To attempt to compare HuffPost's comment threads to those on other major political blogsites, one must understand specifically the issues to which we are referring, to ensure that we're comparing "apples to apples."
The first step in doing so clearly defining what "comment threads" are, the common "rules" that govern them, regardless of the site's political ideology. (Interestingly, HuffPost claims it is nonpartisan in both in its news coverage and user comment moderation procedures.)
On this foundation, we're then able to establish (a) what makes HuffPost's comment threads appear so different from others, and (b) whether Ms. Huffington's claims (1, 2) that the site works vigilantly, 24-7, to keep its comment threads free of material that violates its policies, are legitimate or not.
===============
CONTENTS(1) Introduction
(2) The HuffPost difference, Part 1: Try it for yourself
(3) The HuffPost difference, Part 2: Historical examples
(4) Conclusion
========================
(1) Introduction
========================
(1) Introduction
========================
"Comment threads" on political websites are essentially the 21st-century, electronic, real-time version of letters-to-the-editor in a printed newspaper or news magazine. Although that may seem obvious, this concept is worth exploring a bit further.
In the realm of printed newspapers and news magazines, one reads a story about (topic), and writes a letter to the editor, in which he/she:
(a) Expresses agreement or disagreement with the content or "spin" of the story, and possibly...
(b) Submits additional data or references that support his/her contentions
The rules that printed newspapers and news magazines employ are
pretty straightforward:- Confine your writing to the topic of the story
- Don't attack others (the author, anyone else) on a personal basis (ad hominem attacks)
- Don't use vulgarity
- Keep it brief (length usually specified)
- Include your name, address, etc., to enable the editor to validate that you are who you say you are
Some letters-to-the-editor reflect one's support for or opposition to other letter-writers' opinions. Reputable newspapers only occasionally print this kind of content, to avoid allowing their "letters" section to be consumed by endless back-and-forths between select readers --- then facing charges of "censorship" or "taking sides" for cutting off the exchange at some point, inevitably giving one writer or another "the last word."
The key difference between printed and online "comments"
In the realm of political websites, especially the bigger ones --- which are supported by reputable, paid advertisers --- the core rules are generally the same as those governing printed newspapers. But given the distinguishing characteristics of the Internet, certain additional considerations and rules are applied --- especially on the larger, reputable political websites:
The fact that comments are submitted in real-time --- and it is up to the site as to whether it pre-moderates them, or post-moderates them.
Pre-moderating them means that as in the newspaper realm, someone reads each comment submission, and decides whether or not to publish it. Post-moderating means that all comments are published as-is, in real-time, and the site's management only removes comments that it finds objectionable, after-the-fact.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of political websites allow users to post comments from behind anonymous screen names.
Unlike the newspaper realm, in which letter-writers are required to provide their actual names and a means of verifying same, on the Web, users are able to create and post comments under pseudonyms. Some people act in offensive ways when they are shielded behind such anonymity. It therefore falls to the site's management to pay close attention to violators of its rules (and the law), and enact means to prevent them from commenting on the site in the future (and reporting them to law enforcement agencies, when appropriate).
The fact that users can submit links to external sites.
For example, if the topic of the news thread is a budget battle over whether to increase aid to those who are defined as "poor," and there is a dispute as to the criteria used to determine "poverty," users may wish to submit links to sources containing research that backs up their views, or discredits another commenters' assertions. Given the proliferation of "pfishing" and "spyware" scams on the Web, users have no way of knowing which linked-to sites are "safe," and which are malicious or suspect.
Some users want to post personal information --- their own, or others' ("outing" them).
Needless to say, if one posts their own personal information on a website of any kind --- let alone one that centers around politics --- one is taking a chance, and must accept that those who may not like their opinions are also seeing such information. Certain users, however, who operate according to a depraved moral code, disclose the actual or suspected identities of other users. This is commonly referred to as "outing" another user. Most reputable political websites, regardless of their ideological leanings, expressly prohibit "outing"-type comments from being published --- and instantly, permanently ban any user who engages in this reprehensible behavior.
Are the common rules for posting comments on major online news and blog sites?
