Censorship on the Huffington Post

[JamesA1102]

I've recently had several comments not approved over there. All in response to Joe Scarborough's "The Loyal Opposition" column. It seems that other than "I'm a liberal but I love Morning Joe" comments to the article are being rejected.

[Deja Q]

1. I've had some vanish too. Illogical; those posts did NOT violate their terms of use policy.

I know I was a tad crude in one post regarding some entertainer slimeball, because I re-posted it without the dialogue I suspected crossed their line. That one stayed.

For those that do not get posted, I am bemused as to why.

Can't obvious be all that important; I don't remember the topics anymore and it's only prattle on a discussion forum like how everyone else does.

[JamesA1102]

2. I did not violate there terms either

nor did I call Scarborough names. But I did point out Scarborough's hypocrisy in point a finger at the left for vitriol while ignoring it on the right, including some examples of recent comments that Mr. Scarborough made on his radio show.

[Deja Q]

7. Ah. That might have done it. HuffnPuff often has such responses bleeped.

Inciting thought can be a criminal offense over there. :blush:


(I apologize if I was insinuating you had violated their terms or name-called or anything. It was not my intent to do.)

[JamesA1102]

13. Don't worry I didn't think you were insinuating anything nt

[natrat]

3. that place blows,half of the content is ridiculous and insulting garbage

[Deja Q]

9. A lot of people have said the same thing...

And those are direct responses to some celebrity's stupid actions.

Funny how it's okay to say "That celebrity rubbish is not news. Why is huffpiece posting it?" and yet responding to something approaching an actual news article that did not violate their terms of service gets deleted.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I gave it up about two years ago for that reason. nt

[rrneck]

25. And it's slow. It seems

to be so larded with Javascript, CSS and advertising crap it barely functions.

[asjr]

4. I don't go there either. I softly

chastised Arianna and they would not print it.

[TheDebbieDee]

22. I remember reading here on DU several years ago

that Huffington Post censors all references to the sexual orientation of Arianna Huffington's husband.

I think this issue came up in reference to former NJ Governor McGreevey's confessions.

[MetaTrope]

5. Huffington Post? The chosen vehicle for John Edwards' removal from the national scene?

Why even bother with them?

[arthritisR_US]

10. decrying censorship on the Huffington Post is fair but John Edwards removal

from the national scene was his doing, his actions preceded all else, imo.

[MetaTrope]

23. For those who can't distinguish private life from public responsibility, perhaps

[Ohio Joe]

6. Thats not censorship

They are not obligated to post any comments by you and you are perfectly free to make your own site and say what you wish.

[Deja Q]

8. They should put that qualifier in boldface.

Maybe more people will stop posting over there.

They are not obligated to post.

But my inference is that the OP's response to the Huffnpuff article was germane to the topic. On a discussion forum, the least logical thing to do is to delete a message that is directly relevant to the conversation initiated by the article.

Color me confounded.

[Ohio Joe]

14. I agree completely

It is the main reason this is the only political site I visit regularly.

[JamesA1102]

12. You have a point

But why invite comments to an article if you are only going to allow comments that compliment the writer?

[Ohio Joe]

15. I don't know

I'm not supporting their decision, just pointing out it is not censorship.

[JamesA1102]

17. OK maybe censorship is too strong a word

but there is a certain hypocrisy in inviting comments and then cherry-picking only positive ones.

[Ohio Joe]

19. Agreed

Doesn't make for a very good discussion when their is only one side.

[RandomThoughts]

16. So it is not censorship

If the amount of money you have dictates what the public will see.

I guess you do not believe in media being a check on power.

Your argument would also agree that one person, one ideology, or a single group with enough money could control everything in media or on the internet, even if that control maintained there power and control only. Which has the same faults as state owned media of a dictator.

One of the great delusions taught to us is that if it can be bought, it can be used for any purpose. If something has a big social impact, then to some extent it falls under a form of social contract, it then is not just who owns it, but how they use it.

Would it be equally legal to buy the police and use them for an individuals purpose? How about buy the fire department, or health care, and use it to control an agenda. Why not buy a congressmen, if it is your money that gets them elected then should you be able to say, you bought the politician, if you want laws that help you, buy your own politician?

How about a company, if they were owned by one person, should they be completely unregulated and allowed to lie to customers and the public? It is there money that puts out their PR, should they be allowed to act with fraud?

The Ponzi scheme people used there own contacts and money to start and promote there schemes, why is it illegal?

Your argument is heard alot and although it fits what we are taught to believe in unregulated capitalism(monopoly) it is not what is always best for the good of a society.

[Ohio Joe]

18. WTF?

Thats a real nice extrapolation of what I believe based on my pointing out that the OP got the meaning of a word wrong. :crazy:

[RandomThoughts]

21. I was replying to this comment of yours

They are not obligated to post any comments by you and you are perfectly free to make your own site and say what you wish.

I have heard that comment many times. I was saying that in theory private news sources, or internet sites, may be, under social contract, obligated to allow comments that are equally news worthy as there own comment, that could have been blocked due to only having a different POV.

I think your comment has a flaw, it does not fully respond to sites that have an impact on society. It is incomplete.

[Ohio Joe]

24. well...

Since it was in regards to only one site and not all encompassing, it appears to be fine to me.

[depakid]

11. I guess if you watch or promote that show, people aren't going to take you seriously

[snake in the grass]

26. I stopped going there...

...about 8 months ago. HuffPo doesn't have anything to offer and sometimes I find them downright republican.

[ErinBerin84]

27. I read that on Bob Cesca's blog too.

That everyone who was posting comments was having them rejected for some reason...while mysteriously, all these "positive" responses to Joe were up. I smell a rat.