All posts filed under: Censored on CiF

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #15

I don’t comment on the Guardian anything like as much as I used to, it has become largely pointless due to the massive and dishonest moderation. But the recent spate of rather retro anti-Russian articles caused me a brief bout of sarcasm under this article, headlined: I thought nothing in Russia could shock me. Then I went to a television broadcast It’s a forgettable book-plug, neck-deep in condecension, telling the story of how – in horrible evil Russia – there’s a person that tells the audience when to clap and when to stop clapping. The fact this is exactly how television all over the world works is not mentioned. I posted the following comment: Natrually, I was immediately called a “putinbot” by the sort of high-minded individuals who, 500 hundred years ago, would have been having epileptics burnt at the stake: Interestingly, when it came time to remove comments, it wasn’t the abusive response that was removed, but the whole section: Anyhow… Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”? Is it “persistent trolling or …

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? Comment removed from “Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton” Snapshot of where it was: 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: Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton? The story goes far back https://t.co/H9gto1bkby — Deborah Orr (@DeborahJaneOrr) October 18, 2016 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 …

What “community standards” did this comment breach?#13

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment removed from ‘’Spontaneity at the expense of truth’: why it’s time for a new debate format snapshot of where it was: 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

What “community standards” did this comment breach?#12

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment removed from ‘The White Helmets leader: ‘We can anticipate the scale of destruction based on the sound of the plane’ snapshot of where it was: The commenter removed the general criticisms of journalists, as he believed that might have been the reason his comment was removed (though we must note the criticism were pithy but general, and did not specify Guardian journalists as a group or as individuals). His revised comment was, however removed for a second time. Interestingly he notes there were other comments about the White Helmets and the US Peace Corps left to stand, and he wonders if it might be his observations about the good quality of Syrian health care that proved unwelcome? 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 …

Guardian deletes 45% of comments BTL to control its Syria agenda

The Guardian wasted no time in further exploiting the al Nusra promotional vid it already splurged on its front pages without bothering to check the source. Hardly was it uploaded to the servers before the Graun was using it as a platform to promote – yet again – the (current) official western narrative on Syria, viz that it’s all about Assad and his Russian allies brutalising civilians and some lovely vaguely-defined “rebels”, and if only they could be made to stop everything would be fine. We have to say “current” narrative because it changes, frequently. Yes, Assad was indeed previously the premier bad guy du jour, but after the failure to get approval for airstrikes against him, the official narrative  started saying ISIS was the problem and no.1 threat to western civilisation, remember? And that remained the line until Russia intervened and started bombing ISIS, which unexpectedly blew that official narrative to bits. Now we have version three, or a reboot of version two. Now suddenly and inexplicably, ISIS has gone from threatening the world …

Censored on CiF: Is this what they mean by “abusive”?

Last night a reader sent us a comment he left on Viner’s article about how censorship is good for free speech. If that is the case then hollowaytoad got “free speech censored” yesterday, and the Guardian moderators got an object lesson in irony. One they are doubtless going to ignore. This comment was posted, as you can see, at 16.38: Within the hour it was gone: Oh, and the author was on pre-moderation: That’s free speech for ya.

Continuing CIF censorship in the service of propaganda

Peter Schmidt, an old-time Guardian reader and CIF commentator, has sent us this glimpse of the continuing suppression of criticism and genuine investigative news reporting by the paper’s CIF moderators. On February 29 the Guardian carried the article “Life after Ukraine: the ‘invisible’ Russian fighters struggling to return to normal” — written by one Georgy Pereborshchikov for Meduza, part of the New East propaganda network Graun joined a couple of years ago. In a CIF thread to that article, Peter had come across the following sardonic comment by BMWAlbert, pointing to the links between the source the Guardian has chosen to use – the Latvian propaganda organ Meduza – and one of the most corrupt and now exiled Russian oligarchs, Khodorkovsky.  We are reprinting it here with a couple of adjacent comments as their placement will help show the subsequent erasure of BMWAlbert’s entry:   An hour after the comment was posted, Schmidt checked back on the thread to discover that CIF moderators had wiped it off the record. There is now no trace of …

BTL Censorship at the Guardian…again

by Kit It seems this blog is now officially totally banned from the comment section of The Guardian. That’s what user Dell3330 found when he posted this link: The comment, left under the latest toxic offering from the Guardian’s network of NGOs and government employees, was to this article. A simple, fact checked, point by point breakdown of the various members of the New East Network. It’s unclear, at least to us, exactly how this comment could be against any “community guidelines”, and yet… Oh well. Many thanks to the hawk-eyed reader who brought this to our attention

