Censorship as a weapon

[EvMetro]

As long as we respect the rights of business owners, of anyone, to edit their websites as they please, I think complaining about censorship is valid and, generally, a good thing...

I agree. I also think people should have a natural curiosity about what this thread would look like if it had not been censored. Do we want to know the truth, or do we want the censored version of it? Were you aware that this very thread, ironically, has been censored?

 

[EvMetro]

Not a bad day for me with today's politically motivated censorship. I've only been politically censored twice today, just two threads. There is still time for more though.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody loves and agrees with site rules more than me. I have no problem with those. My conflict is with seeing them used to justify politically motivated censorship.

Oh hell no. That's a major cop-out -- When we cant delete a post because its FLAME ONLY and no topical content without being called CENSORS????

Your problem is not understanding that 80% of post deletions are for either

--------- Being entirely flame and not honoring the topic at ALL OR

--------- Being the beginning or continuation of derailing a thread and WAAAY off topic.

The other 30% are for "call-outs" by name outside the TAUNTING forum -- OR
Use of the 3 types of banned FLAME being "family. bestiality or pedophilia -- OR
Any of the OTHER "site-wide" rules.

NO POST is ever deleted simply for "partisan bias". No wiggle room in the USMB patented "Simple Ass Rules" for ANY moderator to do that.

YOU have an issue with "civil discussion" zones being offered as an option.
YOU have an issue with not being able to swings at people without referencing the SPECIFIC topic of the thread.
YOU have an issue with not allowing ANY member to be called a pedophile.

Your ISSUES are with the RULES -- not the moderation.

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree. I also think people should have a natural curiosity about what this thread would look like if it had not been censored. Do we want to know the truth, or do we want the censored version of it? Were you aware that this very thread, ironically, has been censored?

You want to tangle with the FACTS -- let's roll. You're entirely FULL of 2 things -- the most irritating one is DRAMA. Here's the moderation log for THIS THREAD.

Censorship as a weapon - Moderator actions

Moderator	Action	Date
flacaltenn	Post removed from public view (reason: deleting illegal post)	Yesterday at 3:30 PM	View
flacaltenn	Post removed from public view (reason: no call outs in Zone 1)	Yesterday at 3:12 PM	View

If ya want to see the posts -- PM me. But dont bother with the 2nd one because Call-outs and alert pages from Zone 1 threads are NOT allowed.

So much drama and spare time. Maybe you need a job somewhere protecting free expression and see what hell happens when people cant even allow a site to keep people from calling each other pedophiles or attacking their families. Or to WRECK topics on the 1st page before any discussion is possible.

 

[flacaltenn]

EvMetro -- dont bother PM'ing me. I'll give you the ENTIRE DELETED post that was item one in the moderation log for this thread. HERE IT IS - PLEASE POINT TO THE PARTISAN POLITICAL BIAS in the content.

Chief sitting bullshit artist!

 

[flacaltenn]

I certainly don't know who the site owner is, and I don't know if he has any idea what goes on here.

As per the usmb site rules:

All members and staff have the right to their own ideas, beliefs and faiths. Members have the RIGHT to constructively express these on USMessageBoard.com with equal respect and consideration.

AND --- ????? What do you expect from a site that EXISTS to host free expression? What do you think "the right to constructively express" entails? Is it the CONSTRUCTIVELY part that ails you cry baby? What's the opposite of "constructively"?????

Did U also just gloss over the part about "with equal respect and consideration"??? That's how free expression SHOULD roll. Not with flaming troll wars and wrecking every unique topic into the same horseshit partisan hypocrisy auction and name-calling.

 

[EvMetro]

Oh hell no. That's a major cop-out -- When we cant delete a post because its FLAME ONLY and no topical content without being called CENSORS????

Part 1, the act of censorship:
Deleting posts is textbook censorship. Once you've deleted a post, you've censored something, which means you are now a censor. You've made a subjective decision that a member's idea needs to be removed from public view, in spite of the site rules that say:

"All members and staff have the right to their own ideas, beliefs and faiths. Members have the right to constructively express these on USMessageBoard.com with equal respect and consideration."

