Censored on CiF, community standards, Guardian Watch, latest
Comments 46

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #14

This comment, written by one of our editors, was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach?

Snapshot of where it was:

hillarycommentremoved1

It should be noted that every single one of the claims made is objectively and provably true.

It’s also interesting to note the title of this article was actually edited after publication – the original title can was “Why Hillary Clinton is so unlikeable”, as can be seen here in this tweet from Deborah Orr:

UPDATE: Deborah’s tweet has been edited after we published this. It now has the same headline as the amended article. We are wondering how this was done?

Anyhow…

  • Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”?
  • Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”?
  • Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”?
  • Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”?
  • Is it “extremely offensive of threatening?”?
  • Is it “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”?
  • Is it not “relevant”?

If none of the above – why was it taken down?

see our archive of censored comments. And if you see any egregious examples of the Guardian censoring its “free” comment sections – email us at editor@off-guardian.org, and send us screen caps if possible

Advertisements

46 Comments

  1. Boris Malden says

    I’ve always made sure that my comments on CiF never breach the community guidelines. I know that I have a very different political perspective to The Guardian, but I think that’s why I comment beneath the line, to provide some balance (in a polite, respectful way). I have never directed a personal comment at another user, or made a personal comment about a journalist or political figure without providing a justification (e.g. “Barack Obama was a bad president, he was at war every day of his 8-year term”).

    However, when my comments started to get lots of recs, they put my account on permanent pre-moderation. Now they block pretty much everything I try to post, even though it never violates the community standards. I find it utterly bizarre that some moderator, presumably someone who calls themselves a left-wing liberal, happily carries out what they must know is just plain censorship. I know I should just make another account or stop using CiF, but I want that person to come face to face with his/her hypocrisy every time they choose not to allow my comment to be published on the website just because they disagree with it ideologically.

    Like

  2. this piece about George Clooney planning a film about the White Helmets got pretty heavily censored BTL

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/20/george-clooney-white-helmets-syria-civil-defence

    my quick count up makes it look like about 10% moderated,

    isn’t that what Romans referred to as ‘decimation’?

    I replied to an adamant White Helmet supporter who was demanding concrete evidence that his saintly hero’s were stooges and I politely posted youtube links to interviews with Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley,

    suffice to say my comment was ‘moderated’ overnight,

    Like

  3. Kaiama says

    Having seen a censored Syria related comment on the Graun tonight from you know who, I eagerly await the #15 episode in this series!

    Like

  4. qryber says

    well, in Serbian media, which is 90% owned or under control of foreigners (Western foreigners!), similar comments do not get published at all…so, from our perspective this is great, since comment was published for a period of time…you can guess, we had Soros sponsored “coloured revolution” in 2000., and neoliberal pro-eu fanatics in power, who go to Embassies of USA, UK, France, Germany on daily basis, for their opinion…

    Like

    • jasonwurtz says

      Now expose the government targeting innocent citizens with military weapons to isolate them, ruin their lives and then try to have them act out criminally. They are using mind control and directed energy weapons (V2K, remote neural monitoring, microwaving, scalar, sound) and gang stalking on innocent citizens. These technologies can’t be seen or traced and the victims are left with little recourse since the attacks can’t be proven. The victims may appear to have mental issues, however it is the technology that is violating their minds and bodies causing voices, hallucinations, time lapses, and multiple other violations. Psychiatry is a hoax, these technologies cause many mental issues. Freedomfchs.net, ICAACT.org, Jesse Ventura’s Brain Invaders youtube, intellihub.com, John Hall’s book Guinea Pigs, Renee Pittman’s (Anne Frank of our times) books and countless victims are trying to expose the truth. The media, politicians, and psychiatry all cover for this and are complicit for this torture taking place for decades remotely in every city. These psychopaths in government need to be exposed and the true terrorists are in government agencies remotely targeting individuals with military technology.
      These technologies violate the minds and bodies of the afflicted persons and are the most egregious violation of human rights perpetrated by the government with your tax dollars. Taxpayers should be demanding their government quit paying for these crimes against humanity on law abiding citizens. No wonder we are broke. Why pay perps sitting at computers screwing with people in their beds and living rooms, these treasonous criminals and agencies need to be exposed and jailed. EXPOSE AND END THE TORTURE AND HOLOCAUST NOW.

