What “community standards” did these comments breach? #24
The following comments – sent in to us by a reader – were censored by The Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did they breach?
Removed comments, posted under the “Politics Live Blog” on December 5th 2019:
(This one was more than removed, it was deleted without a trace).
…and another from December 9th:
…aaannnddd the gaps where they used to be:
So: Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” did these comments break?
- Do they “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”?
- Are they “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”?
- Are they “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”?
- Are they “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”?
- Are they “extremely offensive or threatening?”?
- Are they “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”?
- Are they not “relevant”?
If none of the above – why were they 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 [email protected], and send us screen caps if possible
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
why bother moaning about the looks and smell of dung.
dung of the khazar kind is not good for the soils or the soul
no sir
best avoided already
non semite donkey khazar dung can never be changed.
it’s revolutionary satanick dna can never be altered it is a curse on the human race.
the guardian is baked into the name and what of the eyes wide shut owners
these demons soul fishers of men
even here hare here moderation is very active moon alabama word deletions and blockage for the mildest of things.
journalists are hacks bad scripted actors the ugly version of weinstein spielberged hollyweird
thats the dung cake fully baked it is what it is
is it not already
???
”Moderation” = Attempted Intimidation / Suppression of Free Speech. More often than not.
Eerily to me.
Have been “moderated” on the good Ambassador’s site for the last 12 months.
#FreeAssange #ToriesOut
….0056hrs 11.12.2019.
As expected, having been moderated on the brave Craig Murray’s site, now to my utter chagrin (irony alert) once again find that my perfectly non-contentious comment missing-deleted-absent-no longer there.
I know it’s not Craig doing the modding-deleting (because he would tell me and he’s too important to acknowledge who is controlling his blog-media site).
Craig, if you can spare 20 seconds of your attention, suppression and censorship are not a great look.
Anyone else been banned by this paragon?
Molloy, I too have issues with the Good Laird. I didn’t mind too much being occasionally “moderated”, but I did object when his – anonymous and totally unaccountable “moderators” put me on pre moderation and without notice for disobedience. (Not for abuse.)
I wrote some stiff e-mails to complain and even wrote to his highness. He did not condescend to respond.
Murray complains loudly when he is moderated by the Guardian, but is quite happy to have his goons moderate his own readership when they don’t toe his line.
Yes. Even poor Craig Murray has “moderator” problems.
viz…. (today):
“Dungroanin
December 10, 2019 at 12:13
Excellent getting the Blairites outed before having to appoint him to the Cabinet next week. – bye bye Ashy.
Now when exactly did he have that conversation ( focus group!) with his TORY friend??
And just as the main issue of the campaign the NHS hits centre stage.
Very very spooky!
Send in the next traitor!
Molloy
December 10, 2019 at 12:34
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Ashy”? Many thanks.
Molloy
December 10, 2019 at 12:36
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Ashy”?
“ (end of copy comment on cm site)
Since learnt that someone called “Ashworth” is soon to be sent back to the Tories!!!
My comment was pretty clear in the context of the ‘news’ of the Guido reveal. What was your problem?
For the record I have had several instances of comments deleted there.
Craig is a busy chap by all accounts- i don’t expect replies from him. When he doest reply there it is to deal with trolls.
FYI. Frequently on the Craig Murray website. The “problems” are paranoiac false accusations, effectively gaslighting (CM has form for this too, copies of emails to me) by so-called moderators taking on the role of ‘controlled opposition’.
Also the pretence that there is openness and free speech. i.e. not being suppressed and (as was) often passively-aggressively silenced by a ‘moderator’, usually a shill whose wages are paid by the corporate powers that be. Or, quite possibly, according to CM, the UK state.
In fact. All posts by me are now deleted by CM. (Shrugging my shoulders whilst putting spiteful behaviour down to pique and embarrassment.)
Hope this comprehensively answers your rather curious question. “Ashy?” remains unexplained.
The implication that there is expectation and that anybody might ‘expect’ replies from Craig Murray is, well, intriguing. It might be helpful for you, DG, to look at my (occasional but impotent) free speech account on twitter if you’d like further reassurance.
https://twitter.com/hdiauhmloam/with_replies
.
