Censorship isn't a goal. It's a symptom.

Disagreeing? That's what it appears to me as. If the person who moderated comments is referring to results from YouTube as well as another link refuting their assertion that systemd is a disaster as embedding back links, then that tells me they really don't want a discussion in the first place.

Also, the argument regarding the signing up requirement for commenting is an excuse imho. The author uses an old version of Drupal, and it would be virtually impossible to upgrade to the latest version. That is why my site doesn't use it. It's powerful, but a royal pain, especially when a particular version has reached eol.

It's not censorship at all. The website in question is private property. Free speech rights do not include doing whatever we want on someone else's property. Pardon me for resorting to links, but I wrote a blog post and a follow up on this, back when LXer.com decided to enforce the TOS and some users thought that was censorship:

http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/11/strange-... http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/12/legitima...

Those posts (which are fairly long) certainly apply to this situation.

This wasn't about "free speech." It was about posting links that listed YouTube results in addition to another link that ran contrary to the point of view of the author in question. The individual who took issue with this was frustrated as there was no communication as to why his posts were removed in the first place... at least not until he publicly posted about it. It wasn't a comment that pertained to politics or any other hot button issue.

I looked to the best of my ability, and could not find where it specifically states that links of a certain variety were not allowed. Perhaps I'm blind as a bat on this one. Terms of service can only go so far if one can't find a copy of said TOS in the first place. LXer on the other hand clearly has a link for TOS. The site in question appears not to have one, which makes it difficult in understanding the rules of discussion.

Once again, the website in question is private property. They are under no obligation to provide you with rules just as they are under no obligation to provide Mr. Dowdle the opportunity to post conflicting views. They have full editorial discretion. In plain and somewhat blunt language: it's their property and they can do with it as they see fit.

I used the term free speech because both Mr. Dowdle and Mr. Schmitz used the term censorship, which is defined as denial of freedom of speech. I also used the term censorship because they both did. My point is that it isn't censorship. They are both equally free to do as they see fit on their respective websites and nobody is denying them the right to voice their opinions or to snip at one another.

@thenixreport,

> that tells me they really don't want a discussion in the first place.

I agree with you here that Schnitz wants no two-way discussion, but I also agree with caitlyn that it's not really censorship here. Could be nice-and-logical-sounding "editorial discretion"; then again, could be more that Schmitz is plain outright SNUBBING Dowdle, which he has a right to do.

What I think might happen is that the more Schmitz feels he just "MUST" delete out comments and/or block commentators, the more that valid commentators who he increasingly snubs will simply gravitate elsewhere (e.g., to Dowdle's blog) away from Schmitz's blogs. Then any click$tream money and attention Schmitz manages to squeeze out from his controversial-sounding posts here and elsewhere will likewise eventually fade. The click-wh@$e then JUST GOES AWAY!!

My 2c

Thanks flufferbeer. Considering what the site in question is supposed to be, they may want to add some guidelines for posting comments. Caitlyn, it's true that they don't have to provide any TOS at all due to it being private property. However, I believe it would be a very good idea. Also, communication with users regarding comments would be prudent as well.

That's why I updated the about page of my site, because it allows for others to contribute content and discussions. I don't personally have to, but because of the nature of the site, I realize that it would be a wise move.

On my blogs I don't have set rules, but I try to moderate as little as possible. When I do have to moderate a lot (it's only happened two or three of times in the past 12 years or so) I either point to a post where I lay out the ground rules or I write one so that people know where I'm coming from. That doesn't help with some people, of course, but I agree that laying out some kind of standard is always a good idea.

At least it's real people with you. With me, it's mostly spam bots that have to be pruned. lol

SPAM bots show up once in a while. They aren't even worth discussion. They mostly get blocked automagically and thrown into a folder for me to review. Then I delete them.

>> The click-wh@$e then JUST GOES AWAY!!"

According to user saltynoob in the current 'Vocal minority' thread http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/34626/ , there's a bit of a called-for correction on this last bit: "*link bait = spreading factually wrong info disguised as opinion to get clicks to a web site.*" http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/34626/

Seems to me from the current 'Vocal minority thread', that master LA Link-Baiter-Schmitz is still at it again, on systemd. Prior to saltynoob's comment there, users schestowitz and lietkynes wrote that THEY TOO became outright SNUBBED by LBS in the past, just as thenixreport was according to this past May 3rd thread here!!

2 more c's

> I agree with you here that Schnitz wants no two-way discussion, but I also agree with caitlyn that it's not really censorship here.

Just because it isn't government censorship doesn't mean it isn't censorship. (IOW: "to censor" is a verb, not an attribution -- and no, I'm not being pedantic, here)

If the term is not restricted to government, a clash with private property rights is inevitable.

>> (IOW: "to censor" is a verb, not an attribution -- and no, I'm not being pedantic, here)

@BS,

Whatever the actual pedantic definition of censorship is, it is obvious to me that LA Schmitz still CLEARLY prefers Link-Baiting and deleting comments from his own blog with which he disagrees, rather than debasing himself to actually respond within LXer using rational points of discussion.... at least so far to date. I even doubt that I'm the only one who expects him to post YET ANOTHER link bait like that which stimulated the whole 'Vocal minority' thread over the last day or so.

Next one sure to arrive any day now.......

-fb

Mister Schmitz: less rants and more substance, please.

..... hmmm, seems to me as if one of Mister Schmitz's new discussion-squelching tactics on LA besides doing direct Link-Baiting is to get ANOTHER writer, this time around caitlyn, to do his dirty work. Sorta like a proxy service here.... he still has the leverage of selectively deleting comments anywhere on the blog *he* owns with which he happens to disagree, e.g., like thenixedreport's above.

A Daffy Duck DITHHHPICABLE is what I say!

-fb