      Like

  5. Though I DID link to a few “Off Guardian” pieces back then. Oh well, they can beg someone else for money to keep their “prize winning journalism” then.

    Like

    • Personally I think the reason it was deleted is that it seems irrelevant. Maybe in your head it made sense, but in the eyes of the moderator it seemed meandering and pointless. They might’ve given it the benefit of the doubt if there was a clear message, but as it seemed to be self indulgent sarcasm – and because it referenced Hitler, they thought they’d err on the side of caution.

      Like

  6. MrBrexit says

    Last year my account got banned because I complained that an article about violence against women was sexist. Today another article appeared so I complained about it being sexist again. Immediately banned.

    If I get a chance to support regulation against this newspaper I’m going to do it first chance I get.

    Comment isn’t free on the Guardian. Censorship is Frantic!

    Like

  7. Supreme Allied Condista says

    Oh and a special mention for the Guardian, the British newspaper who did its utmost to make the Republican Party Trump’s by banning me from commenting on their stories from my pro-Condoleezza Rice perspective.

    Yes the “Guardian” that parades itself as a guardian of liberal values helped stick the US with a Trump led Republican Party by crushing any defence of a kinder, gentler US Republican Party under Condi’s leadership.

    So simply don’t believe for one second the sincerity of the Guardian “Tut, tuting” about Trump.

    The Guardian, and the liberal US press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal etc. helped hand the Republican Party to Trump by crushing my pro-Condoleezza Rice, pro-liberal Republican commentary in their comment pages, at the alter of defending their “line” against scrutiny of open discussion.

    Trump’s victory is partly as a consequence of the hypocrisy of so-called “liberal” newspapers who are no such thing but entirely fascist when it comes to crushing free commentary in their own newspaper website comment sections.

    Like

  8. Supreme Allied Condista says

    Yet the election was between the candidates that the Democratic National Committee hoped for and worked for

    DNC support for Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders
    DNC dirty tricks character assassination of Condoleezza Rice instead of encouraging her to run for president

    I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of those now regretting Trump’s election victory world-wide had previously joined in with the character assassination of Condi.

    Neither democrats, nor liberals nor feminists, nor socialists, nor disability-rights campaigners, nor LBGT, nor greens, nor compassionate conservatives worked for Condi to lead the Republican Party.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Supreme Allied Condista

    ESTABLISHED in 2004
    Rice for President Yahoo Group
    “Condoleezza Rice for President. Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web.”
    groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/rice-for-president/info

    Rice for President Video Playlist
    youtu.be/laB7vKvOSv4?list=PLC88B108ED71F35D4

    Like

  9. Kaiama says

    The G currently has 3 anti-Trump articles on the go and the last Clinton article got to ROUND (117) and got closed. My comment about the lack of open Clinton articles got censored (no surprise there).

    Like

  10. Monkeybiz says

    One reason might be the UK’s libel laws. I suspect fear of litigation is behind a lot of decisions to remove comments that make claims about individuals that, even if true and therefore not libelous, might see the Groan dragged through the courts by some vindictive Sue, Grabbitt and Runne (Chambers). Best not leave them up, eh? girls?

    Like

  11. Kaiama says

    With reference to the deleted comment, the OP inferred that he didn’t like HRC because she was a woman, albeit this was very far down the list. This breached the sexism clause of the CiF Community Standards. Not everyone would take the comment that way, but with the weasely legally minded mods, that opening was all they needed.

    Like

    • pretzelattack says

      the op didn’t do that. the op provided a list of reasons people dislike clinton, with no implication that the poster disliked clinton for that reason.

      Like

      • Kaiama says

        The point is that there is NOTHING in the post to indicate that what was written was NOT Kit’s personal opinion. I don’t disagree with your interpretation, but you must undrstand that the comment can be interpreted in way which breaches the CiF standards.

