NuggyBuggy
Sep 23rd, 2007, 11:00 AM
In a recent thread about a large Canadian bookseller, I made a post about how I am boycotting them because of what I believe are fascist book-banning policies. When I looked at the thread later, I could not find my post. Thinking that maybe I forgot to submit it, I made another post, then bookmarked the link to the post that then appeared in the thread. In my second post I made sure I explained what I believe are wrong with their policies.
Lo and behold, the next morning the second post is gone and my bookmark points to an invalid link. Clearly, my two posts were deleted. But why ?
What exactly are RFD's policies here ? I looked at the "Terms of Use page" and see nothing relevant. Clearly it is not against policy to criticize a company as this happens many times (e.g. see the common and pointed criticisms of Tigerdirect, BestBuy, Staples, Futureshop, etc.). I've seen posts bashing a large footwear manufacturer's sweatshops. I've seen posts claiming that a large Canadian electronics retailer is sleazy and dishonest. What exactly is wrong about criticizing a bookseller which has the de facto ability to control what political viewpoints can appear at books available at retail, and does so ?
And while we are at it, how does RFD go about deleting posts ? Does someone just report a post and then it is deleted ? Or is there some sort of review process by which suitability is determined ? Are there criteria for deletion ? If so, are these criteria published ? And shouldn't posters at least be notified when their posts are deleted (forgetting egregious offenses like spam and shilling for your own company).
Is the problem that the bookseller in question sponsors RFD in some way (I have no idea if they do) ? If so, the application of censorship in favour of sponsors dangerously jeopardizes the site's ability to be objective. Is it because RFD is worried about legal repercussions ? I would hope as a purveyor of discussion, that they would realize that they are not liable for reasonable viewpoints made by users of their sites, and would stand up for their users right to express themselves reasonably and rationally.
I eagerly await any insight here and wonder whether this thread, too, will make it past the free speech filter. If someone is going to delete this thread, please, at least have the courtesy to explain to me why.
Lo and behold, the next morning the second post is gone and my bookmark points to an invalid link. Clearly, my two posts were deleted. But why ?
What exactly are RFD's policies here ? I looked at the "Terms of Use page" and see nothing relevant. Clearly it is not against policy to criticize a company as this happens many times (e.g. see the common and pointed criticisms of Tigerdirect, BestBuy, Staples, Futureshop, etc.). I've seen posts bashing a large footwear manufacturer's sweatshops. I've seen posts claiming that a large Canadian electronics retailer is sleazy and dishonest. What exactly is wrong about criticizing a bookseller which has the de facto ability to control what political viewpoints can appear at books available at retail, and does so ?
And while we are at it, how does RFD go about deleting posts ? Does someone just report a post and then it is deleted ? Or is there some sort of review process by which suitability is determined ? Are there criteria for deletion ? If so, are these criteria published ? And shouldn't posters at least be notified when their posts are deleted (forgetting egregious offenses like spam and shilling for your own company).
Is the problem that the bookseller in question sponsors RFD in some way (I have no idea if they do) ? If so, the application of censorship in favour of sponsors dangerously jeopardizes the site's ability to be objective. Is it because RFD is worried about legal repercussions ? I would hope as a purveyor of discussion, that they would realize that they are not liable for reasonable viewpoints made by users of their sites, and would stand up for their users right to express themselves reasonably and rationally.
I eagerly await any insight here and wonder whether this thread, too, will make it past the free speech filter. If someone is going to delete this thread, please, at least have the courtesy to explain to me why.