All posts tagged: censored on CiF

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 Editor Weighs in on War on Free Speech

by Kit Katherine Viner has waded into fray, waving a battle standard, The Guardian, she says ultra-po-faced, admits to having a “problem with abuse”. She is lying. Their own shoddy statistical analysis says that 1 in 50 comments is removed, which means 98% of Guardian comments are non-abusive. That is no problem. Of course that implies that every single moderated post on CiF is abusive, which is obviously not the case. That they moderate for opinion and content is well established. Check these moderated comments here, here and here. Just yesterday a reader sent us this comment, which was removed. Hell, we have a whole category devoted to Cif censorship. Do these posts seem “abusive” to you? The Guardian claim that, of their top ten “abused” authors, 8 are women, 3 are gay and 6 are non-white. This statement, never backed up with evidence, is used by Viner to offer up “proof of what we have long suspected”….that CiF is a hot-bed of racism, homophobia and misogyny…in the 2% of comments that require moderation. The …

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.

End free speech and save the minorities! (will anyone really fall for this?)

by Blackcatte The current – and frankly bizarre even by recent standards – Guardian campaign “the web we want” seems to be driven by two main agendas. The first, and probably the major one is the long-simmering plan to “regulate” (i.e. control and censor) free speech on the Web. That the Graun’s effort is part of a co-ordinated new offensive in that department is pretty conclusively illustrated by the fact the ex minister for “equality”, Maria Miller delivered her own diatribe agains the “problem” of internet “abuse” just days after the Guardian’s new campaign took off. The similarity between her invective and that employed by the Guardian’s tame journos puts it beyond question that this is an Establishment-wide move. A concerted plan to use exaggerated claims of “abuse” and its alleged impact on minorities, to mobilise well-meaning liberals in support of internet censorship. In fact, unlike the feeble Apologists at Graun HQ, Miller at least has the guts to pretty much say so out loud: “We need better laws and we need better enforcement. Government …

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

Google: Lost in translation?

by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories about Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an “automated” error which saw its online translating tool convert “Russian Federation” into “Mordor”. Other erroneous translations included “russians” becoming “occupiers” and the name of Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as “sad little horse”. Mordor is the fictional realm in JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows. The error, which Google said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when users converted the Ukranian [sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any ‘evil’ intent, telling The Guardian in a written statement that its translator tool works “without the intervention of human translators”. Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was fixed automatically too, wasn’t it! Down in the comboxes, many took the opportunity to bash Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided to take a shot at the messenger …

Guardian Spikes Own Readers’ Drone Exclusive

by David Parker The drone supposedly shot down in Turkey on Friday, October 16, is Ukrainian, Guardian online commenters revealed exclusively last Monday, outsmarting the world’s press and “military sources” who the paper reported had “said it is likely that it belonged to the Russian military”. And the paper’s response? Discussion was closed within minutes of the posting of a translation showing that the plane was developed at Ukraine’s Zhytomyr Military Institute and produced in large numbers in the Dnipropetrovsk area for missions against pro-Russian forces to the east. Friday’s downed craft had immediately been suspected of being the latest in a series of Russian violations of Turkey’s airspace alleged by the government in Ankara, which has opposed Russia’s intervention in Syria’s civil war on the side of president Bashar al-Assad. Anti-Russia commenters on the Guardian website seized upon the report as evidence of Russian mischief, with one going so far as to suggest that the unarmed 5ft plane should trigger collective NATO military action against Russia in support of Turkey’s right-wing government, an alliance …

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.

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? #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? #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