We left off with the question: How could such vile, hateful comments appear on HuffPost, the world's most popular blogsite, and an extremely influential source of "news"?
And we asserted that the shocking answer is:
- Only because HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish each and every one of these comments
- Only because HuffPost has chosen to enable, protect and embolden these vile users, who are the most egregious violators of its comment policies --- while ejecting users who dare to stand against them
Here is the proof:
- As documented in great detail in this special report, HuffPost has been pre-moderating user comments on its news threads since at least March 1, 2008 --- meaning that no comment appears without HuffPost having reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish it. This was all confirmed by Ms. Huffington in a July 2008 interview. When asked to identify the biggest mistake HuffPost made since its debut, she replied:
"From the beginning, I would have established a policy of pre-moderating all comments on the site... [O]ur 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."
- At the top of each page at HuffPost is the following status bar --- in this case, showing that while HuffPost had reviewed, approved and published 425 comments, 892 were "pending" its approval:
And as is shown in the graphic above, the following notice appears beneath this status bar:
“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”
- HuffPost's "Comment Policy" claims that the site prohibits "ad hominem attacks and attacks including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise." HuffPost also claims that it works diligently, on a nonpartisan basis, 24-7, to prevent violations of its policies from appearing on the site. Yet as is documented in Sections 6 & 7 in this special report, HuffPost has been enabling, protecting and emboldening the worst-of-the-worst violators of its polices, while at the same time censoring and banning non-violating users after as few as six comments, for daring to challenge or mock the most egregious violators of its "comment policy."
- Many of the users who posted these vile comments have 20 to over 400 or more "fans" (highlighted in bold), meaning they are not hit and run "trolls" that Ms. Huffington falsely claims are the ones responsible for comments that violate her site's policies.
- Some of these comments sound like they came directly from al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Might some of the users be among the 135,000 users that visit HuffPost from Iran and Pakistan each month, who may disguise themselves behind American-sounding user names (See Section 4.3 here)?
- Can you imagine how these contractors' family, colleagues and loved ones would have felt if they decided to visit HuffPost --- the world's #1 blogsite, and one that has been legitimized by President Obama and top advertisers --- to see how it dealt with this story?
What is HuffPost's (supposed) policy of dealing with such vile comments, and the users who submit them?
HuffPost's Comment Policy is located here; at the bottom is a brief listing of its management's statements regarding its policy towards offensive users.
The following video shows what happened on March 19, 2008, several weeks after HuffPost began pre-moderating all user comments on all news threads, when Ms. Huffington was approached by a producer of "The O'Reilly Factor." He asked why radical leftist hate comments, wishing for the painful death Nancy Reagan, were still published at HuffPost --- a month after the site claimed that they were all taken down:
The following day, Ms. Huffington again lashed out at her critics (specifically O'Reilly), in a blog article (emphasis added):
We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments – such comments are taken down as quickly as they come to the attention of our moderators.
And we are constantly working to develop new technologies -- and backing them up with more and more 24/7 moderators -- which will allow us to more effectively filter out objectionable comments. But no system is perfect and offensive comments occasionally slip through -- on our site and any place else on the Internet that encourages a free and open exchange of ideas.
Let me be as clear as possible. We find the kind of toxic comments O'Reilly is pointing out utterly repugnant and take them down. Period. But we refuse to let the vile actions of a miniscule number of anonymous, trouble-making trolls force us to shut down our comments section* […]
And as in earlier instances (discussed elsewhere on this blog), Ms. Huffington resorted to personal attacks and conspiracy theories to lash out at O'Reilly (and by default, against anyone who dares to expose the reality of HuffPost's "fringe, unhinged" leftists):
(O’Reilly) spews hate as readily as he breathes. It's his lifeblood. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if O'Reilly had one of his staffers put these offensive comments up on HuffPost, just so he could have something to rail against.
The greater context; so what did HuffPost do to these "vile" commenters (and the one who opposed them)?
So in relation to the comments that HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish on April 15, vilifying these contractors and celebrating their murders, we have a few questions:
- Did HuffPost remove their comments, and ban these "unhinged, fringe" users?
- Or, did it leave the comments published, and the users active --- while at the same time, censoring and banning users who speak out against such outrages (as has become a practice at HuffPost)?
Let's take a look. In alphabetical order, on the left is the user's comment, from Part 1; on the right is a screen capture showing the user's comment archive as of April 27 --- 12 days later.
- Every user who posted a vile comment is still active, with up to 28,000 comments in his/her archive (see "KarateKid"), over one or more years.
- The only user that HuffPost banned was the only user who stood up against them, "RollTide4Change"
Users' Status as of April 27, 2010 --- 12 days after comments were posted
"Amock" --- ACTIVE, 1,880 comments since Sept. 2009
Amock 58 fans permalink
That is the BEST news I have heard thus far coming out of Afghanistan.
If only Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves now) guys are getting shot in the head then good for the Taliban!
They are doing us all a favor.
Glad I am not there I would give away their location!
Posted 09:59 AM on 4/15/2010
"Ascoli" --- ACTIVE, 2,394 comments since Jan. 2009
Ascoli 62 fans permalink
They just got what they deserved
Posted 06:42 AM on 4/15/2010
"BOBINMO" --- ACTIVE, 2,616 comments since Nov. 2009
BOBINMO 65 fans permalink
Its a good day when a Blackwater thug gets killed.
Posted 12:48 AM on 4/15/2010
"BrainyRubble" --- ACTIVE, 1,995 comments since Feb. 2009
BraineyRubble 187 fans permalink
The civilian contractors do it for the money, not their country. Their deaths are as not to be mourned, as they exchanged their honor for a paycheck, footed by an American public that foolishly pays a premium for their services.
Posted 12:42 AM on 4/15/2010
"CIH8U2" --- ACTIVE, 4,022 comments since Nov. 2008
CIH8 U2 11 fans permalink
How about Dυmb Fυcκ????? Take your pick........
Dυmb Fυcκ or Crackhead???????
Both describe you well.
Posted 09:46 AM on 4/15/2010
"KarateKid" --- ACTIVE, 28,088 comments since Apr. 2008
KarateKid 862 fans permalink
I have no problem with mercs losing their lives; they're all nutz anyway. [...]
Posted 07:51 AM on 4/15/2010
"pointyheadprodigy" --- ACTIVE, 3,765 comments since Oct. 2008
pointyheadprodigy 207 fans permalink
Maybe we should try helping people without using our guns. And MOST DEFINITELY without the "sport" killings the mercs enjoy so much.
Posted 12:12 AM on 4/15/2010
"Poncia" --- ACTIVE, 91 comments since June 2008
Poncia 4 fans permalink
These contractors saw profit and are paying the price for it. Choice! It was a choice they made and they are paying the price for it.
Posted 06:27 AM on 4/15/2010
"punk" --- ACTIVE, 4,383 comments since Aug. 2007
punk 125 fans permalink
We all should join the war against hired mercenaries.
Posted 12:32 AM on 4/15/2010
"sense oar sheep" --- ACTIVE, 3,788 comments since July 2009
sense oar sheep I'm a fan of this user55 fans permalink [...] american mercenaries deserve no american sympathy [...]
Posted 12:56 AM on 4/15/2010
"SnarkyOne" --- ACTIVE, 348 comments since Mar. 2010
Snarkyone 21 fans permalink
So by your logic since these jackals were there under his watch Bush was a liberal eh??? [...]
Posted 07:23 AM on 4/15/2010
And what happened to "RollTide4Change"?
HuffPost banned this user a few hours after his denouncing those who were vilifying and celebrating the deaths of these contractors. How do we know this? Because he was a Huff-Watch operative, and we have detailed records of what transpired.
Here are the basics:
(1) The "RollTide4Truth" account was set up at approximately 5:15am on April 15, and between then and 5:30am, the user posted four comments:
(2) Prior to engaging "Poncia," "RollTide4Truth" engaged several other anti-U.S. military propagandists, including one of the most pathological, protected violators of its comment policies, "DocStrangelove" (the reincarnated "BlueStateMan").
The following PDF shows this exchange. Note that the exchange began on page 13, when "RollTide4Change" dared to make the following controversial statement, which several of HuffPost's radical leftists objected to:
"God bless these former soldiers."
Note also that on page 5, "DocStrangelove" embarked on an "unhinged" propaganda rant against civilian contractors, which "RollTide4Truth" challenged him to prove (he couldn't):
(3) Here is a PDF of "RollTide4Change's" comment archive at 10:30am. Do you see anything here that, given what HuffPost has enabled and protected its radical leftist users to say, merited banning?
(4) Despite the lack of any comments that violated its policies (at least nowhere near the extent to which the other users had), HuffPost banned "RollTide4Change" a few minutes after the above PDF was taken.
HuffPost's continuing pattern of banning non-violating users who dare to challenge the radical leftist anti-U.S. military propagandists that it enables, protects and emboldens
HuffPost's actions in regards to this thread were not an isolated instance, but merely the most recent of a long series of similar decisions it has made, as documented in this special report:
HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis
Here is a special report that documents how HuffPost protected another of its most notorious anti-U.S. military propagandists, "rich misty," --- and wouldn't cancel his account even after he openly requested that it do so:
Here is another instance in which HuffPost banned a user who dared to suggest that other users take their pervasive flirting, fighting, music posts and non-topical material to another thread, instead of posting it on one that was dedicated to the deaths of American soldiers:
Would you like to make your voice known to HuffPost management? If you share our concerns, let HuffPost's management know your thoughts (politely) --- in the name of the contractors who have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, so many of whom had honorably worn the uniform of the United States of America: .
Chief Executive Officer
Editor in Chief
Vice President - Media Relations
560 Broadway, Suite 308
New York, NY 10012
Fax: (646) 557-0803