Several people have contacted us to say they had their accounts at the Guardian put on moderation within minutes of it starting its “live” coverage of Putin’s speech.
From what we have been told this looks like a pre-emptive bid to silence known “putinbots”, since the moderation was done before those affected had attempted to make a comment. One person had their account pre-moderated in their absence, having not visited the paper since yesterday, the 27th.
If anyone else encountered this bizarre situation please let us know.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Managed to get zapped by quoting the flat lining of historical RSS satellite temperature records (a matter of public record). It would appear that dissent from any published view of The Guardian is no longer tolerated irrespective of its ‘peer reviewed’ accuracy. Despite this, shrills who shout down serious posts with a torrent of abuse and vitriol are tolerated. What a topsy-turvy world.
U bet they are I cant even log on anymore.
Unfortunately, the “Putinbot” slur is now beginning to appear on some of the better websites, such as this example which was taken from an exchange I had with an obvious Guardian Reader over at The Intercept. I have edited the exchange for brevity. Needless to say, it was a dual pleasure to be able to slam this moron and publicly expose The Guardian at the same time.
Whendovescry ↪ Gina
Sep. 30 2015, 4:27 p.m.
“Imperialism is exactly what Russia rejects.”
LOL!Tell that to the residents of “Novorossiya”. I mistook you for a leftist a moment ago, buy you are clearly a putinbot.
Brad Benson ↪ Whendovescry
Sep. 30 2015, 6:33 p.m.
Take your “Putinbot” nonsense back to the juvenile sites where it belongs. This isn’t AOL, Salon or The Guardian. It is an adult site. If you have a dispute with something that someone here says, make your argument as to why that person’s statement is wrong or otherwise be silent. This “Putinbot” bullshit is disruptive and adds no redemptive value to the discussion. Grow up.
Whendovescry ↪ Brad Benson
Sep. 30 2015, 6:50 p.m.
Do Putinbots dream of electric sheep?
I’m almost certain Gina is a Putinbot, probably you too “Brad Benson”. Hey I’m not judging, got make a ruble somehow, practically the only job left in Russia.
Brad Benson ↪ Whendovescry
Sep. 30 2015, 6:56 p.m.
…and I’m not judging either, since it is pretty obvious that you’re a moron.
Citing the Guardian proves my point about you as made elsewhere. If you are getting information from the Guardian, you will be left without an argument. As I said before, grow up.
Whendovescry ↪ Brad Benson
Sep. 30 2015, 7:23 p.m.
On the off chance that you are not a putinbot, please explain why you believe an ex-KGB spook turned President-for-life, whose critics all seem to meet with unfortunate ends, wouldn’t engage in propaganda?
Brad Benson ↪ Whendovescry
Sep. 30 2015, 9:00 p.m.
On the off chance that you are not a moron, I’ll note that I have never made any claim that Putin does not engage in propaganda. What I did say is that there are people out there that recognize the difference between propaganda and truth, regardless of which side is engaged in the message manipulation. Right now, it is the West, which has manipulated the message in regard to the Ukraine and Syria.
We also continue to try to manipulate the message about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, et al. A simple reading of the speeches at the UN General Assembly by both Obama and Putin should give you a pretty good idea about who is lying the most right now. I’ll give you a hint. It’s not Putin.
Putin is most probably a liar and a propagandist. He may also be a war criminal. That does not mitigate the fact that the US is now a criminal national security state engaged in numerous conflicts around the globe on behalf of its corporate interests. As such, the last two Presidents and their minions are most certainly War Criminals and would not fare well if they were suddenly shipped off to The Hague to account for their crimes.
michael ↪ Whendovescry
Sep. 30 2015, 5:33 p.m.
…Putinbot what the hell that…did you think that meme up all by yourself…
Brad Benson ↪ michael
Sep. 30 2015, 6:53 p.m.
This infantile term is now frequently tossed around over at The Guardian’s Website, which has totally destroyed itself since Glenn’s departure. While systematically banning long time members for comments that disputed the official Western Lies citing Putin’s “aggression” in the Ukraine, the Guardian has also published several articles by their editors about the problem of “Russian Trolls” and their efforts to combat them.
Unfortunately, The Guardian’s definition of Russian Trolls is anyone who disputes the official story–especially if they are articulate and can back up their arguments with links to more informative articles on the same subject matter. As a result, their threads are now full of people tossing around complaints about “Putinbots”, but the fools haven’t noticed that all of the “Putinbots” have now been banned for life or that they are preaching to the boot-licking choir, which is all that remains.
Premoderated? hahah never heard of such a thing. I guess it’s pre-thought crime haha. Well I guess that leftest rag has gone full retard.
It never has been a leftist rag it pretends to be the same goes for La Repubblica in Italy it is owned and run by the Huffington post another so called liberal left leaning rag they are part and parcel of the corporate state . Mussolini’s fascist doctrine Lo stato Corporato The Corporate State. Fascism in the west is alive and well sad but true. Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish
You have no idea, do you. All you can say is Lefty. Why don’t you actually have a try at understanding instead of just being a UKIP moron?
same happened to me today,I don’t post often but I don’t shy to point out the obvious pro-israel and anti russian slant of some articles,shame on the Guardian!
All major media are Jewish controlled. What they want is total control of news. After posting a comment on Washington Post—-bang you are banned. No explain into why.
What me bugs me the most is ones that did allow comments but have relinquished that opportunity. I guess the worse is the one that pretends to allow comments.
Yes, I agree. Washington Post banned me too, as there is a very big military push coming by Britain’s and America’s favourite country soon, hence the hysterical deletion of YouTube videos, blogs and comments all over the internet by TPTB, you know who. Many good sources of information have just been napalmed, as they are desperate to stop people becoming aware of what is about to happen before they make their most powerful moves, which they hope will bring about WWIII to fulfill their prophecies.
I got pre-moderated today. Apparently they didn´t like much me commenting on the fact that Jenkins (of all people!) was expressing ideas that, according to them, only a despicable putinbot would express. It was my least confrontational comment, I in fact (yes, with certain degree of irony and cynicism) thanked them and described the column as “an auspicious development”.
The funny thing is that my comment was removed after few minutes, but it was only after I came back in the night that I went into pre-moderation.
It is clear that less and less people buy their biased, warmongering non-sense and they are developing a new modus operandi. Soon they will decide to close the comment section, just like many outlets in America are doing.
I think it’s widely recognised by now that comment is not free, and that dissenting voices are discouraged at the Guardian. That comment is not free is now a given, but quite why is still a mystery. Advertisers should like controversy. Coincidentally, the Independent is now giving more prominence to comments below the line. Maybe they’ve noticed the overenthusiastic moderation at the Guardian and want some of the action. My own account at the Guardian has been disabled for a week now, shortly after I posted a link to Jonathan Cook’s Nazareth blog, while drawing attention to La Nougayrède’s attendance at the Bilderberg beanfeast at the same time as Perle and maybe Petraeus, and musing that connections such as these might help explain why her article that day on Putin and Syria, comparing the former to Pol Pot – it still makes me laugh – was so on message, it had actually managed to be published before the actual message (from Kerry) itself.
This sounds rather sinister. Interested in the update.
Reblogged this on wgrovedotnet and commented:
No big surprise there the Graund is extremely Russophobic.
And is pro-Zionist. You cannot quote the truth about Israel even with quoted sources. My account has been pre-moderated because of that.