Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Unwarranted Censorship of Discussions

edited July 2018 in Off-Topic
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

  • edited July 2018
    I'm actually surprised that thread got closed since there are a few other 'non-financial' threads still going. Frankly it was one of the more well-behaved threads on a 'political' item that I've seen here in a long time ... it actually had some decent back-and-forth between adults.

    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.
  • One of the issues I have had with this board is that it rarely has any discussions,,,,, merely thousands of links that rarely stimulate any dialogue. Yesterday was a oddity, a real discussion, about a topic that surely will impact every single investor. It was pulled,, perhaps by the RNC,,, who knows? I am outta here,,,good luck and good health to all.
  • @larryB- Thanks for your comments. I hope that you will rethink your "I am outta here". This country, and this board, need all of the support possible from people such as yourself. To be driven away by "that one routinely whiny poster" (to steal rforno's apt description) would be tantamount to caving in to the assaults of the RNC.

    Regards- OJ
  • edited July 2018
    - I’m a bit surprised the thread was closed because it was proceeding with civility and had only been up for one day.

    - @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.
  • edited July 2018
    larryB suggests reading today's George Will column. It is SPOT-ON.
    https://www.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheright/georgewill/s-2103021
  • @larryB - I thought that the article I posted last Friday with comments from that dotard Jim Cramer about how mutual fund investors are getting "hosed" provided some thoughtful discussion ...
  • @hank- Nah, stuff happens, Questionable judgement on the part of management, I think, but then I don't have to put up with all of the guff that they do. No big deal.

    @PopTart: Now, don't you start getting all upset too. :) I'm sure that larry didn't mean to exclude your contribution, or anyone else's. Hope all is well with you- always enjoy reading your posts.

    Regards- OJ
  • Dear Pop tart. I agree that your post was worthy of discussion. No intent to minimize your contribution.

  • Absolutely! Well-worth discussing, and glad it was! :)
    PopTart said:

    @larryB - I thought that the article I posted last Friday with comments from that dotard Jim Cramer about how mutual fund investors are getting "hosed" provided some thoughtful discussion ...

  • Please note that so far, rforno, larryB, hank, Crash, JoeD, oletimer63, LewisBraham and davidrmoran have posted protests on the censorship, in various threads. As has one additional poster who has privately emailed me. Again so far, exactly ZERO posters have supported the action.

    That's ten to one. What exactly makes anyone think that @Ted's opinion is worth more than all of theirs?
  • Here's my take: like it not, politics -- and especially the politics of 2018 -- are a big part of the context that affects all conversation in our lives... as investors and as citizens. It is very difficult to separate them out as neatly as some would like us to believe. I am hungry for these conversations about political context and the ways it's affecting my investments (which is my financial present and future). A lot of times on a discussion board like this one, we are "thinking aloud" when we're sharing our views and asking questions. That is simply part of the process and frankly is the beauty of living in a place where that has been historically encouraged.

    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.
  • Thank you VRD. very well stated.
  • OJ Censorship is up to the moderator. Just because no one speaks out doesn't mean that support for it is not there. It's to bad that it's even being discussed.
  • "I am hungry for these conversations about political context and the ways it's affecting my investments (which is my financial present and future)."

    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.
  • I've been a member for some time and find I'm much more inclined these days to skip vast portions of MFO long posts and particularly those containing multiple links. Linking may be useful at times, but it is not an effective way of developing and presenting an argument. As others have pointed out above, it's a shame that one thread that was a real discussion got shut down and it's entirely appropriate to protest this action. Noses should be counted (see @Old_Joe's tally) because if we fail to protest, our right to protest may be taken away. Count me in!
  • Hello, InformalEconomist.

    "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.

    "I am hungry for these conversations about political context and the ways it's affecting my investments (which is my financial present and future)."

    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.

  • To me, "censorship" is simply the act of suppressing a particular statement or point of view. I would be the last to suggest that the owner of a private site such as this one doesn't have the right to administer it in anyway preferred, including censorship if so desired.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.