If one explores major political sites' Comment Policies and Terms of Service, one will find that they generally address all of the above issues, and articulate and enforce similar rules governing user conduct. And for the most part, as is described below, most major political websites do a pretty good job of keeping their comment threads "clean."
Test our contentions for yourself. Below are some of the most popular political websites, from across the political spectrum (listed alphabetically):
- American Thinker
- DailyKos
- HotAir
- Little Green Footballs
- NewsBusters
- Politico
- Powerline
- Red State
- Salon
- Town Hall
Go to some of these sites, then:
- Click on any news story thread, scroll through it, and see if what we describe above is accurate
- Locate and click on each site's "Comment Policy" and/or "Terms of Use," and see for yourself whether or not the site's "rules" are pretty similar across the board
One interesting thing you'll discover, particularly at Little Green Footballs and HotAir, is that unlike HuffPost, these sites do not allow anyone and everyone to register accounts (or multiple accounts), on-demand. Registration for new accounts at these sites is only open periodically, and new users are closely monitored. We've heard reports that this is done to help keep troublemakers out, and their comment threads "clean," given the sites' limited moderation abilities (a claim that HuffPost also makes). As you will note, visiting these sites is a fundamentally different experience than visiting HuffPost --- and we contend that these practices play a huge role in that difference.
In fact, in the case of Little Green Footballs, the site owner (Charles Johnson) publicly boasts about how many "trolls" and "sockpuppets" he was able to catch at registration, and prevent from obtaining new accounts. Examples here, here, here. Further, LGF doesn't allow users to register with "throwaway" email accounts (e.g. Hotmail, Yahoo, GMail). Although one may occasionally observe a clearly-violating comment at LGF, it is a rarity. Such comments, along with the users who post them, are quickly removed.
You'll also note that on virtually all these sites, they acknowledge that they only post-moderate comments, because they don't have the staff necessary to pre-moderate (pre-screen) each comment, prior to publication.
========================
(2) The HuffPost difference, Part 1: Try it for yourself
========================
(2) The HuffPost difference, Part 1: Try it for yourself
========================
A detailed analysis of HuffPost's Comment Policy and Terms of Service, and it official statements on user conduct standards, are located here. What you will find is that HuffPost's stated "rules" are very similar to those of other major and minor political websites.
The first major difference: HuffPost pre-moderates all user comments --- despite its statements to the contrary
As is documented in extensive detail here, despite HuffPost's claim in its Comment Policy that it post-moderates user comments on its news threads, it has actually been pre-moderating comments on its news threads to some degree since October 2007 --- and fully, on all news threads, since March 2008. This means that since March 2008, the only comments that have appeared on HuffPost's news threads are those that it has reviewed, approved, and decided to publish.
Observe for yourself: At the top of every page at HuffPost is an indicator showing how many comments are "pending" its review, and approval or rejection, and the following statement:
“Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to”
Ms. Huffington confirmed all this in a July 2008 interview, when asked what her biggest mistake was in regards to HuffPost --- and what she would have done differently (emphasis added):
"From the beginning, I would have established a policy of pre-moderating all comments on the site. We started with pre-moderation only on blog posts, since we felt it was important to provide a civil environment for our bloggers (i.e., one where critical comments would of course be allowed but no ad hominem attacks or name calling). "Our comments on the news site were originally post-moderated (i.e., objectionable comments were removed only after our moderators were alerted).
"We eventually decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."
Yet as of June 2009, HuffPost's Comment Policy still falsely claimed that "We post-moderate comments on news stories" --- the same excuse that it has relied upon when confronted with the persistent violations of its CP-TOS on these threads.
The second major difference: HuffPost's army of round-the-clock comment moderators
Further, as is documented in Section 5 here, as of March 2008, HuffPost claimed that it had 18 moderators who work around the clock, to ensure that its comment threads are kept free of violations.
One can only assume that at least part of the $25 million venture capital investment that HuffPost obtained in December 2008 was (or should have been) devoted to hiring more moderators, to keep pace with the significant growth in user traffic over the preceding 9 months (see Section 4 here).
