Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

I am one of the many (dozens? hundreds?) who recently had their ability to rate comments and recommend diaries revoked. Like the others, I have no clue as to why this happened, although I agree with other diaries that last week's Bob Johnson diary is the common thread.

I have not been around here long. I was somewhat surprised, frankly, that I had privileges so soon after registering. So when my privileges disappeared, I wasn't surprised.(I was somewhat puzzled by the fact that I could still read hidden comments, however.) I assumed that such things were determined by a logarithm of some sort, which used a formula to weigh your cumulative 'mojo' to decide your 'trustworthiness', for lack of a better word. I had received a 'hide' rating from some right wing troll the day before, so I naturally assumed my 'mojo' was temporarily out of wack, and it would correct itself after a few days. I am not generally a conspiracy theory type of guy.

Then the diaries started. I was not alone.

As more stories accumulate, the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly points toward mass punishment. I have looked through the comment histories of many of the people who, like me, have lost their privileges. I have found no evidence of trollish behavior, abusive language or other violations. I encourage people to read through my brief history here, and if they feel I have engaged others in an unfair manner to show me where.

After looking through my comments, try this experiment;

Go read the hidden comments. Click through a few pages to see which members routinely have their comments hidden. Read the comments to decide if they are supporters of Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Now click through to their page to see if they still have the ability to rate.

I did this experiment last night. At that time, the first five hidden comments were all written by prominent pro-Clinton voices. All five posters clearly were engaging in abusive language, and deserved to have their comments hidden. And all five still had the ability to rate comments. One those five has never, in their entire history, given anything other than a troll rating. Ever. How does that not qualify for rating abuse? Why haven't they had their ability to rate revoked?

I did the experiment again before writing this diary. At that time, hidden comments 13,14,15 and 16 were attributed to the same poster, a prominent and strident pro-Clinton voice. They are still able to rate comments, despite the fact that they are routinely on the hidden comment page. At that time, Comments 1-3 were authored by pro-Clinton posters. All have the ability to rate comments. Comment number 4 was from a pro-Obama poster - no ratings. Comment 5 was by a Clinton supporter- rating history enabled.

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Again, this is all anecdotal evidence. But it sure points strongly to an unpleasant conclusion.

Tags: Censorship (all tags)

Comments

86 Comments

Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

Can we get this on the Rec list?

by awobbly 2008-05-15 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

Wow, getting this on the REC list would send the most clearest message.

Stop being afraid of Jerome, if you think what he did is wrong than REC this diary.

Censorship will kill this site, and with no more HRC campaign how does this site make it.

Is this the end of the blog, because it sure looks that way.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

"most clearest"?

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

I might not have perfect english but at least I am not a Republican campaigning for McCain.

http://777denny.wordpress.com/

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?
But your days on this site are numbered....
Hahaha!   :)
by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

How so, Im a Democrat, you are a Republican.

Is there something we don't know, are you saying that Jerome now welcomes Republicans actively campaigning for John McCain.

You make no sense, and lose all credibility since you are a liar:

http://777denny.wordpress.com/

good luck being a Republican this year Denny,  losing is hard.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

Did you just personally attack me?  Did you not read the rules of this site?  And you're still complaining of restriction of privileges?  Hahaha!    Buh-bye.  :)

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

Your "arguments" connote childishness.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-15 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

None of us can rec it :D

by kasjogren 2008-05-15 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

I was thinking the same. Ha!

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 10:39AM | 0 recs
Touched on here

I discussed this issue here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1051 15/703

by nextgen 2008-05-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show clear Bias?

Thats why it would send a message to Jerome.

He thinks that by taking our REC rights away that Alegre, SoCal Darling, LindaFSNM, Linfar, hillis44 all get full control of the REC site.

He only started this practice once the REC list was broken,  one day, JUST like today last week the "regulars" had only one REC diary up.

There was some that said "What! We thought this was a pro hillary site,  were leaving"

Thats how important the REC list is, at least to them and Jerome.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:41AM | 0 recs
Have some phantom mojo, anyway.

At the moment, it's all I have to offer.

by tbetz 2008-05-15 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Have some phantom mojo, anyway.

Danke - and right back at ya!

by awobbly 2008-05-15 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Have some phantom mojo, anyway.