Part 2, Justifying the censorship:
In this scenario, you've used your subjective opinion of what sounds like flaming to justify it. Flaming of course, is just how our opponents sound to us. Every member here knows political discussion is trolling and flaming. Every lefty on this site sounds like he is flaming or trolling to me, but that is my subjective opinion. I'd certainly rather hear these lefties trolling and flaming me than having their ideas censored.

Your problem is not understanding that 80% of post deletions are for either

--------- Being entirely flame and not honoring the topic at ALL OR

--------- Being the beginning or continuation of derailing a thread and WAAAY off topic.

The other 30% are for "call-outs" by name outside the TAUNTING forum -- OR
Use of the 3 types of banned FLAME being "family. bestiality or pedophilia -- OR
Any of the OTHER "site-wide" rules.

Subjective censorship, all of it. Citing site rules for subjective censorship is conflating rules with censorship.

NO POST is ever deleted simply for "partisan bias". No wiggle room in the USMB patented "Simple Ass Rules" for ANY moderator to do that.

Bullshit.

YOU have an issue with "civil discussion" zones being offered as an option.

More bullshit. "Option" is the corrupt euphemism here. The safe zone that "protects" the racism forum eliminates the option for normal uncensored political discussion. There are not two racism subforums with one being an option. There is only one, and it is absolutely poisoned with anti white racism and local usmb politics.

YOU have an issue with not being able to swings at people without referencing the SPECIFIC topic of the thread.
YOU have an issue with not allowing ANY member to be called a pedophile.

My issue is with politically motivated, subjective, and revenge censorship.

Your ISSUES are with the RULES -- not the moderation.

I am the site's biggest fan of a good set of rules, which is why I don't break them. My favorite rule is this one:

"All members and staff have the right to their own ideas, beliefs and faiths. Members have the right to constructively express these on USMessageBoard.com with equal respect and consideration."

 

[EvMetro]

AND --- ????? What do you expect from a site that EXISTS to host free expression? What do you think "the right to constructively express" entails? Is it the CONSTRUCTIVELY part that ails you cry baby? What's the opposite of "constructively"?????

Did U also just gloss over the part about "with equal respect and consideration"??? That's how free expression SHOULD roll. Not with flaming troll wars and wrecking every unique topic into the same horseshit partisan hypocrisy auction and name-calling.

The "constructive" part is what gets exploited by censors. This exploitation is what destroys the free expression. Censorship is the exact opposite of free expression.

 

[EvMetro]

EvMetro -- dont bother PM'ing me. I'll give you the ENTIRE DELETED post that was item one in the moderation log for this thread. HERE IT IS - PLEASE POINT TO THE PARTISAN POLITICAL BIAS in the content.

Not sure who posted that chief sitting bull, but it doesn't look like it NEEDS to be deleted. It looks like somebody's idea that made sense at that time. This is a political site, so it is absolutely LOADED with this typical type of post. If it had not been censored, life would go on and the post would fade away into history. I'm pretty sure I was censored on this thread too.

 

[EvMetro]

You want to tangle with the FACTS -- let's roll. You're entirely FULL of 2 things -- the most irritating one is DRAMA. Here's the moderation log for THIS THREAD.

Censorship as a weapon - Moderator actions

Moderator	Action	Date
flacaltenn	Post removed from public view (reason: deleting illegal post)	Yesterday at 3:30 PM	View
flacaltenn	Post removed from public view (reason: no call outs in Zone 1)	Yesterday at 3:12 PM	View

If ya want to see the posts -- PM me. But dont bother with the 2nd one because Call-outs and alert pages from Zone 1 threads are NOT allowed.

What does zone 1 have to do with this thread?

So much drama and spare time. Maybe you need a job somewhere protecting free expression and see what hell happens when people cant even allow a site to keep people from calling each other pedophiles or attacking their families. Or to WRECK topics on the 1st page before any discussion is possible.

I can't imagine why we would want to protect pedophiles from being labeled in public. The lefty pedo problem is a big thing in the current political landscape, so protecting pedophiles from being publicly identified is partisan protection. We should be shining a huge spotlight into this dark place, not protecting pedophiles.

 

[flacaltenn]

Part 1, the act of censorship:
Deleting posts is textbook censorship. Once you've deleted a post, you've censored something, which means you are now a censor. Yo

You're hedging all over the place. You say you like rules. Ours are clearly spelled out. But you refuse to discuss the simple rules that mandate what we CAN delete. Certainly people on BOTH SIDES of your silly partisan tribal wars would be SCREAMING if we didn't control the flaming and the thread hijackings. Because even tribal warriors want their topics to be discussed and "troll-free". And you continue to make an asinine equality between DELETING ANY POST and censorship,

Until you can verbalize the ISSUES with the rules concerning post deletions -- all ya got is soap box and super-hero outfit pretending YOU are defender of free speech.

YOU CLAIMED this thread was heavily censored and members needed to wonder what it would be like if it wasn't. Which of TWO mod actions I showed you for this thread is "censorship" in your strange mind? There's been no censorship in this thread.

Not going thru the brambles on generalizations and painfully repetitive rhetoric until we CHAT about what conditions JUSTIFY post deletion on a message board and WHAT THE RULES SHOULD BE.

 

[flacaltenn]

The "constructive" part is what gets exploited by censors. This exploitation is what destroys the free expression. Censorship is the exact opposite of free expression.

NO. We create the minimal environment CAPABLE of supporting CONSTRUCTIVE free expression. Would you like us to take 3 or 4 days on staff snipe hunting retreat and demonstrate what a DESTRUCTIVE environment looks and feels like? Where free expression gets SNUFFED by just noise and brawling? I think that might be useful to educate you about how people (not moderators) can destroy free speech.

Horrors you never even imagined in your super-hero career would occur. Particular the morning after the first night that YOU put an end to what YOU think is censorship. You'd wake up to a board absolutely decimated by DOZENS of Asian/Russian spammers cluttering the listings of EVERY forum. And the RETURN of banned folks who contributed NOTHING to "free speech" and were just here to brawl or troll or graffitti the boards. WE CENSOR those people. The ones who are DESTRUCTIVE to the minimal environment capable of supporting free speech for EVERYONE else.

OR you could just read the WOKE news about the chilling of free speech at Berkeley.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The "constructive" part is what gets exploited by censors. This exploitation is what destroys the free expression. Censorship is the exact opposite of free expression.

Can you show me where in the rules USMB mods are not allowed to remove posts that violate site rules?

You do know if you dont like these site rules, nobody is making you stay? You're welcome to go to one of many other political forums. Let me give you a hint: I've been on political forums since before 9/11. After 13 years I found this place and haven't left. If you think USMB censors you, you should try policialforum or politicalcrossfire. You wouldn't last 24 hours. You call someone a pedo there you don't get a temp ban, you get a perma-ban.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not sure who posted that chief sitting bull, but it doesn't look like it NEEDS to be deleted. It looks like somebody's idea that made sense at that time. This is a political site, so it is absolutely LOADED with this typical type of post. If it had not been censored, life would go on and the post would fade away into history. I'm pretty sure I was censored on this thread too.

How MANY REPLIES in Kind to that one post would it take to hijack your thread into a pissing contest? I need a number.

We IGNORE NONE by the rules so that we DONT have DISCRETION on which "all flame posts" we delete. AGAIN Super-Sleuth -- YOU have a rule problem- NOT a censorship problem.

IF moderation IGNORES ONE POST that is all flame and no topic and NOT others -- THAT would lead to bias for sure.

 

[flacaltenn]

What does zone 1 have to do with this thread?

I can't imagine why we would want to protect pedophiles from being labeled in public. The lefty pedo problem is a big thing in the current political landscape, so protecting pedophiles from being publicly identified is partisan protection. We should be shining a huge spotlight into this dark place, not protecting pedophiles.

Because YOU are not a judge of which anonymous members are ACTUALLY pedophiles and there IS a rule tossing OUT just the 3 NUCLEAR flames -- which include accusation of pedophilia. Those 3 were chosen instead of ANY RANDOM LIST OF FLAMES that a PARTICULAR moderator doesn't like.

THAT would lead to bias and give moderation powers they DO NOT WANT. We are not child abuse investigators. Thank God,

 

[EvMetro]

You're hedging all over the place. You say you like rules. Ours are clearly spelled out.

Yep, I love the rules, that's why I follow them.

But you refuse to discuss the simple rules that mandate what we CAN delete.

"Manate that we can" is a ridiculous oxymoron. Nobody is mandated to enforce rules, but this thread is not about enforcing rules anyway. This thread is about exploiting the rules to justify political, unnecessary, or revenge censorship. The exploitation of the rules are what you don't want to talk about.

Certainly people on BOTH SIDES of your silly partisan tribal wars would be SCREAMING if we didn't control the flaming and the thread hijackings. Because even tribal warriors want their topics to be discussed and "troll-free". And you continue to make an asinine equality between DELETING ANY POST and censorship,

Deleting a post is textbook censorship. Exploiting the rules to justify insidious censorship is even more corrupt.

Until you can verbalize the ISSUES with the rules concerning post deletions -- all ya got is soap box and super-hero outfit pretending YOU are defender of free speech.

I love the rules. My conflict is with seeing them exploited to justify insidious censorship.

YOU CLAIMED this thread was heavily censored and members needed to wonder what it would be like if it wasn't. Which of TWO mod actions I showed you for this thread is "censorship" in your strange mind? There's been no censorship in this thread.

Both. Either one. There are at least two acts of censorship. Neither one was necessary. One of them claimed a deletion because of safe zone 1 rules, when it is in zone 2.

Not going thru the brambles on generalizations and painfully repetitive rhetoric until we CHAT about what conditions JUSTIFY post deletion on a message board and WHAT THE RULES SHOULD BE.

This thread is not about the rules, it is about censorship, and the exploitation of the rules to justify it.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Manate that we can" is a ridiculous oxymoron. Nobody is mandated to enforce rules, but this thread is not about enforcing rules anyway. This thread is about exploiting the rules to justify political, unnecessary, or revenge censorship. The exploitation of the rules are what you don't want to talk about.

Oh -- you love rules but you're against ENFORCING them uniformly and consistently. Got it !!!!!



You'll have a very hard time proving the bias claim. Most all moderators get beat up weekly by the Left and the Right. Most of us get accused of being aligned with BOTH SIDES within the same week: A sign that we're doing this without bias. And that's the ONLY outcome of rules that DO NOT GIVE USMB moderators the DISCRETION of adding their political bias when they are acting as mods.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to HAVE a rogue moderator go undetected and we have unfortunately had to cut ties with a couple that DID lose some cred on that bad habit or other bad habits. EVERY mod action -- going back to the BEGINNING of USMB is reviewable today. We can see EVERY deletion, EVERY thread move, EVERY closure and move and thread ban. We can review ANY warning that's ever been issued. And often -- maybe 10 to 15% of the time -- mod staff review overturns a marginal decision on an action.

We can even see the edit history of EVERY post. SO -- when bias is ALLEGED, it's a simple matter of retrieving the facts and evidence. And THAT'S WHY -- there's a rule against posting discussion of SPECIFIC moderator actions in PUBLIC. Because we want to protect the privacy and NOT EMBARASS any member who asserts that there was "bias" in that action, by showing the AUDIENCE exactly what they posted or under what Zone rules it was posted or whether there was a ban or other penalty attached or whether they IGNORED one of those red mod messages that YOU THINK is tyrannical. It's not a review that SHOULD give the whole membership gawking privileges.

 

[EvMetro]

Oh -- you love rules but you're against ENFORCING them uniformly and consistently. Got it !!!!!

Cute, but the harder you fight differentiating exploiting the rules from enforcing the rules, the weaker your debate looks.

You'll have a very hard time proving the bias claim. Most all moderators get beat up weekly by the Left and the Right.

Very difficult indeed when the mods are shielded from discussing specific actions. I can make the case though.

Most of us get accused of being aligned with BOTH SIDES within the same week: A sign that we're doing this without bias.

Fallacy

And that's the ONLY outcome of rules that DO NOT GIVE USMB moderators the DISCRETION of adding their political bias when they are acting as mods.

Fallacy. You are not differentiating enforcing rules from engaging in politically motivated censorship.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to HAVE a rogue moderator go undetected and we have unfortunately had to cut ties with a couple that DID lose some cred on that bad habit or other bad habits. EVERY mod action -- going back to the BEGINNING of USMB is reviewable today. We can see EVERY deletion, EVERY thread move, EVERY closure and move and thread ban. We can review ANY warning that's ever been issued. And often -- maybe 10 to 15% of the time -- mod staff review overturns a marginal decision on an action.

We can even see the edit history of EVERY post. SO -- when bias is ALLEGED, it's a simple matter of retrieving the facts and evidence. And THAT'S WHY -- there's a rule against posting discussion of SPECIFIC moderator actions in PUBLIC. Because we want to protect the privacy and NOT EMBARASS any member who asserts that there was "bias" in that action, by showing the AUDIENCE exactly what they posted or under what Zone rules it was posted or whether there was a ban or other penalty attached or whether they IGNORED one of those red mod messages that YOU THINK is tyrannical. It's not a review that SHOULD give the whole membership gawking privileges.

Sounds like some euphemism and a whole lot of power. No wonder it gets exploited.

There really is something worth discussing here, but I don't know if it is possible if you refuse to differentiate and acknowledge the difference between censorship that is justified by exploiting the rules from censorship used in enforcing the rules.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no bias in identifying and removing flame only posts.
There is no bias in identifying and removing posts that do not have "topic specific content".
There is no bias in stopping jerks from hijacking thread topics.
There is no bias in keeping threads organized in the proper forum.
There is no bias in asking that thread topics/titles get started cleanly and without inflammatory, profane language or "pet names".

THAT -- is how the rules are limited by design. With NO power to MAKE political interpretations or insert personal bias. And WHY FOLKS flock here after being exposed to the capricious and arbitrary moderation at OTHER messages boards. Go start you own and DISCOVER the diff between CONSTRUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE - free discussion.

I'm here because I got banned from another message board that was run as a exclusive social club. That was 11 or 12 years ago. Because I dared to challenge the views of the "old-timers" with facts and evidence.

In a few years -- you'll be dealing with our AI replacements and wont even GET discussions on bias and censorship with a staff.

 

[EvMetro]

There is no bias in identifying and removing flame only posts.
There is no bias in identifying and removing posts that do not have "topic specific content".
There is no bias in stopping jerks from hijacking thread topics.
There is no bias in keeping threads organized in the proper forum.
There is no bias in asking that thread topics/titles get started cleanly and without inflammatory, profane language or "pet names".

The problem with refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between exploiting the rules and enforcing them is that you are either too ignorant to know that there is a distinct difference, or you are evading the truth in hope that it goes away.

Even altruistic enforcement of rules for the benefit of the community is subjective and flawed, but exploitation of rules absolutely can and DOES happen as well. There are TWO very real ways that mods can and DO use their authority.

1. Altruistic enforcement of rules for the benefit of the community, including fixing "mistaken" thread placement and eliminating malicious spam from outside the community.

2. Exploitation of the rules to get revenge or to forcefully give one's own agenda the upper hand.

Until you can set aside your strong subjective bias and desire to promote the notion that item 1 is all that exists in this community, you are not engaged in objective discussion. When you are able to acknowledge that item 2 does in fact exist, you can then make intelligent arguments about what is really going on in this community. This denial that item 2 exists is juvenile and ignorant.

THAT -- is how the rules are limited by design. With NO power to MAKE political interpretations or insert personal bias.

Where there is power, there will be corruption.

And WHY FOLKS flock here after being exposed to the capricious and arbitrary moderation at OTHER messages boards.

Fallacy. A murderer who murders fewer people than other murderers do is still a murderer.

Less admin corruption IS better than more corruption though.

In a few years -- you'll be dealing with our AI replacements and wont even GET discussions on bias and censorship with a staff.

Algorithms can be just as corrupt as those who write them.