Censorship over-reach ?

[trimmer21]

[QUOTE=johnjyb;1207879..............that some believe they can force their ideals and beliefs on others to conform.
[/QUOTE]

BINGO!!!!! Besr comment to date....nails it.

[73hunter]

I am not unappreciative of the moderators efforts, but I still believe that we have reached an unfortunate point when the T-word (re-arranging the first 4 letters of Trudeau’s name) results in a thread being removed. Many Canadians are more offended by Trudeau himself.

And re: Gilroy’s thread about the demographics of the OOD show…..we SHOULD NOT be afraid to discuss it. Moderate hateful comments yes, but allow reasonable discussion

[finsfurfeathers]

I am not unappreciative of the moderators efforts, but I still believe that we have reached an unfortunate point when the T-word (re-arranging the first 4 letters of Trudeau’s name) results in a thread being removed. Many Canadians are more offended by Trudeau himself.

Than work in a respectful manor to remove him. Moderation of the post was not meant as an endorsement of Trudeau but an effort to maintain respectful dialogue. A courtesy that will be extended to any political leader or party.

And re: Gilroy’s thread about the demographics of the OOD show…..we SHOULD NOT be afraid to discuss it. Moderate hateful comments yes, but allow reasonable discussion

As stated when the thread was closed, what is there more to say than if you have a concern with the show address it with them. The thread was not removed so that those who read it can ponder the concern and discuss it if they wish in their own circle. As history shows threads of this nature degenerate quickly into back and forth train wrecks were the message is left in the dirt. Closing the thread early kept the concern in the fore front while limiting a tendency to cause hostility between members.
Which is why I signed up for the thankless job of Moding.

[fishfood]

1. There is no censorship happening...

So rumble videos are aloud? If not why?

Gw video was removed because of the user who created it?

Rumble was only banned here after the media said it was bad lol. Said it's full of disinformation but much of the information posted on it is just suppressed information that other places censored. Platforms that are pushing a narrative rather than truth Twitter as an example YouTube, Facebook, Google the media.

Some members did infact leave because of that ,when they couldn't post from a free speech platform. Rather than a censored media or platform.

What's happening in mariupol lately anything? Some would be amazed of the progress happening burned out buildings being torn down daily and a new city is emerging. But it's not what they want so it's not being reported on that's our media for ya lol.

Not starting an agreement but some things are censored and people did leave because of it.
I'm really surprised that rumble was removed before infowars lol.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[Bluebulldog]

So rumble videos are aloud? If not why?

Gw video was removed because of the user who created it?

Rumble was only banned here after the media said it was bad

1. The propensity for people to seek out any source in support of an argument without backup is a problem. As is Rumble. As a source, or a platform, they are not consistent, and they do not moderated their content. So no...

2. Unless you want to figure out a way to either pay moderators, or provide more bodies to to the job...it is far easier to simply eliminate a cesspool of questionable info. ( Not all Rumble is the case, but without verification or requiring source, it's an easier call).

3. Ask GW. Last I checked, we have been over this.

Yes, you are starting an argument...but as long as it's respectful it's perfectly fine.

However, if you're going to make assertions as to why others have left ( or being removed)...that's a bit of a problem. You clearly have zero issue with sharing info that hasn't been verified, and choose to believe what you wish. I respectfully you look up Confirmation Bias...

For the record..the Great Clean Up, involved many users being kicked. If not for conduct, then for how they reacted to the mods when issued infractions, but choose to believe how you will.

[fishfood]

1. The propensity for people to seek out any source in support of an argument without backup is a problem. As is Rumble. As a source, or a platform, they are not consistent, and they do not moderated their content. So no...

2. Unless you want to figure out a way to either pay moderators, or provide more bodies to to the job...it is far easier to simply eliminate a cesspool of questionable info. ( Not all Rumble is the case, but without verification or requiring source, it's an easier call).

3. Ask GW. Last I checked, we have been over this.

Yes, you are starting an argument...but as long as it's respectful it's perfectly fine.

However, if you're going to make assertions as to why others have left ( or being removed)...that's a bit of a problem. You clearly have zero issue with sharing info that hasn't been verified, and choose to believe what you wish. I respectfully you look up Confirmation Bias...

For the record..the Great Clean Up, involved many users being kicked. If not for conduct, then for how they reacted to the mods when issued infractions, but choose to believe how you will.

It does make it easier to moderate ,but it also shuts down real news outside of what the mainstream isn't talking about.
Including government discussions and things going on around the world to open up some discussions.

It's not all bad but I understand the decision to why.


Thanks.





Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[trimmer21]

For the record..the Great Clean Up, involved many users being kicked. If not for conduct, then for how they reacted to the mods when issued infractions, but choose to believe how you will.

".....how they reacted to the mods...." to the unaffiliated guest and past members (on the surface) sure can look like authoritarianism and censorship overreach in and of itself,though,can't it? Respectfully,that's not a good look. There has to be a better way of moderating that doesn't appear biased and ham-fisted. Having said that,I'm fresh out of ideas.

[finsfurfeathers]

".....how they reacted to the mods...." to the unaffiliated guest and past members (on the surface) sure can look like authoritarianism and censorship overreach in and of itself,though,can't it? Respectfully,that's not a good look. There has to be a better way of moderating that doesn't appear biased and ham-fisted. Having said that,I'm fresh out of ideas.

Care too give it a shot?
To those who complain how unfair it is I'd say walk a mile in these shoes.
Add your voice to the mod team if you feel its biased.
Make the change you want to see or accept the way it is.
Be part of the solution
If you can't be bothered than follow the rules and accept the tough decisions that are made to keep the forum running smooth.
I for one am enjoying the cessation of the constant cries of trolling that used to plagued this site.

[Gilroy]

You may have achieved your goal.....then again,maybe not. You might have had a larger impact had you written to A&H staff personally.

No I believe a open and free discussion would yield many and various opinions which have now been denied to the producers of the show?

As the posts were going some folks agree with my view and some did not, this is very healthy discussion as all sides views are looked at.

[Gilroy]

Than work in a respectful manor to remove him. Moderation of the post was not meant as an endorsement of Trudeau but an effort to maintain respectful dialogue. A courtesy that will be extended to any political leader or party.

As stated when the thread was closed, what is there more to say than if you have a concern with the show address it with them. The thread was not removed so that those who read it can ponder the concern and discuss it if they wish in their own circle. As history shows threads of this nature degenerate quickly into back and forth train wrecks were the message is left in the dirt. Closing the thread early kept the concern in the fore front while limiting a tendency to cause hostility between members.
Which is why I signed up for the thankless job of Moding.

Moderators HAVING A CRYSTAL BALL and deciding what threads MIGHT degenerate into a train wreaks is IMHO a bit of an over reach and stifles opinions which might be very valid and in that thread might have actually helped the OOD and Anglers and HUNTERS PRODUCE A BETTER SHOW.

So that gets denied to the producers and to make the whole affair worse a Moderator re open's the CLOSED THREAD and injects HIS OPINION as the final word.

WHAT MORE IS THERE TO SAY IN YOUR OWN WORDS- I don't know?