You too - oh no!  You have given me loads of lovely mojo, I'll miss it - and thank you.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

lol Ironically you are asking Obama supporters to REC a diary about us Obama supporters NOT having the ability to rec.

heh love the irony :-P

by TruthMatters 2008-05-15 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

I am hoping that Clinton supporters feel pationized by Jerome and in protest will REC this diary and say to him that Censoring democrats from democratic blogs is a real bad idea.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

unfortunately george - there are some of your comrades that are giving BO supporters a bad name.  they swarm diaries, do not address the content of diaries, TR or HR inappropriately, constantly criticize or call out other users or admin and are generally nasty.  in my mind - anyone, no matter who they support - who does the above, should be punished.  and i suspect that they are.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

The hidden comments seem to disprove your theory... The page is routinely filled with posts from Clinton supporters who engage in nasty behavior, ratings abuse, etc., but still have the ability to rate and rec. You yourself are often less than courteous in your posts... i see you have your rating ability intact.

by awobbly 2008-05-15 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

see?  you are exhibiting exactly the type of behaviour that is making you lose you privileges.  you state the i am often less than courteous in posts, while sometimes i lose my patience - as we all do - very rarely are my posts as you state it - less than courteous.  disagreement is allowed, nastiness isnt.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 11:04AM | 0 recs
Nastiness has its place

by lombard 2008-05-15 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Nastiness is allowed, if you are a Clinton supporter. See: TeresaInPA.

by Black Anus 2008-05-15 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

see?  calling people out - a no-no.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Calling people out in a diary title is against the site rules. I am not calling TeresaInPA out in a diary title.

by Black Anus 2008-05-15 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

You have no idea what you're talking about. None of these users had their privileges removed for being trolled, or hide rating, merely because they recced pro Obama diaries, at a time MYDD wanted to make sure the rec list was pro Hillary.

It's not about discourtesy or bad behavior - there's been enough of that on both sides - but VOTE RIGGING and frankly SELECTIVE DISENFRANCHISEMENT

Ignore the facts. Enjoy the temporary bias. But as I've said to you before

If they removed your privileges, JUST because you supported Hillary, I'd be on this same page, fighting for you

by duende 2008-05-15 02:28PM | 0 recs
OK, now, let's think about this

You say a bunch of comments from Clinton posters are hidden (Yes, I've had a few myself).  Now, who is voting to hide these particular comments?  Not Clinton supporters.

So I would say the Obama supporters are the biggest censorship zealots.

by lombard 2008-05-15 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

What's your definition of swarm?  If you write a contentious diary, don't you expect lots of people to turn up and disagree?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

my definition of swarm is to write multiple comments that do not address the content of the diary, but rather use it as an opportunity to bash another candidate.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
I agree with you about censorship 100%

I have NEVER, EVER voted to hide a comment.  But, I have had a handful or so hidden.

Unfortunately, too many people here (on both sides) have been schooled under the tradition of a mob screaming  "troll, troll" (in some places in the world, you could replace the word troll with the word infidel) at every occurrence of perceived heresy.

Instead of responding to dialogue that is perceived to be wrong or offensive, the knee jerk reaction is to censor and banish it.  And the people that do this do it with pride because they are fully incapable of understanding that they are acting like lazy rabble.

by lombard 2008-05-15 11:19AM | 0 recs
Drat!!!

Foiled again!!!

by awobbly 2008-05-15 10:48AM | 0 recs
to quote itsthemedia:


"We are the Obama. You will be assimilated. We will add your demographic and geographic distinctiveness to our own. Your website will adapt to service us.

:-p

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant."

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: to quote itsthemedia:

eh? What are you saying?

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: to quote itsthemedia:

As a person loyal to this web site do you not worry about what is left for this place after Barack officially has the nomination?  Jerome's action greatly diminish the potential for this web site past that point.

I know you think I am an asshole.  I have never claimed that I'm not.  But honestly, do you not see that this site is on the path to big problems?

by lockewasright 2008-05-15 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: to quote itsthemedia:

no.

there are a handful of BO supporters here that do not do what i state in my 2 comments above.  i would wager a guess that they still have full rights on this site.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 11:01AM | 0 recs
The admins would be justified in banning you

Calling them out publicly and accusing them of bias isn't terribly respectful of people volunteering their time to do a tough job.

Show some gratitude and spare us the whining.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-15 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The admins would be justified in banning you

how do Begalla,  what is untrue about this diary.

What other progressive blogs do this,

What other progressive blogs PROUDLY have John McCain campaigners on this site?
I have a feeling you dont care about that.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:53AM | 0 recs
I haven't seen people advocate for McCain

and I'd troll rate any that did.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-15 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I haven't seen people advocate for McCain

Michael,  if that is true, there is no way you haven't noticed ChitownDenny ???

Active campaign for RNC and John McCain:

http://777denny.wordpress.com/
http://777denny.wordpress.com/
http://777denny.wordpress.com/

Do you think it's right for him to be here trying to swiftboat our party?

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I haven't seen people advocate for McCain

You flatter me.  I didn't know you thought I had that much inlfuence.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I haven't seen people advocate for McCain

OK. Now I know. I've wasted enough time trying to talk to you reasonably about how voting for McCain in the fall is a betrayal of everything Hillary actually stands for.

And now I know

You're a betrayal of everything Hillary actually stands for.

How many other Hillary supporters are actually undercover republicans?

by duende 2008-05-15 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The admins would be justified in banning you

Why ban?

If they are hosting a forum called 'direct democracy', calling out a supposed bias doesn't get more directly democratic than that.  Shouldn't this site be responsive to users?

by obscurant 2008-05-15 10:55AM | 0 recs
By your rationale, conservatives could post here

There are limits and rules.

And calling out the admins goes over the line, IMO.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-15 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: By your rationale, conservatives could post he

I'm glad you're not an admin, then. But thanks for your input.

by Black Anus 2008-05-15 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The admins would be justified in banning you

Gratitude for what, exactly? How have I called out the admins? One of the admins had their own diary about this last night, asking for feedback. He acknowledged that there is a perception of bias among the users of this sight. I pointed out a pattern, and pointed out that what I have is anecdotal. How is that 'calling out' the admins? I suspect they are not as thin skinned as you.

by awobbly 2008-05-15 11:05AM | 0 recs
Now we'll see...

... if I go the way of the other Obama supporters. Rec'd!

by Purplepeople 2008-05-15 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

I'd rec it if I could

by dawolfe 2008-05-15 10:54AM | 0 recs
recced

you can have my invisible rec.

I'm sending it telepathically.

by april34fff 2008-05-15 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

You've got to be kidding:  " I have found no evidence of trollish behavior, abusive language or other violations..." re: Obama supporters on this site.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

But you are still a John McCain campaigner:
http://777denny.wordpress.com/

Its ridiculous that you are still here,
Why do you think that is.

Your like your candidate "Teflon John"

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Gee.  Your point is so well made that I have full privileges and you don't.  What does that tell you?  I know, I'm a repub and you're a dem.  If you're such a good dem, then act like one.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Good Dems fight republicans tooth and nail.

Bad Dems (jerome) allow Republican activists to troll their site 24/7.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Seriously - why is this hateful troll still here?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

I don't know.

Look at the bottom of the page, click Contact Us, and ask the admins.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Done.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

You are misquoting me. I said that I read through the history of some who had their privileges revoked, and found nothing to warrant the suspension of their privileges. I did not make any blanket statement about Obama supporters or Clinton supporters. The vast majority of mydd posters do not engage in disrespectful behavior. Some who do, however, have their rating ability intact. And those seem to be Clinton supporters.

by awobbly 2008-05-15 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Why debate with a republican,  genetically they are not allowed to agree with you.

Just ignore him.

The Administration know who he is and what he is doing,  they have been contacted.
They are obviously complicit.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

If you don't like this site go start one of your own.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

That's about as helpful as an "America - Love it or Leave it!" bumpersticker. I never said I don't like the site. It seems to be having some growing pains at the moment.

by awobbly 2008-05-15 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Or death throes.

by obscurant 2008-05-15 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Don't know how else to say this but there are rules for living in America, just like there are rules for participating on this site.  The rules makes neither China.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

You are so wrong Denny

In fact these VIRTUAL THOUGHT POLICE RULES make MYDD more like China than anywhere else

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/p rint/20070828_chinas_virtual_thought_pol ice/

But republicans like yourself love this kind of top down BDSM stuff. You'll find redstate very congenial. Take the next right

by duende 2008-05-15 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

We like this site, just want to take away the Chinese government twist to it.

China bans google.

Jerome bans Reccing articles, because they will take away those pushing his agenda.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

If you are accusing the site admins of being facists I don't think that is particularly helpful.  And yes it may sound like I am saying "take it or leave it".. well I guess in some ways I am.  There are tons of blog sites out there.  I guess I just don't see that the site admins here owe anyone anything.  We aren't paid members, just visitors.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

That really is quite over the top. I have not accused the admins of being fascists. I am pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency in the suspension of privileges. I notice no one has refuted the evidence I presented - any one care to? Any one care to point out the weakness in my thesis?

by awobbly 2008-05-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

fas·cism  
forcible suppression of opposition

Sounds like you are accusing the admins of suspending users based on their rec'd diaries, troll ratings, comments, etc for and in support of one candidate over the other.  Seems to fit the description pretty well from where I sit.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Ok, so then you agree Jennifer?

The ACTIONS are facist.

If you dont agree, then please elaborate.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

your argument does not hold weight.  my first diary to make it to the rec list, was just bumped by a diary that calls out another user and breaks the site rules (even though my diary has more recs).

