Common Dreams Incorporated

Common Dreams

*edit, August 13, 2013 – This edit includes the bottom of post email I received and just now read. I had just copied and pasted its contents when I clicked on my Disqus and discovered that a backlog of my disappeared CD posts had been released. I was just about to email CD to invite them to subscribe to my blog, laugh out loud! I violated, unintentionally, their rule about self promotion when, in frustration, I tossed in a link to my blog, earlier. This was out of frustration and in the middle of my furious posting to see if anything could get through. I have no idea what’s going on here and I will not delete this post. I might be (partly) wrong about staff and their intentions, but I made the right call based on the facts as I knew them. And, instead of going through all of this again, should I truly get banned, in the future and in similar (unwarranted) circumstance, then I’ll just point people to this post. So there.

The following comes off of the Common Dreams website:

========= == =
Comment Policy

We welcome your comments on our articles, as long as they are respectful, relevant and civil in tone. We do not pre-moderate comments. However, in order to maintain this site as a trusted and useful resource, we reserve the right to remove any post that does not comply with our Comment Policy, or simply is not in keeping with our editorial standards for civility.

October 2012 Update: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments…

Any commenter who ignores our policies may be banned permanently and without notice.

We may delete any comment that contains:

Slander, personal attacks or abusive, hateful, offensive, or racist language or material.
Spam or links to spam (repeated attempts to redirect readers to another website are considered spam).
Comments off-topic to the article.
All capital letters.
Intentionally inflammatory rhetoric.
Links to inappropriate or unrelated content.
Identical, repetitive comments posted on multiple articles.
Excessively long URLs
Graphics
Personal information, such as addresses, phone numbers, emails, etc.
Blatantly promotional content.
Reproduced copyrighted articles from other sources: provide a link only.
More than 1,000 words. Text continued to another post to bypass the 1000-word limit will be deleted.

— When a comment is deleted for violation of these policies any underlying ‘children’ in the thread of comments are also automatically deleted. When an account is deleted all past comments are automatically deleted.

— Common Dreams will delete the account and ban the IP address of any commenter (person) found using multiple aliases under multiple e-mail addresses in a deceptive manner.

Our comment section is provided for readers’ opinions. The staff and the board of Common Dreams do not fact-check the statements posted here, and do not necessarily agree with the opinions.

Disclaimer: Common Dreams, Inc. is not responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from the content posted on the site, or from comments posted by readers, that may be viewed as offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable.
= == =============================

It appears that CD has changed its tune somewhat in regard to censoring. Somewhere on the site, probably where the above information is laid out, CD once stated in plain English that it didn't censor. Ever. (As an aside, Reading over its commenting policy, now, I am tempted to ask, How can you censor and not censor at the same time? I am all for responsible management, but not abuse. I’m not a fan of power trippers. And you signal that your intentions are not good when you power trip.) Censoring is one thing. Moderating and weeding out grenade-type posts is another. I agree with responsible management of the site, which could necessitate blocking trouble makers. But then again, I have good intentions. I wouldn’t use a policy like CD’s to block someone whose intentions are good, doesn’t attack people (with malice for sure) but has opinions about things that are sometimes different than mine. (And not having the commenting policy perfectly memorized would not qualify a poster who slipped a little, say in regard to long posts, as someone with bad intentions.) I wouldn’t block a reader whose main purpose was to object, without even using foul language, to those who abuse power, even if they believed ‘I’ was doing so, unless I had reason to believe they were insincere and intended only to disrupt the discourse enjoyed by all. I – my views – am out there, online in various forums and in my blog. And I can be spoken with. You can know, fully, my intentions.

"However, in order to maintain this site as a trusted and useful resource, we reserve the right to remove any post that does not comply with our Comment Policy, or simply is not in keeping with our editorial standards for civility."

Your standards, CD, are not altogether different, apparently, than the standards of the fascist United States government, which heaps praise on itself and always has the noblest intentions, by fiat. But you can't question the corporatist state. You can't know what it's doing. And learning about what you see it doing takes a lot of risky investigative work. The difference between that and the Common Dreams that is coming into view is in degrees.

Common Dreams isn’t going to disappear me along with my posts the way that its government, under the right circumstances, would. And shunning isn’t as bad as being hated and treated accordingly by a lawless, vicious elite and its political machine (controlling police, security orgs, the justice system and everything) comprised of individuals who believe in inequality and ‘riches for the strongest’ and whose idea of democracy, freedom and choice is evident in the way that you are free to agree with them and support them or else. But, If CD does the former because, in fact, it’s in alignment with those who would do the latter, then the degrees don’t matter. As Jesus Christ said, “He who is faithful in what is least is also faithful in what is much.” It’s the principle of the thing. Which is the point that Alexander Abdo and Patrick Toomey make about the US government’s justifications for its criminal behavior in regard to surveilling American citizens. “If you emailed a friend, family member or colleague overseas today (or if, from abroad, you emailed someone in the US), chances are that the NSA made a copy of that email and searched it for suspicious information. The NSA appears to believe this general monitoring of our electronic communications is justified because the entire process takes, in one official’s words, “a small number of seconds”… That is not how the fourth amendment works. Whether the NSA inspects and retains these messages for years, or only searches through them once before moving on, the invasion of Americans’ privacy is real and immediate. There is no “five-second rule” for fourth amendment violations: the US constitution does not excuse these bulk searches simply because they happen in the blink of an eye.” (See “The NSA is turning the internet into a total surveillance system,” which I came across on Common Dreams, and which I posted a couple comments to that were promptly disappeared/ blocked.) Disagree with them about their war on terror and you’re a terrorist. But they’re not terrorists – because they say so. What they do isn’t terrifying, because that isn’t how they’d describe their behavior.

Common Dreams states: “We understand that to assure a meaningful participation by all in democracy we must maintain a free press – providing reliable information, critical thought and creative ideas.” What critical ideas of mine rub CD managers, or their friends in high places, the wrong way, I wonder? I guess it’s one thing when CD refuses to be bullied into bullying its readers and points to its policy concerning liability in defense of its position. But it’s another thing when they take instructions or advice from those they consider allies, who may not like the views of a reader like myself. “Common Dreams, Inc. is not responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from the content posted on the site, or from comments posted by readers, that may be viewed as offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable.”

As for my standards, I don't deserve to be banned from a truly progressive organization. And I'm aware that I'm not part of the Common Dreams organization, but stated the matter that way as a form of shorthand. I'm banned from being a part of the community – some whom are truly agents of chaos (like fakefakefake, MountainMan23, gardnernorcal and others). At any given time, those participants can be found saying reasonable things. But out of the blue those individuals attacked me like rabid dogs. And if participants, and staff of Common Dreams and any visitors looking in don't notice or forgot soon after they did, "I" noticed.

And what’s with this?: “More than 1,000 words.” may get you banned. Why? I, and others, often post long posts. There is even a feature that folds the long posts so that they aren’t an eyesore. You get a banner on a folded post that says ‘read more’, which you can do or not. Will CD enable us or power trip to defend special interests? I don’t think much about it when I post. I am concentrating on building the post. I love discussion and blogging. It forces me to research and I learn in the process. I like learning and teaching. Is that a problem? If long posts are a problem for CD, then, instead of forcing us to count our words or risk suddenly being flushed down the toilet for our efforts – and certainly we in the 99% don’t have oodles of free time that allows us to easily slough off losing hours to a sudden pulling of the plug by some overseer following some rule that we are not focussed on – then make it impossible to write an overly long post. Lots of websites do that. Or is that not any fun?

If anyone would like to get an idea of what my standards are, just read my blog. As of this writing, there are 432 posts on it. You should get an idea about me after reading through them.

You can get an idea what some of CD’s key staff think from their own featured articles. I’m not the only one who has disagreed with, and even found statements made by, for example, Abby Zimet, problematic. Which is fine. I’ve agreed with, rather than disagreed with, most of what she’s written – and that has been important information and very welcome righteous indignation. So, To give credit where it’s due, some CD staff (notably Abby Zimet and Jon Queally) are sort of visible. Sort of. For there is no interaction between them and readers of CD’s accepted articles and no opportunity to engage them and ask them hard, and easy, questions. Who are those key staff? I can only introduce you to them. They are (at the time of this posting):

CD staff 1
CD staff 2
CD staff 3
CD staff 4
CD staff 5

“When an account is deleted all past comments are automatically deleted.” Well, What do you call it when you can no longer post to ‘any’ articles in Common Dreams, but you still see your old approved, or is that ‘not disappeared’, posts?

“We do not pre-moderate comments.” A few minutes ago I posted a comment, one sentence long I think, that, rather than appear and then disappear, appeared along with an ‘awaiting moderation’ message. Whatever. The post I tossed in was in response to another poster who asked the question How could anyone not see that Barack Obama is a liar? I simply stated: How could anyone ‘who pays attention’ not see that Obama is a liar is the question that answers itself.

“Any commenter who ignores our policies may be banned permanently and without notice.” Did they mean ‘permanently annoyed’? Maybe CD just doesn’t want to delete me. “Let’s force feed him with ‘awaiting moderation’ messages and by letting him see his old messages,” could be their thinking. So… Moderate this, CD.

CD msg awaiting moderation

CD msg awaiting moderation 2

* A day or two later after the above post, in my inbox, I get:

===========oo=
banned but 1
banned but 2
banned but 3
banned but 4
=oo===========

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Common Dreams Incorporated

  1. Stillnottheonly1 says:

    Hi there!
    This is what I posted on ‘Distant Ocean’ today, since its critical mentioning of the ‘Common Dreams’ censorship ‘department’. A department it must be based on the behavior CD displayed here.
    Allow me to add – before I paste the original comment – the fact that that I had received a large amount of ‘badges’ for ‘outstanding comments’. All of these badges were due to more than 50 ‘likes’ – so the comment section readership and commenter community was well aware of the impartial ways in which I described the workings of the establishment and its machine. Today, there was an article about Jill Stein (whom I promote and support) and after I had posted another time that it cannot be overstated that Jill Stein is preferable over a confused and bigoted real estate magnate and a war mongering establishment sock puppet ready to blow the planet into smithereens.
    Everything I have written in the last 2 years was deleted. Some commenters were outraged about my suspension – since they believe that my contributions were among the best the place ever saw. It is not up to me to make that call, but in other words: ‘the real people that comment on the discussion board like what I had/have to write.

    Here is the text:
    @The Distant Ocean 08-07-2016

    “Well, I have been ‘nuked’ today. Interestingly though in response to the outing of a nasty troll that was allowed to post hundred comments on one thread, while everybody else gets the message to squeeze all responses into one post.
    The troll was heavily shilling for Clinton and called anybody critical of Clinton shirt of being total imbeciles. Within hours that one troll had hijacked all threads on 08-07-2016. Others with the same degree of discontent were purged also.
    Earlier I had bemoaned to have ever given money to them – obviously for them to turn into another Huffington electronic tabloid leaflet. The ludicrousness of proclaiming to be a ‘progressive news & views’ outlet is raving. considering the apologia in regards to the subservience of Sanders towards Clinton. Many commenters pointed that out and were inundated with responses by ‘progressive readers’ that were members “since 08-07-2016”
    It now dawns on me that in a very similar fashion Sanders duped his followers to believe that he would go it all for them – to fight the oligarchy (now I am ROTFScreaming)about this hypocrisy that should be reserved to those who receive death threats if they don’t end their campaign.
    Common Dreams has not always been this Orwellian with every article they publish. The bias and partisanship with the neo-con society is of festering character. Should they have the audacity to ask me for money, I will impolitely and respectlessly recite the glorious Cheney on the house floor – telling a representative to “…go and fuck yourself.”

    When I was force-logged out today I received the message that my account has been suspended until July 1st, 2153. If I could attach a image, I would attach this screen capture.

    Thanks for opening my eyes to the fact that CD has a history of being totalitarian instead of progressive.”

    “Common Dreams – News & Views by the regressive community.”

  2. Arrby says:

    Common Dreams has issues. Sometimes it’s problems are related to it’s character, which appears just a tad too establishment (See below). Other times, apparently, those problems have to do with external forces. Over the years, CD has been quite useful, simply because it’s dynamic and carries so much info and so many authors. At times, when I thought CD was targetting me, it turns out that they weren’t. They’ve been targets of hacks (I guess you could say) themselves.

    I’ve pretty much said exactly what I wanted to say there over the years and I’m still there.

    But I find that CD is too fast and furious. I would prefer it to take in, and offer, less, but focus on quality, rather than vacuum up everything – articles from the likes of Jeffrey Sachs for example. I’d rather see quality than quantity. They ‘can’ do it and they can do it without slowing down to a crawl, as “The New Cold War: Ukraine And Beyond” demonstrates. The New Cold War folks (main dude is Roger Annis) don’t shut down every sketchy article they come across that carries useful info. Instead, They simply add a comment stating their concern with the source. If they can do that, then so can CD. So why don’t they?

Feel free to comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s