Are you flogging a dead horse?
‘Are you flogging a dead horse?’ – no, just not passively accepting the idea that censorship, or gate-keeping reality is a legitimate response to reasoned argument, especially when compromised platforms like the Guardian apply a phony device such as ‘community standards’ to control any form of dissent they do not approve of.
Perhaps there are even shades of ‘broken window’ theory if this sort of discourse is left unchallenged because it implies censorship is an acceptable means of dealing with opposing points of view (when its not), even going so far to imply that ideas that stray beyond Guardian orthodoxy are somehow unacceptable, even dangerous.
BTW what motivates ‘moderators’ – are they driven primarily by sycophancy, is it a power trip, or are they just thick as shit?
I just meant that this point has been adequately made. The Fraud has about zero cred but pointing out their high crimes and misdemeanours is more “water is wet” kind of dialogue, to me at least.
Ps I imagine moderators are selected for toeing the party line and they learn that quickly. If honest critical comment escapes censorship they get smacked.
One can imagine a miscreant being slapped around by a star columnists for not meeting stringent moderation quotas – you’ve had your final warning, if you fail again we will make you read one of Jonathan Freedland’s thrilling spy novels !
Perennial myths include Corbyn the nazi / communist / spy / IRA sympathiser.
Then we have the Guardian cheering on the torture of a journalist (led by the ‘hilarious’ Marina Hyde), endorsing regime change wars (supposedly to make the world a better place, even though each invasion produces the complete opposite) or, as we can see from the examples above, refusing to countenance the idea that claims of antisemitism have become little more than a device to deflect attention from worrying levels of apartheid apologia.
And god forbid should any commentator not endorse the idea that highly paid women in the media or entertainment industry are not entitled to least double what they already earn, or notice a sort of indifference towards the fate of women outside the professional class such as those who do the catering or cleaning and are trying to get by on zero-hour contracts or minimum wage.
When it became onvious yesterday that the PM & ‘his’ policies’ are such obvious sham pinnochio puppets and the media personalities are the visible strings – it must be like coming round from a deep dream or a hypnotisation for many – to see what some of us have been screaming about daily, for years.
Did you see a minion at the bbc breaking ranks yesterday?
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler
It appeared early on their politics live page.
Her 8 tweet thread on the tory brexit is concise and cutting.
And in the brouhaha – completely got sunk – and her feed went quiet.
Get Brexit done survives another day! Whether Katya Adlers career at the BBC or any msm does is another question.
———
As for the ICM poll reported yesterday – 24 hours later, their own site has not published it, so no raw data to debunk. What are they hiding?
——-
Monbiot larges it with his limited hangout today – why didn’t you mention it last month or everyday since George?
——–
The mission impossible teamCIA LauraK/Peston/Mair/the pretty heads in the studio/and helpers pulled of another fine caper yesterday behind enemy lines and kept their manchurian candidate standing in a foreign country.
Our country.
———
Marina Hyde does her nicey Jekyll personae – no comments. Crace gets to do mild Corbyn campaign satire to take sime flak instead.
——–
AS? Meh, so much yadayada yay, old news – we’re onto Muslims for Tories in Enochs seat and Hindus against muslim citizenship in India today – Oy Vey so much more fun.
What? WHAT???
Going to be interesting if (as is likely) we end up with a Conservative regime and an Indian nationalist home secretary. Indians will be the new Jews (untouchable) and the points system will see floods of them. Unlike the Poles who took working class jobs, houses, services and benefits, the Indians will take middle-class jobs in IT etc and push up house prices….. I’ll be laughing my ass off.
As others have mentioned elsewhere, it looks like Conservative Central Office and their media lackeys are going into panic mode. The AS bs has lost all traction without any supporting evidence, the story of Peter and the Wolf springs to mind, and apparently Corbyn is greeted by supporting crowds whenever he appears in public. Meanwhile, the Tories are nowhere to be seen, some say because of security fears. As for the Johnson debacle at Leeds General Hospital yesterday…nuff said, apart from it was a disaster.
That’s a first for me on here. Puzzling.
It happens randomly sometimes.
Ah, Ok. Thanks for responding.