Hammond Accidentally Tells the Truth

by Kit Philip Hammond is talking again, lying again, contradicting proven facts again. Pushing an hysterical pro-war agenda again. Demonizing Russia, again. And, again, nobody believes him. Even the Guardian seems lack energy in its reporting of the same handful of lies Hammond et al have been telling for months. Namely that Russia aren’t bombing ISIS, that they are bombing the (entirely fictional) “moderates” 70% of the time. That Russia are inhibiting the peace process, despite the fact that they have been calling for the use of diplomacy for years, and that the most peristant block to negotiation has been the West’s war-cry: “Assad must go!”. That the inscrutable Putin has some master plan, that we simply can’t guess what their plans are for Syria. At moments like this Hammond, and his ilk, seem like programmed automatons rather than people – they have set responses, set behaviours, set language, and can only repeat them endlessly. Regardless of the appropriateness, apparent irrationality or the simple fact that nobody believes them anymore. A simple look at the …

Guardian censors facts BTL

The recent Frankie Boyle article in the Guardian contained his usual mix of dark humour and on-point political satire. However, most people who follow the Syrian situation closely know his summary of the “civil war”, and assertion that “nobody likes Assad”, to be inaccurate. Unfortunately efforts to point this out in the comments were met with the Guardian’s usual response to fact-based constructive criticism: As you can see, Mr Purkayastha’s comment is civil, constructive, on topic and backed up with sources. And yet… Seems like questioning the MSM agenda doesn’t abide by their “community standards”. Thanks to Bill Purkayastha for bring this to our attention. If you have had similar experiences at the Guardian, or any MSM web-site, please let us know.

“They have a cave troll…”

In the ongoing war for human consciousness that is the Guardian’s CiF, accusations of state-sponsored trolldom and of multiple identities operated by a single individual are the currency of debate. In fairness it must be said both sides indulge, though the majority of such accusations do stem from one side – viz those who like to claim that anyone expressing doubts about western/NATO policies must be in the pay of the Kremlin. And indeed this more than slightly paranoid POV seems to be shared by the Guardian moderators themselves. Enjoy the delicious irony then, in the fact one of the few pieces of hard evidence showing just such multiple IDs in operation belongs to two accounts run by avidly, if not aggressively, pro-western identities. Mark Nesop, of the wonderful Kremlin Stooge blog sent us some caps of a recent exchange on CiF between a commenter called “ColinJones2014” and an individual identifying himself as “Omniscience“, who suddenly switches mid-convo into being “GreatMountainEagle“, without breaking the flow of the exchange. Here’s the cap, with the relevant parts …

Guardian on Russia: None of the news that’s fit to print

by Kit The Guardian’s coverage of Russia is, famously, rather petty these days. Petty and confusing and full of conflicting assertions from various people with differing sizes of axe to grind. On the one hand you have Luke Harding interviewing “entrepreneurial” oligarchs and believing every self-serving lie that comes out of their mouth, and on the other you have decreasing poverty statistics portrayed as (somehow) “a bad thing”. And then you have this kind of thing. A non-story, writ large on the front page. Without merit, or analysis, or even sources (save the Guardian itself, you gotta love the way they do that). Nobody really cares – save the half dozen lost souls who patrol BTL on Russia stories making jokes about vodka and polonium. But God fordbid you try and draw attention to the actual news, about Russia, Ukraine and the developments in the chaos out there. As this man did: That link is actually to our site – this story. Thanks for that Jeff, whoever you are – but be warned that links …

What “community standards” did this comment breach?#11

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment removed from ‘The west is too paranoid about Russia’s information war’ snapshot of where it was: Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” did it breach? 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

Greece Eyeing Greasy Squeeze?

Fat & Sugar Tax – an old Troika dream to come true? By keeptalkinggreece.com How much fat has one Souvlaki in pita bread? What’s the percentage of saturated fats in a portion of grilled lamb country style? And how much additional revenues can one triangle of walnuts-phyllo dough soaked in sirup bring to the state? These key questions will have to be answered in painstaking  details, should the Greek government introduce the Fat & Sugar Tax, as the recent scenarios claim. The idea of a Fat Tax was allegedly proposed by the Troika in February 2014 in order to increase revenues and pour hot euros into the empty pots of the Greek state. February 2014 Fat Tax proposal “The technical team of the Troika suggested last week to a top executive of the Finance Ministry to calculate how much revenue would flow to public funds if the fat tax imposed in foods with a high content of saturated fats (butter , cream , milk , cheese , pizza , meat , chocolates , snacks , …

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #10

These comment were censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did they breach? Comments removed from: Fifa’s Sepp Blatter says 2018 World Cup in Russia will… Comments removed from: Russia has more right to Crimea than Britain to Falklands… Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” do they breach? 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 of 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

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #9

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Corrupt, cash-strapped and lacking skill: the Ukraine army Britons come to train Which of the Guardian’s “community standards: does it breach? 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 a “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

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #8

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Is Putin Ill? ‘Everything is fine’ despite cancelled meetings and old photos Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” did it breach? 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 a “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

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #7

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Britain Should Arm Ukraine Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” does this comment breach? 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 a “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

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #6

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Britain Should Arm Ukraine Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” does it breach? 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 a “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

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #5

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Britain Should Arm Ukraine 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 a “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