A major discussion of the conduct of the Presidency of the United States, which in the long run will most certainly have a significant effect on the financial and investment affairs of this country, has been abruptly censored.
That discussion has 57 comments and well over 700 views, suggesting that it was of interest to a significant number of MFO members. Interestingly, more than 100 of those views took place AFTER the censorship occurred.
Since it is probable that this act of censorship was instigated by a complaint (or complaints) from an MFO member (or members) it would be very interesting to compare those minority numbers to those generated by the post itself.
Additionally, it is unacceptable that one member should be allowed to, with impunity, violate the rules regarding proper classification of posts, while frequently criticizing others for the same offense.
Respectfully-
Old Joe
Comments
That said I agree that one routinely whiny poster (who's not an administrator) should not presume that the MFO Forums are their own personal posting playground.
Regards- OJ
- @Old_Joe, I hope you don’t take it as a personal affront. (I don’t think you should or do.) I’m certain it wasn’t intended as such.
- Nobody should leave the board over this.
- Most likely another active poster flagged the thread or one of its comments and the “powers that be” (all fine people) decided it was overly political and / or provocative. While I disagree, I can see why someone might think so. (And I wouldn’t wish their job on anyone.)
- It really hurts when someone who has put heart, soul and a lot of work into a post has their work inexplicably deleted (as has happened to me before) or closed to further discussion (as happened here).
- The fact that the President today performed a 180-degree pirouette and attributed his Helsinki moment to some kind of momentary confusion / “double-negative” accidental utterance makes it most unfortunate that the discussion will not be continued a bit longer so that the full story can be addressed.
https://www.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheright/georgewill/s-2103021
@PopTart: Now, don't you start getting all upset too.
Regards- OJ
Absolutely! Well-worth discussing, and glad it was!
That's ten to one. What exactly makes anyone think that @Ted's opinion is worth more than all of theirs?
Here's what I really don't understand: if you don't like something someone has written you can simply not continue reading/participating in the thread, or you can stop reading MFO altogether. For some of us, a healthy mix of these discussions that attempt to contextualize what's going on (and yes, course, there are plenty of opinions -- as it should be) is vital. There are plenty of posts and links at MFO that get zero comments.
I sincerely and strongly hope the discussions continue.
Thank you again to all who contribute your ideas and passions and opinions and wealth of knowledge.
Except that's pretty much what is NOT being discussed.
The owner of a private website can pretty much do what he likes. That isn't censorship.
"Except that's pretty much what is NOT being discussed."
That's your opinion. Looking/digging for context in these discussions might be work sometimes but as I stated in my previous post, it's work that's worth it to me. To ME. I'm not speaking for anyone else. That's MY opinion.
Also: If you read my post you will notice I never used the word "censorship." Of course it's David Snowball's right to do what he likes. Nothing in my post suggests anything to the contrary. I make a living as a writer -- believe me, I have fought against censorship my entire writing life and continue to do so even more in 2018. I have the upmost respect for what David and the MFO team does and remain grateful for the work they do. And in the end, it's their private website, as you say, and I'll honor whatever rules they put in place even if that means it's no longer a website useful to me. Are we really disagreeing about this?
This is a discussion board -- there will always be differing opinions. That's probably never more true than it is right now in this particular climate. That seems to be true about many people who work in the financial and investing sector as well. Nobody agrees about anything. I remain engaged.
Thanks.
However, to my knowledge, in this instance the owner of the site took no personal or direct action in the matter. Rather, an associate, under pressure from Ted, caused the closure of a thread which had generated significant contribution from quite a few board members. That discussion was being conducted in a non-aggressive and moderately voiced manner.
I believe that the act of censorship, initiated and encouraged by Ted, was completely unwarranted because the nature of the thread was similar to many which have historically been allowed, and in fact similar to many which are active at this very moment. In other words, it was following the admittedly rather loose set of commonly recognized MFO rules, and that is why it was unwarranted.
Ted has, in the past few weeks, threatened to have a number of board members "banned", simply because he doesn't approve of their postings. I simply do not understand why he is allowed to present himself as if he has some official capacity with respect to the operation of MFO. He does not.
Ironically, to my knowledge Ted himself is the only presently active board member who has been disciplined by temporary bans in the past, for conduct which was deemed inherently harmful to the continued health of MFO. But @Ted isn't honest enough to share that information with you.