has the NHS every offered you communication alternatives e.g. text, etc?'  Ask the right questions RNID.