The third major difference: HuffPost's active protection of radical leftists to egregiously violate its "policies" --- some, for years
HuffPost claims in that it is nonpartisan in its user comment moderation practices (see Section 2 here) --- and that in the case of egregious violators of its policies, it has the means and willingness to permanently ban them, by IP address.
In reality, as is documented in this special report, HuffPost has established three de facto "castes" of users, and applies its Comment Policy and Terms of Service to each on a fundamentally different basis.
Specifically, HuffPost has enabled and protected a growing legion of radical leftists who are among the most egregious violators of its policies to essentially "live" on the site for 12-18 hours a day. In some cases, this has gone on for years during which time HuffPost has reviewed, approved and decided to publish tens of thousands of their comments. At the same time, HuffPost has made it a practice of censoring, on a minute to minute basis, and banning non-violating users who dare to challenge or mock them --- some, after as few as six comments.
This even includes one user whom HuffPost knows was interviewed in his home by the U.S. Secret Service for his threats and urgings of violence against its protectees on the site. Yet as in other cases of egregious violators, even though it "banned" him at least 10 times, it fully reinstated him each time under the same screen name, within hours or days. Furthermore, despite user complaints, HuffPost has allowed him to continue his pathological, egregious violations of its CP-TOS, for at least another 18 months. In his entire posting career on HuffPost (4 years), it has allowed him to rack up an estimated 50,000 comments.
On a daily basis, HuffPost permits this "protected caste" of radical leftist users to essentially "hijack" its comment threads, and to post material ranging from pedestrian-level violations of its policies, up to and including vulgar ad hominem attacks, stalking of other users, and... worse (far, far worse). And as the "Broken Window" theory of criminal law (1, 2) dictates, these acts can only serve (and have served) to encourage other radical leftists to act in similar ways.
Try it for yourself.
Don't take our word for it. Go to HuffingtonPost, click on any of its top news threads (as opposed to its blogs, which are located along the left margin), and scroll through a few pages. As you do so, keep in mind that every comment that appears on these threads is there because HuffPost has reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish it.
As you review the comments (ideally after you've reviewed other sites' comment threads), keep these questions in the back of your mind:
- Do these comments even remotely relate to the topic of the story?
- Do they comply with HuffPost's (supposed) Comment Policies and Terms of Service ("CP-TOS") --- or are they egregious violations of them?
- Do these threads indicate that what Ms. Huffington has repeatedly said about HuffPost is true? That it has "zero tolerance" for comments that violate its CP-TOS, and that it vigilantly monitors its news threads 24-7 to prevent such comments from appearing? Or that despite these efforts, "a handful of" violating comments may "occasionally slip through"? (see Section 3 here, and all, here)
- If you are (or could pretend for a moment to be) a conservative, Republican or libertarian, would you feel welcome to post your thoughts there -- or to respond to those posted by those advocating a radical leftist ideology (e.g. calling non-leftists racists, Nazis, pedophiles, "Talibangelicals," "Christofascists", etc.)?
If, however, the thread(s) you review seem relatively "clean," we contend that this is an aberration, rather than what is commonplace, and encourage you to poke around and try again on other threads. You'll see what we mean.
To prove this point, and for additional proof to back up our allegations, please proceed to Section 3, below.
========================
(3) The HuffPost difference, Part 2: Historical examples
========================
(3) The HuffPost difference, Part 2: Historical examples
========================
This section contains PDF excerpts of top HuffPost splash news threads:
EXAMPLE 1: Nov. 1, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re the death of Pat Tillman to be hijacked by radical leftists for their own nonsense and personal dramas
EXAMPLE 2: June 6, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re D-Day anniversary to be hijacked by a radical leftist to arrange a fistfight with another user
EXAMPLE 3: Jan. 5, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re proposed tax cuts to be hijacked by various users to engage in a vulgar, adolescent food fight
EXAMPLE 4: Oct. 3, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re deaths of U.S. soldiers to be hijacked by radical leftists for "music night," then ejects another user for daring to voice objection to this
EXAMPLE 5: Sept. 23, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re new U.S. senator to be commandeered by one of its most maniacal, long-term, protected violators... to stalk another user
EXAMPLE 6: Nov. 28, 2008: HuffPost permits top thread re Mumbai, India terror attacks to be hijacked by radical leftists for... insanity
EXAMPLE 7: Dec. 7, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re healthcare reform to be hijacked by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists
EXAMPLE 8: Feb. 3, 2010: HuffPost permits top thread re U.S. soldiers and Pakistani children murdered by bombing to be hijacked by long-term radical leftists for... music night, food fights
EXAMPLE 9: Feb. 27, 2010: On top thread re Chile earthquake, HuffPost fast-bans a non-violating user within minutes, for objecting to its allowing long-term radical leftists to make fun of victims, hijack thread for nonsense
As you review these threads, remember: as is documented in Sections 1 & 2 here, HuffPost claims in its Comment Policy and Terms of Service that it prohibits comments that are "off-topic" (contain material that does not relate to the topic of the news thread), and those that contain (a) ad hominem (personal) attacks, (b) libels, (c) slurs based on religion, race, sexual orientation, etc., (d) threats, etc.
EXAMPLE 1: Nov. 1, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re the death of Pat Tillman to be hijacked by radical leftists for their own nonsense and personal dramas
As shown below, HuffPost's top splash headline of this day focused on the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. The article thread is here.
If ever there was a justification for HuffPost to actually apply its Comment Policy and Terms of Service, out of respect for Tillman, his family and friends, and his fellow soldiers, this would have been it.
Instead, as you can see in the following PDF, HuffPost instead allowed this thread to be "hijacked" by some of the most notorious, long-term, protected violators of its policies to post... links to their favorite music. One comment (total) was actually on the topic of Tillman:
Tillman thread - p5 - 1 comment on topic -
In the next PDF, HuffPost allowed its violators to discuss, among other things, a new personal drama: one of their "friends," "LadyNaga," was considering leaving the site. This user is another one of the most pathological violators of HuffPost's CP-TOS, yet it has protected and enabled her for eleven months, during which time it's permitted her to post 40,000 comments. HuffPost also permitted users to engage in endless ad hominem and vulgar attacks, etc. Together, these comments consume an estimated 80% of the PDF shown below, and a significant portion of the overall thread:
Tillman thread - p5 - 1 comment on topic -
To further punctuate how long HuffPost decided to allow the personal drama over "LadyNaga's" all-important decision, here are the first three pages of her comment archive taken at the time --- her most recent comments, and other users' replies, on the Tillman thread:
LadyNaga crap all over Tillman thread -
All of these comments --- every last one --- HuffPost reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish, on this, of all threads.
EXAMPLE 2: June 6, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re D-Day anniversary to be hijacked by a radical leftist to arrange a fistfight with another user
If you can recall being in junior high school, and hearing chants of "Fight! Fight! Fight!," this will seem familiar.
As with the Tillman thread (Example 1), HuffPost had a choice: to honor the memory of the tens of thousands of American and allied soldiers who fought, were injured or were killed in this monumental battle --- or to allow this thread to be "hijacked."
HuffPost's choice? To allow the thread to be hijacked by one of its "protected" radical leftists, "rampage," so he and another user could arrange a fistfight between them --- and other users could cheer them on.
06June09 DDay415p users arrange fistfight in Miami -
And can you guess which user HuffPost chose to ban right after this encounter? Hint: It wasn't "rampage" (proof available upon request). Moving along...
EXAMPLE 3: Jan. 5, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re proposed tax cuts to be hijacked by various users to engage in a vulgar, adolescent food fight
Imagine if you'd heard about HuffPost, and decided to visit, at oh, say, around 7:45 PST. Seeing this story as the top splash headline you might expect that the "comments" section would indicate that HuffPost was facilitating a discussion among users of oh, say, tax cuts, tax policy, the historic impact of taxation on various segments of our population, etc. Right? Well, you'd be very, very wrong.
Because rather than confining users' comments to being "on-topic," as HuffPost claims it does, you would have walked right into a 7th-grade food fight between "DeenaB" and other users, over... we're not quite sure what. Some of HuffPost's "protected" caste of radical leftists, however, seemed to be ordering "Deena" to leave HuffPost (as if that's their decision). Keep in mind that all of this vulgarity, hatred, and ad homimen attacks, all of these comments --- every last one --- HuffPost reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish:
05Jan09 tt1050p 30pending - foodfight -
EXAMPLE 4: Oct. 3, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re deaths of U.S. soldiers to be hijacked by radical leftists for "music night," then ejects another user for daring to voice objection to this
The thread is located here.
But in this instance, the PDF excerpts below answer a question concerned observers might ask:
What would happen if another user voiced an objection to HuffPost's "protected" caste of radical leftists hijacking this thread, to turn it into "music night"?
Need you ask?
If you scroll to the bottom of page 15, you'll see that after endless "comments" containing nothing but music links, another user, "Bravia Justicia," posted the following:
"This page is about our soldiers.
If you can't stay on that, there are lots of other pages to visit."
Scroll down to see the attacks on this user that HuffPost reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish. Then scroll up to the top of the thread, and see how HuffPost also allowed them to "put it to a vote":
03Oct09 Bravia objects music night on soldier thread -
To delve a little further into "Bravia Justicia," here's his/her user profile, taken about this time. Do you see anything that would merit HuffPost taking disciplinary action against him/her?
Bravia Justicia profile p1 930p -
Neither do we. Yet shortly after this exchange, HuffPost chose to ban "Bravia Justicia" --- and to leave all or the vast majority of these protected radical leftists free to continue posting their violating comments at will... on a thread dealing with the deaths of American soldiers.
EXAMPLE 5: Sept. 23, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re new U.S. senator to be hijacked by one of its most maniacal, long-term, protected violators... to stalk another user
As is documented here (and here, here), for the past two years, HuffPost has knowingly enabled and protected "kevenseven" (et al), the user described earlier, whom HuffPost allowed to boast of his being interviewed in his home by the U.S. Secret Service, for his threats and urgings of violence against its protectees on the site. It has banned him at least ten times, then fully reinstated him, hours or days later. In total, HuffPost has permitted him to post an estimated 50,000 comments over his four (total) years on the site --- while censoring and banning non-violating users who dare to speak out against or mock him.
On this PDF excerpt of the thread entitled "PAUL KIRK Tapped For Kennedy Senate Seat" (here), the first thing you'll notice is that almost none of the comments have anything even remotely to do with this topic. But our focus here is on how HuffPost permitted "kevenseven" and his "friends" to repeatedly accuse another, non-violating user, "Andrea Castillo," of having personally murdered Bill Sparkman, the federal worker found hanged in Kentucky on September 12, 2009.
You'll see on pages 4-5, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20, that HuffPost repeatedly reviewed, approved and decided to publish comments by him to her such as, "You killed Bill Sparkman. Are you proud?," and "Did you tie the noose that hung Bill Sparkman, or did you just pull the rope?"
This was just the beginning; HuffPost permitted "kevenseven" to keep escalating these assaults over the following days, with him and his friends claiming that she'll "pay" for this crime, and that she'll "burn for it."
Addendum: On Nov. 24, the Kentucky State Police ruled Sparkman's death a suicide.
23Sept09 Paul Kirk thread - K7 stalking AC re Bill Sparkman -
EXAMPLE 6: Nov. 28, 2008: HuffPost permits top thread re Mumbai, India terror attacks to be hijacked by radical leftists for... insanity
If you were beginning to wonder if what's described above is a recent phenomenon at HuffPost, the following will answer this question. This event occurred more than a year ago --- and 8 months after HuffPost began pre-moderating all comments on its news threads, including this one.
This top news headline at HuffPost, entitled Indian Commandos Storm Besieged Jewish Center, is located here. Obviously, this was a very solemn occasion, that caused (normal) people throughout the world to grieve with the Indians. Jews in particular were outraged by this aspect of the Mumbai attacks, as it was deliberately designed to perpetrate mass murder at this Jewish center.
The following PDF excerpt shows what happened on but a few pages of this thread at HuffPost. While this excerpt does not contain the vulgar ad hominem attacks, the "music night" revelry, or the other types of violations that HuffPost allows its protected caste of radical leftists to perpetrate, practically none of these comments have anything even remotely to do with the Mumbai attacks.
28Nov08 India bombings thread 220a -
EXAMPLE 7: Dec. 7, 2009: HuffPost permits top thread re healthcare reform to be hijacked by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists
Imagine you woke up this day, heard about how President Obama had visited the U.S. Senate yesterday to help advance the Democrats' healthcare reform proposal. Imagine further that you'd heard about HuffPost and decided to visit the site and see their take on this issue. The first thing you would have seen is this splash headline:
Obama Doesn't Mention Public Option In Health Care Speech To Senators... Lieberman Elated
Now, imagine you clicked on that headline, read the story, then scrolled down to the comments section. Here's what you would have seen right on page 1, all of which HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish (newest posts are closest to the top):
Pages 9, 11: "Testing - AIPAC," by nolabels
Page 8: "How can we talk about Lieberman or any of our "representatives" and not talk about who pays their bills? Thanks H P," by nolabels.
Page 5: "I once sat in a $1,000 seat at an AI[PAC]...... dinner. It was the creepiest, most war loving, xenophobia loving/denying night of my life. A staunch Isra[EL]... supporter and senior lawyer in my department left because it was too much for HIM... [...] I ended up leaving early and finishing off the night with a handle of Jack just so that I could wake up feeling sane," by nolabels.
Page 6: "There's a GREAT new organization that is slowly undermining A. I. P. A. C.s influence.. comprised of young progressives that are b.e.a.t.i.n.g them at their own game..." by DocStrangelove (aka BlueStateMan)
Reply: "Excellent, how much of a chance do you think they have? A I P A C is really entrenched," by monicaangel
Page 7: "Most of my jewi sh friends would rather pick up their yoga mats than the to ra," by nolabels.
07Dec09 - AIPAC Jews on HC thread -
About now, you might be asking yourself, "What does any of that have to do with healthcare reform?" Nothing, of course. But this isn't the first time that HuffPost has singled out Sen. Lieberman for "special treatment" --- or allowed the associated comment threads to be inundated with this kind of anti-Semitism (here, here, here).
EXAMPLE 8: Feb. 3, 2010: HuffPost permits top thread re U.S. soldiers and Pakistani children murdered by bombing to be hijacked by long-term radical leftists for... music night, food fights
News outlets tonight were focused on the tragic murder of three U.S. soldiers and three Pakistani schoolgirls, and the wounding of two additional U.S. soldiers and an estimated hundred Pakistani civilians, via a roadside bombing. From approximately 6-11pm, this was the splash headline at HuffPost, as well. The story thread is here:
Pakistan Blast Kills U.S. Troops, Children, Say Local Officials
Now imagine that you decided to go to HuffPost and read this article, then scroll down to see what comments it reviewed, approved and decided to publish. Here are some examples of what you would have seen:
(1) This 21-page excerpt, in which 95% of the comments have nothing whatsoever to do with this tragedy, U.S. foreign or military policy, etc. Instead, they focus on a user's poem (pages 1-2), various user fights, music, flirting, etc.:
03Feb10 US troops children killed 4 -
(2) This 20-page excerpt, which consists of comments dealing with anything but the topic --- including user threats to have others banned, user fights, etc.
(3) This 6-page excerpt, consisting entirely of comments regarding running a laptop computer off of a generator.
(4) This 21-page excerpt, consisting of comments on Newfoundlands (dogs), pot smoking, music, user fights, etc.
As you review the above PDFs, note that the comments that consume these pages are generally not by "trolls" (new, hit-and-run users whom Ms. Huffington likes to blame - 1, 2). Instead, they're posted by users with 100-1,500 "fans," meaning they have been HuffPost users for a very long time.
This is also indicative of HuffPost's continuous enabling and protecting the most egregious violators of its comment policy, while ejecting non-violating users and those who stand up to them, after as few as six comments.