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Of course it holds weight, it is true.

When there are hundreds of people accusing Jerome fo the SAME thing, with the SAME pattern what more can you say.

Your current example shows that Jerome is overwhelmed, there is probably very few to ban.

He banned us for simply reccing diaries not part of the elite group of posters he had.

You remember last Thursday what happened when the rec list was "violated"?

Am I calling Jerome a Facist?

NO!

But he does run this site like a Facist state.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

I must go to work...

by awobbly 2008-05-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
The real problem for you

The real problem for you, as I see it, is most progressive forums are 90% pro-Obama. This one is more balanced, so you can't stand the 'bias'.

Are the admins really biased? I see a lot of pro-Clinton and pro-Obama supporters, so my first blush impression as a 'newbie' is no.

Is it so tough to be a part of a site that has comparable numbers of Clinton and Obama supporters? It makes you look weak-minded, honestly.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-15 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The real problem for you

Very well said!

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The real problem for you

You've missed the point completely - everyone likes the fact there are supporters from both camps here, they just don't think it's fair that only Obama supporters lose their privileges, when by and large they are better behaved than the high profile Hillary supporters.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
'only Obama supporters lose.. privileges'

Prove it.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-15 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: 'only Obama supporters lose.. privileges'

Which part?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
No ad homs

Please refrain from saying people look weak-minded because they object to being gagged.  You are not addressing the argument, and you are stooping to name calling.

by obscurant 2008-05-15 12:00PM | 0 recs
I didn't say he was weak minded

I said his whining about bias because a site is balanced makes him look it.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-15 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't say he was weak minded

It's still an ad hominem.  You aren't addressing the argument, but rather how the argument makes the person look.  And you're not addressing the argument at all, really, even without your dig.

by obscurant 2008-05-15 12:06PM | 0 recs
Objection. Nonresponsive.

The commenter said "Please refrain from saying people look weak-minded because they object to being gagged."(Emphasis added)

To which you responded: "I didn't say he was weak minded.  I said his whining . . . makes him look it."  

Anything seem, you know, wrong with this response?  

by kellogg 2008-05-16 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The real problem for you

Just to reiterate. I like the debate here.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT BEING A GENERALLY PRO CLINTON SITE

That's why I come here so often. To hear an alternative point of view. I've come to understand the passion that Hillary's supporters have for her.

But I never suspected the rec list was FIXED.

I thought it reflected a certain segment of democratic opinion. And as that opinion has shifted over the primaries, the admins have resorted to more and more desperate ways of 'staying on message'.

This betrays the principle of this site. And if you're unaware of those democratic principles, then you're actually more at fault than I am

To say again: no one is asking for Hillary supporters to be silenced or censored. We're just asking that this become a COMMUNITY again, and not a top down Prussian police state

by duende 2008-05-15 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The real problem for you
The real problem for me is that there APPEARS to be a real bias here. I have shared why I came to that conclusion. You have not argued the point, only accused me of being 'whiny' and
'weak-minded', which makes you APPEAR somewhat, well... fill in the blanks.
by awobbly 2008-05-15 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

Add the signature.  Wear it with pride.

by Skaje 2008-05-15 11:50AM | 0 recs
Trying to take the high ground

I don't think the whole "Bob Johnson" mass event caught up more users than expected.  When that happened, people realized what had happened.  

by nextgen 2008-05-15 12:04PM | 0 recs
Oops

I meant to say the whole "Bob Johnson" even impacted more people then intended.  

by nextgen 2008-05-15 12:10PM | 0 recs
Not just comments

Speaking just for myself, I lost my rec privileges, and there's nothing in my comments from when it happened that's inflammatory or against the site rules.  My guess is I lost my rec privileges because I recced pro-Obama stories.

by obscurant 2008-05-15 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Not just comments

Duh, after three weeks or so, that is the reason it was done.

Its much easier to click the "Who Recommended" button.

I think Jerome looked for people like me who Rec'ed pro obama diaries.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Revoked Privileges Show Clear Bias?

I joined recently and have been attempting to contribute in a positive manner.

I am an Obama supporter, but I do not call out or disrepect Clinton supporters.

I started posting here because I want Democrats, regardless of who you supported in the primary, to come together to defeat Republicans this fall.

I troll-rated a pro-Clinton guy who was ranting and raving, and who called another poster a "racist," in my opinion, unnecessarily.

Later that day, no more rating privileges.

I would think that even if you are pro-Clinton, you would want to keep the tenor of dialogue on this site as positive and respectful as possible.  So where did my privileges go?  I'm disappointed.

by tastycakes 2008-05-15 02:26PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads