In the last week, I have had to block a couple of people who had posted at least 50 comments before it became apparent that they were really here to present unacceptable views.
Ho Hum.
I blog because I like writing to explore ideas.
But don’t you ever contradict those ideas, refer to reality or even say anything I don’t want to hear.
At least one other commentator is currently being reviewed for the same reason
Genuine lol, that there is a ‘review’ process. I wonder if that is Clive Parry who is not afraid to disagree.
If he says no can you appeal to OFSPUD?
Fuck OFSPUD
A new trend appears to be developing amongst those who wish to troll on this site.
In the last week, I have had to block a couple of people who had posted at least 50 comments before it became apparent that they were really here to present unacceptable views. At least one other commentator is currently being reviewed for the same reason.
The AI is having an impact across the board- hopefully those people using it used ChatGPT or some such like and simply cut and pasted, forcing you to use more time than them – which was the intent
One of these people did, after being blocked under their pseudonym, then try to post under their own name, quite offensively. This is very tedious. It could also be time-wasting, which I am sure is these people’s aim, which is why I block them rather than engage in most cases.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, as the saying goes.
So, can I make it unambiguously clear that no comment is posted on this blog without me having seen it?
Your YouTube expertise does not extend to automated moderation?
That said, I recognise that I do sometimes make mistakes when moderating. Comments that I should have deleted, including from long-term commentators, sometimes slip through. If you were faced with moderating 40 or 50 comments, as I sometimes am in a batch, then you, too, would sometimes make mistakes. Those mistakes do not, however, create precedents. I will always go back and delete comments if anyone points out my mistakes, so feel free to do so.
When have you ever admitted error? Your false modesty is disingenuous
I also need to make clear, again, most particularly for those who want to abuse the rules, that I have always written this blog to explore ideas. Over time, others have made significant contributions through their comments. I appreciate the efforts of those who do so in good faith.
You are truly the Gandhi or MLK of the digital age.
But not everybody seeks to do that. That is why, as a result, more than 1,000 people have been blocked over the last 19 years that I have been blogging, which at the rate of approximately one a week, is not that excessive, but is nonetheless tedious.
That’s a gross underestimate but I will say that’s time well spent by the commentators who oppose your totalitarianism and they will go unrecognised but with the gratitude of lovers of freedom everywhere.
I will continue to block people when I think it’s appropriate, with just one comment usually being sufficient for me to decide on that course of action, which is generally irreversible. I do not have the time to spend agonising over the hurt feelings of those who, by and large, post under a pseudonym using an email address that gives no clue as to their identity.
I thought you were retired??
Let me make it clear that the right to comment on this blog is granted as a favour, and not as a right. Saying so does not represent censorship. It represents the essential freedom of an editor to decide what they will and will not accept for publication. That right is fundamental to the advancement of free speech.
It represents censorship in the raw and ideally you would extend it globally if you had the remit.
In summary, if you are here to waste my time, it will not take me that long, in the end, to rumble you, and to then ban you. Writing a whole pile of apparently acceptable posts before beginning to unleash your unacceptable views, before being banned, does seem like the most immense waste of time. Might I suggest you do something better with your life?
I would always say that opposing evil is worthwhile and we will continue to do so. Plenty more Soviet collaborators and North Koreans out there.
I blog because I like writing to explore ideas. That is my primary goal. I, as a consequence, spend two or more hours moderating a day. But I have no time to waste on those who want to abuse that time. Please understand that.
And yet you are writing about them here. This very paragraph contradicts your sentiment – which is why the ‘trolls’ will continue and be loudly applauded across the blogosphere for their efforts.
“I, as a consequence, spend two or more hours moderating a day.”
Two hours? I suppose most of that is looking up the long words in a dictionary.
I’m with Tattie. If the commenter is only there to hijack the blog, the correct response is fuck off.
Last month it was Elon Musk running a bot farm against his blog.
Will the policy return to requiring a full cv with photo ID before being allowed to engage with his genius?
@southerner
Fair enough get rid of the spam and abuse, but that’s not what he means by moderation. If you politely and accurately point out his mistakes then he will call you a moron and block you
So, now official, actually pointing out his actual mistakes is a capital crime in Spudworld.
There’s just no words….
Free speech in the former Germany:
Germany’s speech policing can’t stay out of the spotlight for long, apparently. This month, David Bendels, editor-in-chief for the Alternative for Germany (AfD)-affiliated Deutschland Kurier, received a seven-month suspended sentence for “abuse, slander or defamation against persons in political life.”
The offense? Bendels had edited and posted a photo of Interior Minister Nancy Faeser so that a sign she held said, “I hate freedom of opinion.” (Just think of how many different versions you saw of the Michelle Obama sign meme here in the U.S.) A Bavarian district court found Bendels guilty under a provision giving advanced protections to political figures against speech.
And in completely unrelated news:
In a recent poll, 60 percent of people said they “probably” or “definitely” would not defend Germany with military force even if it were attacked directly.
What’s the matter, Hans? You don’t want to get your arms and legs blown off defending Economic Extraction Zone #14 and its precious mosques? Racist.
In a recent poll, 60 percent of people said they “probably” or “definitely” would not defend Germany with military force even if it were attacked directly.
Well, 80% of them (non-AfD voters) are not defending Germany today from the ongoing invasion.
Bugger.
Steve @ 7.21 , the Kraut government are trying to introduce a sort of ‘Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der AfD’.
The last time they did that (for a different group of German ‘citizens’) was in 1938.