EXAMPLE 9: Feb. 27, 2010: On top thread re Chile earthquake, HuffPost fast-bans a non-violating user within minutes, for objecting to its allowing long-term radical leftists to make fun of victims, hijack thread for nonsense
On February 27, an earthquake hit Chile that was estimated to be ten times the strength of the one that recently killed 200,000 in Haiti. To its credit, HuffPost posted this story as its top splash headline:
As was the case of previous threads dealing with tragedies, however, HuffPost not only enabled the radical leftists it protects and emboldens to act like maniacs, it banned a user who objected to it, and them, doing so on this particular thread. Upon seeing what was occurring on this thread, a Huff-Watch stringer established a new account, as "Nocturnal Soleil." Initially, Nocturnal Soleil engaged primarily in two types of comments: (1) Sympathy for the 200+ victims who were already dead, and references to relief agencies, and (2) Rebuttals to the growing chorus of radical leftist allegations that this earthquake was caused by human-caused global warming, or capitalism, or America.
When HuffPost permitted its long-term radical leftists to once again begin making fun of the victims of this earthquake, he called them out on it. In one instance, "ChardinisAngel" claimed "NO MORE BEANS FOR CHILE," to which a number of other users erupted in laughter. In response, "Nocturnal Soleil" copied and pasted these comments, along with his own, below, stating, "Liberal compassion - Making fun of 200+ people who just lost their lives. Hope karma isn't just speculative." As shown below, this post was published at 4:43pm (see bottom right):
Yet apparently, publishing this comment was a "mistake" by HuffPost --- because as shown in the following screencap, by 4:51pm --- 7 minutes later --- HUFFPOST BANNED "Nocturnal Soleil":
By 5:00pm, the radical leftists that HuffPost protects and emboldens erupted in celebrations (as you read this, keep in mind that HuffPost claims it prohibits "off-topic comments"):
So if this is the standard set by HuffPost for "acceptable" user comments on a thread dealing with a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions, what types of comments did it review, approve and decide to publish on it, by users that it chooses to protect and embolden?
Here are some PDF excerpts of the thread. Have a look --- and note how many of the users who post the most egregiously offensive, or off-topic comments, have between 50 and 1,000 "fans," meaning they are definitely not "trolls", whom Ms. Huffington likes to blame when "offensive" content is discovered on her site:
[coming soon]
========================
(4) Conclusion
========================
(4) Conclusion
========================
The above are but several examples that validate what HuffPost knowingly permits to occur on its "news" threads.
Collectively, we contend they can make a normal person feel as if they're in a psychiatric ward, where the patients, totally devoid of any sense of the reality of where they are and basic rules of civility, have been allowed to take over the institution.
As noted here, one cannot even blame the radical leftists that HuffPost has chosen to enable and protect for "hijacking" its "news" threads for their own, policy-violating purposes. This is because none of it can happen without HuffPost's knowledge and consent, even on threads as solemn as some of the above are. For as it says right at the top of every page on every thread, and we've documented in detail here, none of these comments could have been posted without HuffPost having reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish them.
Many more examples are in our archives, stretching back to October 2007, when HuffPost first began pre-moderating its user comments, to some degree... up to and including "outing" users, stalking, threats and urgings of violence against them, their children, notable public figures, etc. You can get a preview of this material at:
HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis
April '08-present: User boasts about in-home interview by Secret Service re his threats against Bush on HuffPost (HuffPost: "Approved!!," protected!!)
3/23/09: HuffPost Users: "Hey, Let's Commit Murder!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")
4/12/09: HuffPost Users: "Hey, Let's Murder Bankers!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")
At this point, and after reviewing the comment threads on other major political news/blog sites, you may be asking:
- How could all this occur on HuffPost, which is supported by some of the world's biggest advertisers, has access to and influence over the top levels of our government (some members of which are among its "official bloggers"), who have granted it "legitimacy" as a "news" source?
- Why are smaller sites, with only one or a handful of staff, able to keep their news threads "clean," while HuffPost, with its army of 24-7 moderators, knowingly allows all this to occur?
- Most egregiously, why would HuffPost permit news threads concerning American soldiers to be "hijacked" for this idiocy?
These are good questions, that only HuffPost can answer.
Perhaps someday, someone in a position of influence will ask it to do so.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment