whether you agree with the speaker or not.
I didn't realize exactly what had happened when the blog was shut down. I knew it had been reported as "spam", but I had no idea this sort of thing was going on. Crazy, since I think we've been pretty good sports about the whole "supporting the nominee" thing.
I don't agree with this whole "let's hunt down so-and-so" mentality. Even if it's a freeper, I don't think s/he should be tracked IRL. That kind of persecution for dissent really freaks me out.
when it first happened - i put on my detective hat and have been working on it since then.
and it totally freaks me out too.
Woah there, internet detective, you better not try and figure out who it was that attacked you, or it would actually be a warning shot across the bow to opponents of CanadianGal that they will be tracked down and exposed for speaking ill of the Canadiamessiah.
have just proved what your intention is here in that comment. well done!
My intention is to point out:
1. There is nothing wrong with figuring out who is attacking you, or someone you support. Being anonymous is no excuse to let someone get away with slander.
2. It is offensive to make accusations without evidence.
You see tracking down the sources of the Muslim smears as scary and offensive.
Yet, whoever attacked your blog needs to face a public call-out and your internet detectivery.
You don't see yourself saying it COULD be Obama supporters as accusing Obama supporters.
Yet, when I suggest you COULD have done it yourself you see it as a direct accusation on you.
I am saying this to illustrate points one and two above.
Go ahead and do your best to find out who made the false reports, and post IF you have evidence. But when you do, remember that is in conflict with your theory that uncovering anonymous posters is wrong.
i have heard your 'problems' with this diary a couple of times now. clearly your intention is to suggest all sorts of things that are untrue. and i no longer am interested in engaging you.
thanks for your feedback. and happy 4th of july.
Though, is it not just as likely that, in the case of Clintonistas for Obama, it was Republicans or PUMAz that complained about the site?
I get what you are saying...but, I just don't see any evidence that it was persons supporting Obama intent on stifling dissent.
As to tracking down the source of the moronic Obama is a Muslim smearmail....I don't have any problem with it. Shit like that should be nipped in the bud....no matter who is being smeared and lied about.
To label the calling out of lies and the disclosure of those who peddle them as 'Silencing Dissension' is a stretch. There are plenty of folks who dissent without lying and smearing.....and those are the ones that we should be fighting to protect.
Don't know how much sense I am making....we have already begun our July 4th celebrations here.....
seems some have expanded from the gaming of various blog ratings systems to the blogs themselves
... one of the biggest and most-publicized groups of critics of Obama's policy choices on the Internet, your fearmongering about the campaign being behind these blogs being shut down is ridiculous at best.
UNDERSTAND?
Now no one could think that the Obama campaign is promoting such deeds
me thinks there are people that want to relive the flame=war in this diary.
CG you left out the rest of the sentence. Now no one could think that the Obama campaign is promoting such deeds BUT when people attack and try to shut down sites of a political candidate we all have to worry. Please explain why you left that out.
but you're not a concern troll.
Well, CG, your quoted statement is actually inaccurate. In the link you provided to Bloggasm:
"I suspect that it was Obama supporters because I think the block was timed to affect blogs prior to the unity event so that we would not `rain on the unity parade,' GeekLove said. "Also, Obama has ads out hiring people with no experience, except the ability to use computers. I presume these are the individuals responsible for silencing any opposition. His campaign has really harnessed the power of the internet and in the process learned to game the system in a way that I find frightening."
That's some high-grade paranoia that you're quoting.
Whether or not you intended to, your entire diary reads with a tone that indicates that Obama's proxies, whether "officially" endorsed by his campaign or not, are silencing all opposition. Perhaps it's that I'm used to see Fox News use the same tactic (asking a question rather than making a statement to create an impression that you can disavow ever actually saying), but all I see are conclusions without facts, only suspicions.
Blogger offers readers the opportunity to flag blogs as spam or complain about objectionable content. And apparently someone has been using this to shut down blogs that are perceived as critical to Obama.
Fact one (there is a spam button) precedes fact two (some sites have been taken down as spam). That doesn't indicate causation, especially when fact three (there's an error-prone automated spam marking algorithm) offers a viable alternate answer. From what I've read in the comments, it seems like the primary cause of false spam blockings is the failed automated review. If anything, the "report spam" button seems to trigger a human review (which would, of course, not cause your obviously non-spam blog to be suspended).
But, to answer your next question (somewhere down thread here), it is possible for one group of blogs to be registered as spam together without nefarious human intervention. Take the next-to-last post before your "we're back from being suspended" post. There are large blocks of quoted text that one would expect would be quoted around the antiObamasphere. A large group of people posting a similar chunk of text with other unusual shared keywords could set off automated filters. Or, the fact that a lot of the posts are cross-posted (and, as such, a simple strict Google search will find exact matches) could also set off automated filters, especially since most of the spam diaries are copies of other web sites (especially Wiki) in the hopes of co-opting traffic intended for non-spam sites.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you're blaming human intervention for Obama's benefit (even if you never blame Obama's proxies, you've still got the question of who else would do it), when I don't see any indication that there's any evidence that this was a human triggered review other than a lot of sites with a similar goal quoting similar sources got pulled in together and yours got caught in the same net (even though you don't share their goal). And, like I said in the anti-PUMA PAC founder thread, I'm not much for attacking a group (in this case, Obama supporters or anti-anti-Obama forces), even if they're anonymous, without any facts to back it up.
(P.S. Sorry for the length, I've been without internet traveling for the holiday, so I've got some pent-up writing energy).