Here’s to Palo Alto Online’s Censoring! And – “All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.” George Bernard Shaw

I decided to dedicate another post to the censorship on Palo Alto Online.
The following is a tiny sampling of censored comments, which I am copying from the page I dedicated to this issue on this blog:  PA Online Editing/Censoring – Before&After (link #1).
The threads where these censored comments came from can be found on Link#1.   The censored comments below are not listed in chronological order.
And, yes, I know – PA Online owns the media.  Many threads on Palo Alto Online discuss this issue.  You can also find many links on this topic in (link#1). On my “Before &After” page, I list only a fraction of the censorship I noticed.  Shaw’s quote (in tittle above) vanished after I posted it.
For your viewing pleasure (or dismay)!
Before:

Posted by Palo Alto Forward
a resident of Woodside
43 minutes ago

“2015: Palo Alto’s year of resistance”

You have had your fun. Now we will crush you. Resistance is futile and will not be tolerated.

After:

Posted by Palo Alto
a resident of Woodside
2 hours ago

[Post removed.]

============================
Before:

Posted by Due Process
a resident of Crescent Park
2 hours ago

Editors: why is it wrong for me to point out that everyone is entitled to due process?

After:

Posted by Due Process
a resident of Crescent Park
3 hours ago

[Post removed.]

===============================

Before:
Posted by Humble observer
a resident of another community
36 minutes ago

WHY are comments being removed here for just touching on Daily Post coverage of the case? This editing appears gratuitous and contrary to Palo Alto Online’s own Terms of Use: Web Link

I mentioned that the Post had opened this whole subject with its California Public Records Act request, which I’d read about in a print story cited. I certainly have no connection with the Post. I quoted 11 words (well under the 50-word copyright use protocol) from the Post, on apparent contradiction between Shen’s public claims and contract terms.

That and other harmless references to the Post story in other comments disappeared without explanation, while purely speculative comments remain here. What kind of journalism is that? A publication like the Weekly should be happy to credit work by others in the field (just as it cites bylines in news-service stories). Again: there was no issue in the deleted comments either of fact (the Post story is public record), copyright, respect, or propriety.

After:

Posted by Humble observer
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2015 at 12:27 pm

[Post removed.]

====================
Before:

“…Now the only question is whether the board has had enough and will say “uncle” and agree to OCR’s proposal or whether they want to face enforcement and possible obstruction action. Smart money is on the latter. Get your popcorn ready, this should be good.”

After:

“… Now the only question is whether the board has had enough and will say “uncle” and agree to OCR’s proposal or whether they want to face enforcement and possible obstruction action. [Portion removed.]

========================

Before:

Posted by Angie Baker
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
2 minutes ago
Angie Baker is a registered user.

I’m confused. The first time you posted the district statement you said that you were asked to post it. Now you say you are posting it for the record. Which is it? Does the weekly make postings on request without informing readers about who requested it? That’s concerning.

After:

 

Gone. Vanished. 

===================

Before:

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
6 minutes ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Publisher has directed that I not engage in iterative discussions with other posters so Slow Down and Resident 1 have been added to my Do Not Respond List.

After:

 

Vanished.

===========================

Before:

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
25 minutes ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

For the record Slow Down is on the list of poster to whom I may not respond.

After:

 

Vanished.

===============

Before

Posted by George Orwell
a resident of East Palo Alto
22 minutes ago

The Weekly maintains a list of unwelcome commentators, such as myself. Orwellian. Even I could not have invented such a plot.

My younger colleagues who told me about the hacking, indicated that quite likely the Big Brother maintains a list of “IP addresses” . Apparently the electronic address of the unwelcome commentators. My friends also indicated that quite likely, such an IP address list may include various comments written by the Big Brother.
My friends also indicated that any unwelcome commentator must assume that any information kept by big brother was hacked. Including, obviously, IP addresses and whatever Big Brother saw fit to keep.

Welcome to my world.

After:

 

Vanished.

.

.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: