Saturday, November 24, 2007

Comment deletion trickery

This is underhanded. The San Francisco Chronicle's website will hide deleted comments from everyone except the person who made the comments. This is pretty unethical.
If you make a comment on an article posted at SFGate, and if the site moderators then subsequently delete your comment for whatever reason, it will only appear as deleted to the other readers. HOWEVER, your comment will NOT appear to be deleted if viewed from your own computer! The Chronicle's goal is to trick deleted commenters into not knowing their comments were in fact deleted. I'll give evidence below showing how they do this.

Why would SFGate do such a thing? Because ever since public input was first allowed at SFGate, many commenters who had their comments deleted would come back onto the comment thread and point out that they had been silenced for ideological reasons -- i.e. they weren't sufficiently "progressive" -- or because they had pointed out ethical lapses at SFGate and the Chronicle. Or any number of other reasons that the Chronicle did not want known. So, to pacify these problematic commenters, the SFGate moderators came up with a very clever and underhanded coding trick to prevent deleted commenters from ever finding out that they had been silenced.
And it goes beyond just individual posts, some users have all comments banned automatically.
An anonymous commenter has just documented that, at least in some cases, the comment-deletions on SFGate are automated; that all comments from certain users who have been secretly banned from the site are immediately deleted automatically; but that such deletions are not visible to the banned commenter himself. Thus, he never knows that he has been banned.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Smacks of desperation, you ask me. If all else fails, the Liberal media has to resort to silencing their opponents any way they can.

There is no excuse for certain abusive comments from the world of the trolls. But deleting opposing views or negative feedback is just wrong.

Seems like a Greylist of forbidden words rather than the posters themselves would serve the same purpose and allow for opposing views. So this is obviously designed to weed out the idealogical opposition. Scandalous, but not surprising, considering the source.

Post a Comment