Please forgive my multiple posts, but just to add…
Something that has become glaringly obvious over at the Guardian is who is allowed to be critisised for election meddling. The anti-Russia sentiment BTL has been running at a feverish pitch for ages, and posts implying that Russia is at the root of all our electoral roles pepper every political thread. These posts are rarely challenged, and this ‘truth’ just seems to have been accepted by all.
But if you even hint at the possibility that Israel or the Jewish lobby might be wielding electoral influence, then you’ll be lucky if that post lasts even a minute.
And yet, they’re happy to let comments like this stay:
……….as long as they’re from an on message favourite who always gets backing comments from others.
It seems like ‘starting flamewars’ only applies to some.
Fishgirl23 is an incredibly tedious poster, and one that I don’t even bother reading anymore. Her tone is just so shrill and righteous that she has become unreadable. But it seems that she is a favourite for many, and a bit like John Crace, will get the fawning sycophants coming out of the woodwork, eager to pile on the sickly praise. And she’s an unpleasant bully, who will rally the troops against anyone who is seen to oppose her.
And the thing is, I’d actually often agree with the broad points she makes. But the way she goes about making those points is, to me, very off putting.
And I have said on cif that I thought fishgirl unpleasantly shrill, but my comment didn’t last long before being zapped. They are just one of the many posters that I no longer bother engaging with. Life’s too short, and energy must be preserved.
“She’s” a he. When “she” first stated posting in 2015 the grammar was sweary and very male in tone, people called “her” out and in one comment she wrote in terms of “what does it matter what I am”. Anyway s/he is just touting for upvotes, a would be Guardian journal haha.
Tintenfische is another one who loves the sound of their own voice. i pointed this out (quite politely i thought) and had the comment deleted. ho hum
You ain’t kidding.
The Guardian appears to be in complete comment lock-down at the moment. (7:30am)
The live thread had not been opened for comments, and all threads that were open have been closed for comment in the last half hour or so.
Perhaps I jumped the gun a little here. Just found 2 articles open for comments.
10 years ago 75% were open for comments….
Yes, I used to enjoy the comments and learned more from them than the articles (probably something to do with why they limited them). You used to get all sides, from outright nutters to my favourite ‘MAM’ (moveanymountain, an out and out fascist). It was largely unpoliced and very interesting.
Exactly. Frequently some BTL was more interesting than ATL. Now at the Graun both are predictable deep state shite from shepherds and sheep. No wonder they have to (pretend to) beg for money; I don’t even want read that for free, unless I want to know the CIA /MI6 twist on some matter
I think they limited them because the comments interfered with their prime purposes. Propaganda, morning, noon, and night.
Fortunately courageous punters railed and went elsewhere, like here, leaving the Freedlands and Valentis to their own devices.
Well done exposing this nefarious censorship which is going on across all the MSM and social media. The orders have gone out from the ruling elite because that the plebs are restless and there is danger of riots as prosperity falls and the populace gets poorer by the day, especially the younger ones who have inherited this corrupted ‘capitalist’ system based on ever increasing debt and enabled by fiat currencies throughout the world.
As Dr Tim Morgan calculates at his blog, growth is coming to an end and EROEI is now less than 10:1 in most western countries:
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
I think you just have to shrug and give up on the Guardian. Its a pity since it was a fine newspaper with a very distinguished history. I find I can’t read it any more, there’s just nothing of interest in it, the audience seems to be targeted at fairly narrow female demographic with a lot of articles that are ostensibly about women’s rights and stuff but really wouldn’t be too out of place in a 1960s era mass market women’s magazine. Comments, when open, are anodyne — they’re not so much moderated as censored with anything even slightly deviating from the party line being promptly removed.
(Its possible that all this is the logical consequence of demographics and economics. A news organization needs deep pockets to survive these days (bringing the omnipresent danger of titles being bought up and ‘saved’ by an oligarch looking for a bit of publicity, maybe a tax write off and an opportunity to influence). Many papers are running journalism on a shoestring (there’s an article in the Los Angeles Times about this problem just today) so they probably need to power many of their activities using ‘interns’ or at least minimally paid staff. Since the Guardian’s based in London the pool of people who could afford to be there will necessarily be limited to a particular demographic such as university educated women from a prosperous demographic. It would be interesting to probe around to find out if the journalistic tail is really wagging this dog.)
@Martin Usher: “Its possible that all this is the logical consequence of demographics and economics.”
Demographics: the readership are enlightened and like “to shed their light unto the nations”; it disturbs their comfort to think others might be shedding a light of their own.
Economics, follow the money: when the Guardian was cheering the statesmanship of BLiar and the financial wizardry of Gordon QE Brown a representative of Rothschild interests was on the board of Guardian Trust Fund; both Brown and BLiar retired to directorships in Rothschild Carlyle, and confidence man BLiar’s talents made him of value to House of Rotshchild and Goldman Sachs as well. Now that the Guardian is cheering the rape of Libya and attempted rape of Syria, and fantasizing about raping Russia, there is an article on OffG about the Graun’s present owners receiving money from Soros (who is Rothschild’s right-hand-man in U$A).
Well said Vexarb, here, here. It’s time people started recognising these facts and the utter corruption of the deep state run by the Banksters. I have written a book about all this and more which will be published during Q1 2020. A free PDF copy of my manuscript is available by request to: [email protected] – aka Austrian Peter
Anti-radical, anti-workers, mill-owner founders?
Anti-Abraham Lincoln and barely concealed satisfaction at his removal from office?
Anti-suffragette militancy?
Covert but recorded proprietal (CPS) pride in being to the right of its readership?
Rapid supporter of Balfour and promoter of the state of Israel on Palestinian territory?
Vehemently Anti-NHS, loud denigrator of Aneurin Bevan and the Atlee government?
Trump-type attitude to Bloody Sunday (both sides naughty)?
Pro-internment without trial for Irish dissidents?
Generally anti-IRA and pro a strong British military rule?
Actively campaigning against the cases of dissidents like Tisdall and Assange?
Aggressively pro the invasion of Iraq after some faint-hearted initial wavering?
I guess that, for you, I’m there leaving the realm of history and entering the realm of yesterday, so I’ll proceed to my question, skipping Syria, the Ukraine, Putin, and the rest: what “very distinguished history”?
I’m not sure about that. At least, I remember their use of the phrase “IRA Volunteer”, when almost every other news media probably would have said “terrorist”.
I may be wrong, but I go the impression we were supposed to read that as “freedom fighter” (as in “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”).
Nevertheless, militarily-indoctrinated fascists of the past have been known to compare the old Guardian to excrement which they accidentally stood in.
That has to speak well for the paper’s past.
The Guardian’s code of conduct is like policing in Ferguson Missouri: the underlying principle is that the moderator/policemen can do anything he pleases so long as he always shoots to kill.
If a police officer in Ferguson decided to look the other way he would run the risk of being disciplined. Similarly if a moderator at CiF decided that a comment critical of Israel or supportive of Corbyn seemed unexceptionable he would soon be replaced.
Therefore, when in doubt, the moderator removes any comment that the Israeli Embassy or Labour Friends of Israel might object to, knowing that, like the cop in Ferguson who kills black kids, he does so with complete impunity.
The Israeli Embassy has become to The Guardian what the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank is to the Telegraph: a commercial connection too important to be risked by allowing critics, and particularly shrewd and fair critics, to be published.
I suspect that if I commented at CiF to the effect that , as a lifelong socialist I was sick of Israelis interfering in UK politics, the comment would be allowed to stand. Though not without comment.
censorship is always clumsy and self defeating. once these people start censoring, they don’t know when to stop. they become more and more absurd and shred their own credibility and integrity. this is a sign of weakness and desperation in itself. only a few years ago, they got away without the clumsy censorship, hoaxes and smears that are now their standard operating procedure. we should welcome this – give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Bevin, the interference of Israelis in UK politics is as dust in the balance compared to the fact that Rothschild controls Britain by controlling our currency, and through our currency our politicians — has done so for centuries. Modern Israel was founded by British politicians who took over Palestine and created a National Home for the Jews as a favour to “Dear Lord Rothschild”.
I’m not disagreeing with you for a moment, but wouldn’t Rothschilds prefer us to remain in the EU?
Then why was the Telegraph pushing Brexit? Why did banker’s son Camoron lead the Bank of England into China? the only PM since Wilson to refuse a directive from Uncle. The Anglo Zio Capitalists are a Class but not an army under unified command; they fight for advantage among themselves eg, Clinton / Goldman Sachs vs Trump / Sheldon Adelson. The EU$A is already bagged and nestling in the deep pockets of the AZC class; the real big targets now are Iran, Russia and China. Having watched haughty Britannia’s initial disdain of the EU (and her panic when de Gaulle turned her down when she finally deigned to apply) I think Brexit is a minor vanity project (Let’s make Britain Great again). T
I think the real interest of this election drama on the world stage is the startling possibility that a major European country might be led by a real Socialist, the first in 40 years. AZC fear a domino effect: if Britain PLC falls, other EU countries might go Socialist and start looking after their people rather than their rich, pull out of Resource Wars and tax the rich; soon we might be back to a united, prosperous, peaceful Europe with Butter Mountains, Wine Lakes and a competitive Euro. A Corbyn victory would undo four decades of Snatcherism and Rogue-enomics across the Western World as far as Australia. Hence AZC Anti-Spasmism propaganda against Corbyn gone into overdrive.
The Spectator has even pulled out a member of the Israeli parliament to warn British readers: “You thought I would not have the chutzpah to interfere in a British election but I tell you, Corbyn is an Anti-Spasmic. Evidence, what’s evidence? Trust me, I’m an expert.”
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/take-it-from-this-expert-jeremy-corbyn-is-an-anti-semite/
I guess the Barclay Bros , owners of the Torygraph . and of the Ritz, where the anti elitist Farage held his birthday party , would want to leave the EU along with other billionaires, is because I believe there are new tax laws being introduced by the EU shortly , and it’s something they don’t want, like the other gobshite ,DYson telling everyone who was daft enough to listen how great it will be for business once we have left the EU , then moves to Singapore, who just by coincidence just signed a trade agreement with the EU, same as Lord Snooty who moved two banks to Dublin so he can still benefit from the EU, whilst telling everyone else it’s evil and undemocratic (unlike this shithole)
The anti-Semite smear now has all the impact of taunting a schoolmate that his mother wears army boots.
George, if anti-Spasmodic is a busted flush then the AZC have lost the game; because they had no other card to play against Corbyn. Meanwhile the cunning old cove has slyly bypassed their Identity Politics Maginot Line and launched an old-fashioned Socialist attack from the True Left: welfare, free education, free medical services, nationalisation and tax the rich. It’s too late in this election for the Capitalists to call up Dad’s Army and muster the old Capitalist guns: Have these schemes been costed? Where’s the money coming from? Who will create wealth if the rich leave? Why replace cheap, efficient private services with wasteful, inefficient public services? Why vote for an infringement of our Liberties by Corbyn the Dictator?
The Full Brexit has been looking at the Labour Manifesto, and found it not quite as radical as some have portrayed it.For example, contrary to what most people (including me) thought, it does not actually include nationalisation of the railways. Instead, they will just let the franchises expire and not renew them. Apart from this taking years, and not counting as renationalisation, this is pretty much what Roy Hattersley suggested decades ago, and he’s not exactly on the far left.
https://www.thefullbrexit.com/post/inside-momentum-misrepresenting-history-perpetuating-neoliberalism
https://fullbrexit.podbean.com/e/tthe-full-brexit-election-podcast-1
Mike, thank you for that clarification, it is certainly more in line with Corbyn’s bumbling style; nevertheless it is a return to old fashioned British Socialism, as in your mention of Roy Hattersley (though I prefer Harold Wilson as an exemplar of Labour’s style between the 60s and the 80s: blundering, confused but basically good hearted and carrying on the great work of Attlee to the best of their limited abilities. I remember Wilson modesty comparing himself to Nye Bevan in an interview, “You could show Nye a leaf and he would see the forest. But I need the grit.” Corbyn isn’t even a Wilson – more of a Foot – but he is the nearest to that mould we can get today.
I don’t think the Rothschilds are fathomable in human terms.
Couldn’t agree more, I was merely countering the one world order theory
Absolutely.
I just used the opportunity to have a dig at the weird people who control everything today : )