        Like

        • pretzelattack says

          the reference to the article itself, which kit disagreed with. the point of the article is that the opposition to clinton is fueled by misogyny. kit’s point is that it isn’t. somehow misinterpreting the comment to indicate not only agreement with the article’s theme but personal endorsement of it has no basis in any kind of rational interpretation.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Kaiama says

            How can I say this?
            The reason I am here is that I don’t particularly like the Grauniad or believe what it spouts. However, in order to reach your conclusion, you have interpreted Kit’s comment in a particular way. So has the Grauniad interpreted the comment in a contrary way.
            To make it simple
            The article asks why people hate HRC?
            Kit provides a nice list (of totally valid reasons) which the G will have assumed are Kit’s reasons. Then Kit says “Her being a woman is very far down the list”. It’s not too much a stretch to assume that the G interpreted that sentence to mean that Kit hates HRC because she is a woman. We all know that Kit meant this rhetorically, but the G interprets things to it’s advantage (as we all know). So in their eyes, it was correct to censor the comment! I am just providing ONE hypothesis as to why the comment was deleted – I’m not agreeing that the deletion was justified.
            Best chill out.

            Like

    • rabbitnexus says

      Excuse me, but if you have seen the video of her words about this horrible bit of her history, how lease tell us, can you assert this is misunderstood? If you have not seen it, which I suspect is the case, how can you assert anything about it?

      Like

      • Assuming we’re talking about the same video, I’ve seen it. She’s laughing at the fact that the rapist passed the polygraph test which showed to her that polygraph tests are unreliable. She’s not laughing at anything to do with the girl.

        I think she was just “doing her job” (that seemingly she had been reluctant to take on), however, another, more principled person in her situation may have fought for a different outcome whereas she, being extremely ambitious, probably would not have done that. Also, I know that Snopes is not so reliable but I think their explanation in this case sounds reasonable.

        It’s not as if I want to defend her at all as she’s got her finger on the nuclear trigger, there’s a suspiciously high body count among her acquaintance, and she’s a documented criminal beyond potential murders. I guess it is silly for me to say anything about the rape case but I do feel it’s distorted, that’s all.

        I can’t help liking this video of her being taken to task over her email exchange with Sidney Blumenthal by Trey Gowdy, even though I have to admit part of its appeal is the theatrical effect:

        And then there’s this video from James Corbett
        Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity

        Like

    • rabbitnexus says

      Also Snopes are a thoroughly discredited husband and wife team, Clinton supporters (like every other establishment organ) and they happen to be lying as is often the case in this one,.

      Like

  12. chrisb says

    Read the Megan Carpentier article and was astounded that she makes no mention of Billary. That’s what happens when papers employ kids.

    The initial antipathy to Hillary was due to her assumption that she personally had political power when it was her husband who had been elected. Hillary behaved as if she and Bill had stood on a joint ticket, hence the Billary moniker (no joke intended).

    Like

  13. Thelma Follett says

    You wrote recently about the censorship of someone else’s comment on the Guardian. These are not isolated incidents. I was a frequent commentator on “Common Dreams.” My comments were always within the guidelines of civil discourse. Many times, though, they were anti-Hillary Clinton as I consider her a great evil and an unworthy candidate for president. Not too long ago I was barred from commenting as were some others who were long time commentators. Then my mother and sister, whose comments were similar to mine, were barred from commenting. We are rapidly moving into an even more troubling, even more totalitarian American – and probably global – landscape.

    Like

    • That’s very interesting. Progressive media (by which I mean ‘progressive’ media) everywhere is showing it’s true colors. John Stauber’s CounterPunch article about the buying of the progressive movement (http://bit.ly/2dkbE6V) was ‘not’ shrill. Just a few hours ago, I was in a coffee shop in downtown Toronto, on my laptop. I was just flitting around, clicking on my bookmarks willy nilly and I don’t know where it started, but one link led to another until I found myself on the Yes! Magazine website. It’s the creation of David Korten, author of a very good book titled “When Corporations Rule The World.” Amazing isn’t it? People who write books with titles like that would be the last ones in the world you’d expect to be found exercising censorship, and yet, my two online comments (in a dead discussion, so it makes you wonder) to David’s reasonable enough article (part of 1 of 2 parts) titled “The Elephant in the Room: What Trump, Clinton, and Even Stein Are Missing,” were both disappeared. The first comment, at first, appeared. There seemed to be no problem. There was no ‘withheld for moderation’ message or anything like that. So I didn’t bother to track it. The second comment generated a ‘withheld for moderation’ comment, and because I thought I’d blog about the very good article – about which I had some criticisms – later at home, I copied it to my clipboard. Then when I got home and went to the article, I saw nothing at all. There was no sign that any reader activity had taken place in the comment section of this ‘progressive’ website. It’s the weekend, So we’ll see. I blogged about the article anyway. I was only more interested in doing so as a result of this unsettling experience.

      See my blog post titled “The Idea Of A Power Imbalance Between Corporations And Governments Is A Red Herring.” – http://bit.ly/2eG0FDR

      I am immediately alarmed when this disappearing activity takes place. But that doesn’t mean that I immediately know exactly what has happened and I always take into consideration the existence of (invisible, self-appointed) ‘gatekeepers’ (http://it.ly/1AyUpVb0). And crap does happen. Computers and the internet are not perfect. And the fewer an org’s resources, the less flexibility that org has to deal with faulty software and problems that may stem from that. Even human error cannot be ruled out. Which is why I first try to exhaust possible causes that are not nefarious before concluding that my post (or posts) has been disappeared. I remember jumping all over Common Dreams for disappearing my comments, only to learn that they were dealing with attacks and other problems and. And reading their own terms of use and information about censorship (which, note, has changed over time), which, in fairness they take pains to point people to, reveals that they do not censor (for political reasons), period. Or that ‘was’ the case. I think that the wording there was, alarmingly, changed, so make of it what you will. I do note that they have received (and may still receive) funding from George Soros’s Open Society foundation (http://bit.ly/2d5yW1A). The linked-to website in regard to the preceding sentence is clearly owned by rightwingers. Nevertheless, Assuming that it’s list is correct, I would say it’s useful.).

      Like

    • rabbitnexus says

      Long since barred from Common Dreams for political reasons and the Guardian has me barred for many years now.

      Like

      • Sandy Robertson says

        I used to comment on Reader Supported News and was eventually barred because they had promised a discussion about their censorship which never took place, and when I posted on this you can guess what happened. It’s all rather depressing.

        Like

  14. Sorry to post something off-topic, but it’s regarding The Guardian. When I see things like this I wonder if it’s not possible for the alternative media to conduct their own polling, not online but as an ordinary poll. Probably not, but it’s a thought, because I guess most of us regard polls like this as suspicious.

    Like

    • rabbitnexus says

      The best most thorough poll of the candidates was of 50,000 people and was recently done by Anonymous. The results were astounding compared to the other crooked media polls which are of hundreds and thousands cherry picked at best. The same media is NOT going to report such a poll though so you are wasting your time waiting to read about it there. I shall not be a spoiler and tell the results but it is not a poll which is easily questioned either you will see .

      Like

      • Thanks. I was wondering if there was anything like this for the UK, because The Guardian was originally a left-leaning UK paper, so all the Corbyn bashing is particularly disgusting from that publication. That’s why I was asking.

        Like

  15. If you think if freedom of speech and the press are under attack now, wait until the Wicked Witch of the East flies into the WH, it won’t be long before we’ll look back at this time as the ‘Good ol’ Days.’

    The only violation I see is that you were too truthful.

    Like

  16. labrebisgalloise says

    I reckon bringing up the 1975 thing is scraping the barrel and likely to wind up the legal-wise femina-fascists at the Graun, just like a picador at a bullfight. Gloating over the murder of Muammar Gaddafi, which she organised, is surely enough to see her sent down for ever – if the ICC was really what it is supposed to be or if hell actually existed – and plenty enough to exclude her from fitness for the post of POTUS. If the Guardian was really a feminist newspaper, it would be backing Jill Stein; instead it’s part of the conspiracy to make her invisible.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. A Clinton server email released by WikiLeaks shows that at least one Guardian writer acted as a stenographer (“non-political surrogate”) for the Clinton campaign. Jessica Valenti was on conference call with Clinton’s campaign staff to help frame an anti-Sanders narrative that would counter a pro-Sanders Twitter hashtag (#I’mSoEstablishment) that had gone viral.

    Working with bloggers and columnists to write about this from a racial justice and reproductive rights perspective, including a few people who joined us on a call to talk about the “Bernie Backlash” that was unfolding even before his remarks last night—current list is Elianne Ramos, Jessica Valenti (who is writing a column on this as we speak), Jamil Smith, Sady Doyle, Aminatou Sow, Gabe Ortiz, and others

    The Guardian released her article two days later, which dutifully repeated the talking points set up by the campaign staff, without mentioning how or why the article came to be.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kathleen Lowrey says

      Awww shucks. I have read feminist blogs for a long time…. not Sady Doyle too! I feel like I am in one of those horror movies where everyone you run to for succor has been bodysnatched already.

      Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s