(Sat. 11-24-07, 12:30pm)
[UPDATE 2: Reader Documents "Graylist" of Banned SFGate Users Who Don't Know They're Banned.]
(Sat. 11-24-07, 2:20pm)
[UPDATE 3: The Scandal Spreads: Other Sites Caught Red-Handed Doing the Same Trick.]
(Sat. 11-24-07, 3:25pm)
[UPDATE 4: S.F. Chronicle admits to deceptive comment-deletion policy, offers bizarre excuse, then lies again.]
(Thurs. 11-29-07, 2:58pm)
[All updates can be found below at the end of this entry]
The San Francisco Chronicle has recently activated a devious system by which it deceives commenters on its website, SFGate.com. Here's how it works:
If you make a comment on an article posted at SFGate, and if the site moderators then subsequently delete your comment for whatever reason, it will only appear as deleted to the other readers. HOWEVER, your comment will NOT appear to be deleted if viewed from your own computer! The Chronicle's goal is to trick deleted commenters into not knowing their comments were in fact deleted. I'll give evidence below showing how they do this.
Why would SFGate do such a thing? Because ever since public input was first allowed at SFGate, many commenters who had their comments deleted would come back onto the comment thread and point out that they had been silenced for ideological reasons -- i.e. they weren't sufficiently "progressive" -- or because they had pointed out ethical lapses at SFGate and the Chronicle. Or any number of other reasons that the Chronicle did not want known. So, to pacify these problematic commenters, the SFGate moderators came up with a very clever and underhanded coding trick to prevent deleted commenters from ever finding out that they had been silenced.
Now, I'm certain that there are plenty of comments on SFGate that indeed merit deletion, and plenty of commenters who say patently offensive things. No question about that, and no one is questioning the Chronicle's right to delete such comments. But there are many other comments that get removed for no apparent reason, except for their political stance, or because they strike too close to home -- pointing out flaws in the article's reporting or writing itself, or ethical or moral misdeeds on the part of the Chronicle editors or management. Deleting comments such as those would be bad enough, but the Chronicle really crossed the line with their new technique of essentially lying to any commenter who has been deleted by not allowing them to even know they were deleted -- so they don't subsequently complain.
The flaw in this new system -- and how I discovered the trickery -- is the "Recommended" rankings under each comment. Readers are permitted to "Recommend" comments they like, and the most popular comments can accumulate dozens of "Recommends." Also, comments near the beginning of any thread often get the most "Recommends." Several times over the last few weeks I noticed something odd: on the first page of comments, people would voice an opinion on an article, then I would make a comment that essentially voiced the same opinion as commenters before and after me; but if I checked back several hours later, or the next day, I would notice that these other commenters would have accrued 20 or 30 or more "Recommends," whereas I would either have 0 Recommends or (if I had recommended my own comment, which many people do) just 1 Recommend.
Why was this happening repeatedly? One explanation is that my comments were terrible, and thus did not earn any "Recommends," but in most cases they were not much different from other comments, and were at least as well-written. But today I discovered by accident the real reason. The night before I had made a comment from my personal computer about this SFGate article. When I checked back this morning, I noticed once again that my comment was the only comment which had only 1 "Recommend." I didn't give it much thought, but later in the day I revisited the same thread from a friend's computer. To my surprise, I discovered that my comment had been deleted, when viewed on this other computer. Then, later, I returned to my own computer, revisited the same thread -- and my comment had mysteriously reappeared, at least from my point of view.
Suspicious, I then took the following steps: I deleted the "cookies" that SFGate installs on users' computers to identify who they are, then logged out of my account, and then revisited the same thread on my own computer. As I suspected, the comment was no longer visible, replaced by the moderator's notation "This comment has been removed by SFGate." Then when I logged back in to my account, and viewed the thread as "me" again -- the comment was once again visible.
I also confirmed this by viewing the comment thread using a different browser (Firefox) which did not have any SFGate cookies installed yet, and on which I had not logged in to my account. Sure enough, the comment appeared as deleted; while exactly simultaneously, using my original logged-in browser (Safari) the comment was not deleted.
In other words, whenever I viewed the comments thread as "myself" (i.e. logged in under my account name, which in this case was "jimjams"), my comment remained visible; but whenever I viewed the comment thread either anonymously (i.e. not logged in) or from a browser with no SFGate cookies or (most importantly) from some other computer, then my comment was gone -- deleted by the moderators.
So the end result is that the only person who can see a deleted comment is the person who originally made that comment. To everyone else in the world -- the comment is gone, deleted, non-existent. And the only conceivable purpose for this is to trick commenters into not knowing their comments had been deleted.
Thus, I issue this call to anyone who has ever suspected that their comment was deleted at SFGate, or who ever was stuck at 0 "Recommends" near the beginning of a comment thread even though you made an excellent or incisive comment: take the steps I describe above, and you almost certainly will have the same experience that I did: your comment will be deleted everywhere except your home logged-in computer.
To provide some evidence of my claims, I have taken the following screenshot which shows exactly what I'm describing; the direct link to this particular comments thread is here. Click on this image to view it full-size:
This screenshot shows two different browser windows open simultaneously: The left side shows how the comments thread appears to me when I'm logged out, having cleared my cookies; and the right side shows how the comments thread appears to me when I'm logged in with cookies turned back on. Notice that my comment (the one by "jimjams") is missing on the left side yet present on the right side; and that all the other comments have a greater number of "Recommends" on the right side, meaning that that window was opened necessarily at a later time -- and yet that's the side with the visible comment, meaning that it must have become visible AFTER having already been deleted.
Please note that this is not a debate over whether or not this one particular comment of mine merited deletion -- I disagreed with the article's author, and called him an "idiot" for completely misrepresenting the issue, which I suppose the moderators felt was too extreme. No, the issue is that they tried to hide the fact of the deletion from me through chicanery -- and I suspect that they pull the same trick on other deleted commenters too, in order to pacify them.
Do you suspect that has ever happened to you on a comments thread at SFGate? If so, try the various steps described above (deleting cookies, logging out, and re-viewing the thread; or viewing it with a different browser, or on a different computer). Readers are invited to post their experiences here as comments on this blog. And I encourage you to post this URL (http://investigatethemedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/san-francisco-chronicle-deceives-its.html) in SFGate comments wherever you think it's appropriate.
-------------
Reader "Afkovach" sends in these two screenshots: the first one shows how his comments are visible when he is logged in to SFGate; and the second one shows that they appear as deleted when he views SFGate after logging out. This confirms my experience.
-------------
[UPDATE 1, Sat., 11-24-07, 12:30pm]: Software Exec Brags About Crypto-Deletion Feature
The PBS blog "MediaShift" recently had an interview with Rich Skrenta, the former CEO of a commenting-forum-software company called Topix, in which he bragged about this capability in his company's product:
There’s a lot of tricks in it. For instance, if you are banned from the forums, you can actually still post, and see your own posts, but other people don’t see them. That’s a neat social trick, because if you know you’ve been banned, most people will work around that. They’ll clear their cookies and work to figure out how to get around the block; but if they don’t know they’ve been banned, and they seem to be able to post, it won’t do any harm to the environment.Another software company called Prospero supposedly also makes commenting software with this crypto-deletion feature. However, I don't know for sure if SFGate uses either the Topix or Prospero software. (Hat tip: MonkeySon)
[UPDATE 2, Sat., 11-24-07, 2:20pm]: Reader Documents "Graylist" of Banned SFGate Users Who Don't Know They're Banned
ITM commenter "Bricology" has just documented that, at least in some cases, the comment-deletions on SFGate are automated; that all comments from certain users who have been secretly banned from the site are immediately deleted automatically; but that such deletions are not visible to the banned commenter himself. Thus, he never knows that he has been banned.
Bricology took these three consecutive screenshots: click on each one to see full-size versions.
The first picture shows an innocuous comment on a thread that is visible when the commenter is logged in to his SFGate account. The second screenshot shows that the comment has already been deleted just a minute later -- when viewed as a non-SFGate member who is not logged in. (Notice the timestamps at the bottom right of the images.) And then the third picture shows the exact same comment reappeared on SFGate once more shortly afterwards -- after the commenter re-logged in to his account.
Since the comment was non-abusive and entirely innocuous (on purpose, as a test), and since it was deleted immediately, and yet still visible to the owner of the account, this proves that certain users are on a "graylist" of banned users who are not informed they are banned. Kudos to Bricology for discovering this.
[UPDATE 3, Sat., 11-24-07, 3:25pm]: The Scandal Spreads: Other Sites Caught Red-Handed Doing the Same Trick
The DJ Konservo site has just posted screenshots taken from the mainstream blog ThinkProgress which prove that the exact same comment deletion deception is being implemented there as well.
We're also getting reports from readers that newspapers in Canada, Washington state and Houston may also be using the same underhanded software gimmick -- preventing deleted or banned commenters from ever discovering that they have been deleted or banned.
[UPDATE 4, Thurs. 11-29-07, 2:58pm]: S.F. Chronicle admits to deceptive comment-deletion policy, offers bizarre excuse, then lies again.]
In a new posting on Investigate the Media, we discuss an interview given by the Webmaster for SFGate, in which she admits that the Chronicle did indeed crypto-delete "graylisted" commenters, as we claimed, then goes on to offer a bizarre excuse for this behavior that makes little sense, and finally falsely states that they have ended the practice, which in fact they haven't. Go to the new thread to read all the details.
132 comments:
What refined censorship. The censored don't know they've been deleted, so when they never get feedback of any kind to their comments, they are slowly demoralized and stop posting altogether. It's fiendishly clever and completely dishonest to all readers, left and right, though most of the left probably would approve.
Meanwhile, like a kangaroo court, the San Francisco Chronicle runs a kangaroo court of public opinion where citizens are misled into thinking that they have been heard. It's like a Monty Python skit but nefarious instead of funny.
Great report!
New Media strikes again and you are the tip of the sword.
As for the practice you have unearthed?... Typical MSM/Liberal tactics to protect us from ourselves. Taken to a new level, of course.
Great work chronicling this deceptive practice. It's yet another example of the "by any means necessary" mentality, and the stupid things those that subscribe to it are willing to do.
DAMMMMMM BRO!!!!!
I wondered what the fuck was going on at SFGATE with my postings! I think you nailed it good. it was like I was invisible to the other people there. Never got a Rec on some articles even though the others got plenty. I wonder like what is HAPPENING here??? I thought my cache was screwed up or I didn't know what, but now that you explained it I'm slapping my forehead and Dammmmm......that is IT! It felt like my postings were removed but I could still see them. I'm gonna try to find the old threads and check 'em out on a different machine. I'm pretty positive my stuff'll be missing.
Great digging Bro. I got an email about your post. I'll send it to others I know.
I'm reminded of the old comedy routine about the depressed man who goes to a psychologist and lays down on the couch and talks for an hour straight, revealing all his secrets, yet his life is so boring that the psychologist has secretly fallen asleep, and murmurs "Mmm-hmmm, mmm-hmmm" as he dreams. At the end of the hour the patient abruptly says "Thanks doc!" and wakes up the psychologist, to whom the patient says, "Your the best listener I've ever encountered! I feel so much better!"
The readers at the SFGate are just like that pathetic depressed man, imagining that the world is listening to them, when in fact their comments have been deleted and no one is listening at all.
This whole thing feels like a fairy tale, about a mute fool who thinks he is speaking, but who says nothing.
The San Francisco Chronicle should be ashamed of itself.
I found a link-back to this AMAZING yet true blogpost, at a blog called "I Call BS!"
And sure enough, when SFGate lies like this (lies in deed, if not in word), a lot of us want to shout Hey! I call BS!
"The readers at the SFGate are just like that pathetic depressed man, imagining that the world is listening to them, when in fact their comments have been deleted and no one is listening at all." - sandrine o
That pretty much sums up my view of the current day Democratic Party and their approach to their base. And to the rest of us.
Congratulations to Jams for posting this.
A hug from Mexico ;)
Not sure if sfgate is using the same software, but the discussion boards at many other local papers use software provided by prospero. That software has the same behavior...plus a little more. If you're nickname is banned, you aren't informed. You can post comments, and see your comments. To everyone else, your comments appear as a deleted post. Until someone tells you that your comments appear as deleted items, you have no feedback that you have been banned....
If you look more closely at the screen capture, you'll see a serviceman's post saying Hollywood's view of soldiers is unrealistic, and another poster complaining not only about Hollywood's anti-war slant, but the bias of the Chronicle reporter. Yet both of them have been left undeleted. So the most likely reason your post was deleted was for the personal attack, not for its politics. And by not noticing this very obvious distinction, you're the one who seems like an idiot.
slhamlet apparently needs to work on reading comprehension. The issue here is not what or why something was deleted, but the practice of not having the grace to let the person who has been so deleted know that fact. Kind of a real-world instance of the fictional "double secret probation"
Those commie pimps at SFGATE just lost a subscriber (me). They hate my guts and delete every single thing that I post (automatically I suspect). I did try looking at my posts when logged in and then not logged in and it is true! Thanks for pointing this out SOULPHONE...
I have recently been banned from dkos as auto kicks in after you have 96 or so hidden comments which require at least 3 troll recs each over and above any recs.
Then you can't even see your own hidden comments if you have lost TU status. When you go back to the diary and thread your comments are gone and all the ones disagreeing with you and your replies to them have also gone into hidden territory.
There is a cabal doing this there and wrecking the solidarity of the site. Good bloggers have migrated elsewhere and kos is oblivious his base is gone.
Do you want more info on this as to how it is done?
Apocalypse Al:
So, you're saying that you too had the same experience? That you COULD view your comment when logged out, but it was deleted from your point of view when logged in?
That's important confirmation, if so. What is the URL of the comment thread? Can you take a screenshot of it with the comment in the state of being deleted? (Or side-by-side deleted and non-deleted in two windows?) Either way is fine Thanks.
JANET ABBEY:
Well, whatever that's happening at DKos is a different issue. This post is specifically about SFGate's methods. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they were somewhat similar. Do you have any info about SFGate's software or code?
I appreciate all these newfangled devices that expose how truly sleazy "mainstream" media is, even the censored blog by sfcomical. but I am sore tired of almost every single story, comment or commentator being twisted into some flavor of "liberal" or "progressive" with a dose of hate-filled slander or and characterized as stupid, ignorant or deceived; individuals are attacked and threatened, rather than any discussion allowed. Sorry that's not what I call public discourse. I'm a liberal and I am NOT deceived, nor do I lack common sense or grounding in the "real world." What's most disturbing about the sfgate blog is how ILliberal, racist, xenophobic, misogynist it is. I mean, the sfbay area has tons of liberal, forward thinking people, but is really poisoned by an equal number of hateful reactionaries. While I'm sure many people who don't live here make it a personal mission to post there to f*** with our heads, there are plenty of haters right here in river city. And sfgate just gets to put its own agenda-driven spin on it. I might as well be reading Craigslist rants and raves, which I stopped reading when it was firmly and permanently planted in the gutter.
JIMJAMS, yes definate confirmation on the fact that I can see my comments/posts when I am logged in and cannot see them when I am not logged in. I beleive that my posts were being deleted automatically as a matter of fact! Early on I posted comments that got lots of reccomends and positive responses from other posters. At first i thought that it was curious that people that agreed with me were deleted but I was not. Then I realized why that appeared to be the case when I saw the post by SOULPHONE (is that you?). I'll try to get some screen shots for you yes. I think that SFGATE is really sleazy for engaging in this sort of censorship.
Apocalypse Al:
Great! Please, yes, I would like to see screenshots. That would be excellent confirmation. Upload them somewhere and then post the URL here so we can see them. Thanks!
And no, I'm not "SoulPhone" on SFGate -- that must be someone else entirely! But I'm glad they linked here, certainly!
I can't put a screen shot in the comment box here. If you like send me your email address and I'll mail them to you so that you can post them. My address is afkovach@yahoo.com
One other reson for sfgate doing this is they sometimes I think put a crappy article on and when the bickering begains to draw comments the site gets hot with alot of comments... which equals advertisment veiwing.
Anyway and i am sure you have heard this alot THANK YOU..THANK YOU...THANK YOU!!!!
I am not in the least surprised. I have been a member, moderator and admin at a number of political discussion forums over the last several years. Lib sites are draconian in their micro-managing of comments.
One forum I was an admin at was mixed conservative and liberal and I was constantly having to muzzle the lib mods because they would delete any post that disagreed in the slightest with their personal views. The crazy thing was they just did not see why it was wrong to do that.
This is why when libs are forced to acknowledge their actions they consistently see nothing wrong with it. It goes way past 'the ends justify the means' with them.
VBulletin, the number one forum software package, has a similar plugin called "Coventry" with a similar effect of making all posts by a particular member invisible to all but themselves and mods. That is a good tool to discourage trolls as they will always move on when they get absolutely no reaction to any posts.
But these selective deletions by SFGate is much more insidious with it being done on single comments.
It also illustrates another point I always make about libs: they never think thru the consequences of their actions.
I mean come on, what reasonable person would assume they could get away with something like this for any length of time? Do they assume nobody has more than a single computer? Or that members never check the forum from other locations?
Theyre not just arrogant libs theyre stupid libs as well. But then anyone that has read Daily Kos or Democratic Underground would know this already.
A ha! You've explained the phenomenon that has mystified me for months! My posts on SFGate Comments are often politically incorrect, but never offensive; never in violation of their TOU. And yet, I've noticed that I never get any "recommended" points, even when what I'm writing totally reflects the opinion of the majority, and is on the first page of comments.
So if you're right (and I think you are), either someone at SFGate has it in for me and manually deletes my comments, or they have some application that does it automatically -- a sort of blacklist.
So, other than wishing that being exposed to a limited audience, what can be done about this? I don't think that SFGate has the ability to track IP addresses. Maybe we should organize and set up hundreds of identities on SFGate Comments and start posting information about this, discarding and making new identities as they blacklist the old ones?
Actually, this *is* a case of whether your jimjam comment should have been deleted. Personal attacks are against the sfgate terms of service, and you called another human being "an idiot," which is cleary a violation of the TOS.
In my experience, when someone resorts to name-calling and personal attacks in a debate, they've clearly lost that debate.
I honestly think you need to step away from the computer and take a deep breath.
After reviewing a sampling of your comments under your various handles, I don't think SFgate would be wrong to block your access to their comments section entirely.
What you are engaging in an isn't a reasonable intelligent exchange of ideas, it's what we on the internet refer to as, "trolling," being vitriolic, divisive, hateful and making inappropriate comments about other posters.
What a noble calling you have.
Perfect symmetry:
They print newspapers,
which we pretend to read.
We post comments,
which they pretend to print.
Leibowitz's Canticle
I wouldn't call this censorship.
It's more like "blind shunning".
Fine, block him.
BUt don't block him with a trick gadget that lets him believe he was NOT blocked.
It's dishonest, and that is what this whole thread is about.
It's NOT the contents of his comments! Nobody CARES what they were... because with their trickery, SFGate BYPASSED that whole discussion!
Even liberals should be able to figure this one out... sheesh.
Obviously people do care what the comments were. It's other users who flag them for review by SFgate.
If you guys want a forum where you can call eachother "stupid" or "dumbass libs" or whatever it is that gets you off, then start one.
Sfgate has decide that it doesn't want to be a forum for your inanity, and that's their perogative.
BINGO! I've just tested this, and proven that it's automated! I made a very innocuous post, took a screenshot of it, then signed out and looked at the "comments" section. My comment was gone, replaced with "This comment has been removed by SFGate". Less than a minute lapsed between the two. Finally, I went back and signed back in. There it was, my "removed" post.
You can see the before and after screenshots here:
http://tinyurl.com/28lx6w
http://tinyurl.com/2hfqx9
http://tinyurl.com/28j6yy
And again, I should emphasize that, while my posts are often non-PC, they are never ad hominem and have never violated the TOU. They merely reflect opinions that someone at SFGate finds contrary to their own views.
Kevin Drum's blog for Washington Monthly also deletes comments that the moderators don't agree with (not progressive enough) and don't even acknowledge that it was deleted. This is done intermittantly so that a comment may be accepted and the usual denizens of Washington Monthlyland trash the commenter as deluded, etc. A reply is then deleted so the regulars can then high five each other about how they drove that right winger away with irrefutable logic. It's not as elegant as the Chronicle but has the same self-congratulatory effect.
Look at all the liberal baiting here... same people who are doing all the complaining.
Look, the comments section has become a cesspool. I suppose it's BOUND to happen, since San Francisco is the poster child for all things liberal and the conservatives come out of the woodwork. EVERY crime is reduced to illegal immigration, every political story is filled with nasty anti Hillary comments, etc etc.
I'm certainly not going to come to the defense of the Chronicle for this. It IS pretty pathetic. BUT it's also you people who are causing the problems, and you certainly deserve part of the blame.
We get mass media we deserve, people. YOU are more concerned about getting your little liberal bashing comments in rather than just focusing on the issues, yet you want to be taken seriously? You are only interested in furthering your agenda, not debate and discussion. So the comments section represents that. You expect the Chronicle will give you the opportunity to post as much as you want on a site they pay for? Even though you find EVERY opportunity to engage in dismissive, stereotyping BS rather than trying to discuss?
You deserve it.
Great work!
In your honor I propose a new verb "JimJammed" to describe this sleazy and dishonest tactic.
-- Harry Bergeron
I have noticed that the Chronicle website has an unusually high number of deleted comments at the end of their stories. Good to know they're protecting other readers from knowing too much.
Imagine using these on campaign web sites.
Hiliary could give the Hard Left what they want, while carefully screening out the stuff she would show the moderates, and then another set for those on the Right who might be attracted for completely other reasons.
No more debate, just obfication.
You could fool all the people all time.
Better yet, imagine this on government web sites.
Dude, well done. Well DONE. and noble sure.
Forget what that anonymous commenter who said you should be blocked because you called someone an idiot. This person has missed the point entirely. You could be an idiot yourself and an ass. Who knows? who cares? I don't think I agree with half of what you say or say it. And when people of opposing view can see the manipulative nature of the "media" maybe there is hope.
Besides, if you don't know you're being blocked then how would know to reform yourself? I would you know to report yourself to the re-education center? Why is there not a tool that works around cookies and let's us turn it off and on to see such things?
http://www.hearst.com/newspapers/property/news_distinguished.html
The above is a link to the Hearst-owned newspapers. I wonder if they ALL do the same thing regarding posters' comments on news stories. I am registered at the Houston Chronicle. Lemme give it a whirl there and I'll report back when I can.
Anonymous:
(To the person who took the three screenshots):
Fastastic job! I have taken your three screenshots and uploaded them to this site as an update to the thread. I called the update
"Anonymous Reader Documents "Graylist" of Banned SFGate Users Who Don't Know They're Banned."
Great documentation!
Hey JimJams --
I'm the guy who posted the screenshots. You're welcome to use them. Not long after I took those, I went in and created an ad-hoc SFGate identity, and re-posted that same entry, verbatim. Of course, it wasn't removed by SFGate, even though it was identical to the deleted entry. You can see their screenshots here:
http://tinyurl.com/2a4ul2
http://tinyurl.com/28r5ah
Thank you for figuring out what was going on at SFGate and informing us about it. I really had no idea why not one of the posts I made in the past couple of months got a single "recommend" point when I used to get dozens. It really is amazing how the media secretly censors its own readers.
Hypocrite.
A comment I posted here in which I disagree was deleted.
After the comments have been removed by SFGate they are still [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache]CACHED[/link] on the writer's computer and are therefore still visible to the author. This is an issue with your computer not with SFGate.
To clear your cache, go to the TOOLS key click on CLEAR PRIVATE DATA and then when the clear options appear mark cache and hit the CLEAR PRIVATE DATA key. Now the cache which includes your posted remarks will be cleared on your computer. Sign back into SFGate and you'll see that your remarks have been deleted. In essence your computer is fooling you it isn't SFGate.
"Anonymous said...
Hypocrite.
A comment I posted here in which I disagree was deleted."
Dream on. First of all, no comments have been deleted here. You're lying. Second of all, if you see that your comment has been deleted, then no trickery was involved. Even if I had deleted your comment (which I didn't do), the deletion was viewed equally by all, including by you -- which is the opposite of hypocrisy.
Try again.
Hey, why are you guys wasting your precious time even reading the SF Comical, much less posting comments on SFgate.com?
Don't waste your time. It is a sin. Don't give the vile creeps the satisfaction of deleting your comments in the first place.
James Solbakken
<><
cookylooky: You're wrong. I just tried what you suggested, and I deleted my cache, and even afterwards my comment was still visible when viewed from my account. Also, it goes against the experiences of many other people who now have tested it out at SFGate, and discovered that my original claims were accurate.
If you can PROVE your claims about cache-clearing fixing the problem, using screenshots or whatever, I'd be glad to check out the evidence. But I suspect you were just taking a guess. Sorry.
I'm also checking the access logs on this site and noticing that SFGate editors are coming here, and possibly posting comments, and disinformation.
Tsk tsk tsk!
"Bricology said...
Hey JimJams --
I'm the guy who posted the screenshots."
OK, thanks -- I updated the updated to include your user name instead of "anonymous," and gave you additional kudos!
As a postscript -- What's particularly ironic to me is that, AFAIK, I've never had a comment deleted on SFGate for any reason, but I have gotten a number of e-mails from SFGate Comments editors, asking for permission to reprint my comments in actual news articles. I've screen-grabbed the e-mails below (redacting their personal info, and mine):
http://tinyurl.com/3acfm7
http://tinyurl.com/3bpw8m
As you can see, the most recent one was 2 months ago, shortly before my posting tapered off due to questions about why it seemed that no one else was reading them. So if SFGate is interested in quoting me, and I never violated the TOU, why did I get "graylisted"? The only conclusion I can draw is that some individual there personally doesn't agree with my posts.
Señor Jim Jams,
SFGate seems to have two methods of removing a comment.
a) Delete the comment and leave "This comment has been removed by SFGate." in its place.
b) Delete the comment and leave nothing in its place.
This article (*) was accepting comments at first, but now doesn't have a comment line. It's provable that the article accepted comments at one time by noticing references to it in gatekeeper1's (a commenter there) page (**) which has his comments to that article.
(remove spaces from URLs below)
(*) http://www.sfgate.com
/cgi-bin/article/article?f=
/n/a/2007/11/24/state
/n045821S30.DTL
(**) http://www.sfgate.com
/cgi-bin/contribute/sn
/persona?User=gatekeeper1
Of course, for those defending the surreptitious deletion of your comments on SFGate, the test is, were other comments, equally and more offensive than yours, but "in line" with Libthink allowed to remain?
Are they mostly deleting "offensive" posts from one side of the aisle?
(The above would be easily tested: Post as a liberal and then mildly attack someone else. A further test would be the outcome of an attack on a fellow liberal vs an attack on a conservative.)
Has anyone caught a conservative site or newspaper doing this? So far, all I have seen are liberal sites (assuming MSM outlets have a liberal bent, unless notably conservative). This is consistent with their experience, from school on out, of suppressing opposing viewpoints.
"What you are engaging in an isn't a reasonable intelligent exchange of ideas..."
What the above anonymous guy (from the SF Chronicle maybe?) is saying, illustrates the mindset of lefty would-be rulers cast in concrete. In their world, the intellectuals will inherit the earth, and their central committee will be sole issuer of credentials for membership in the intellectuals club, and for participation in 'the discussions' of a democracy. No credentials mean you aren't heard publicly.
So his cronies at the Chron have censored you. And to keep you and your friends from assembling with tar and feathers and making life uncomfortable for this outrageous censorship, you are thrown a sop on your own machine allowing you to think YES! I REALLY TOLD THEM! while the Chron politburo chuckles condescendingly at the misguided thoughts harbored by the peasants.
This behavior already has a long tradition on university campuses, where entire editions of campus papers containing heresies against lefty administrations are stolen and destroyed - with no penalties for the destroyers. And if the country continues to move left, it's a preview of the corruption of the democratic ideal into a consensus of the chosen.
Likewise the New York Times is famous for suppressing counter-opinions in its letters to the editor.
Please accept wholehearted congratulations for shining this light on the San Francisco Chronicle, and all other publications and blogs who use the same technique for 'shaping the dialogue'.
most comments on the gate are blocked for violating the comment policy. Not sure that they approach they are taking is good or not but if you do not violate there comment policy then you should not get moderated.
I'm amused at the number of posters named "anonymous" who steadfastly continue to purposely miss the point, no matter how silly it makes them look.
NOBODY is saying the Chon doesn't have the right to delete comments and ban commenters. What we are saying is that it is unethical and dishonest to delete and ban someone and NOT tell them that you did it, and to additionally go out of your way to write your software so that people don't even know they are banned.
So, the little Stalins have found a new airbrush, and they are not shy about using it, just a little coy.
"YOU are more concerned about getting your little liberal bashing comments in rather than just focusing on the issues, yet you want to be taken seriously?"
This is pretty funny coming from "anonymous".
I did notice that the Washington Monthly was more likely to delete comments with links. If you try to conduct a discussion and link to supporting sources, you get deleted without a mention. That doesn't solund like "focusing on the issues" to me. It sounds like choosing to live in an echo chamber. Nothing new there.
I just read a comment in Boulder's Daily Camera (also a liberal paper that doesn't like alternative viewpoints) that they do the same thing - the deleted poster's computer shows his comment to him/her but shows as deleted to all other readers.
Just boycott the bastards.
Don't forget that SF GATE has repeatedly ignored pleas to block norcalguy101. This fool will block cookies and then start clicking away on every post he agrees with especially his own. I have been on and refreshed the page and for every 3 second refresh his rec's would consistently jump 10-15 points. I complained repeatedly to no avail. I even asked them to remove the "rec" feature because people are abusing it...again to no avail. Also I was stalked by a poster who disagreed with me online who posted links to my personal sites trying to discredit me, they eventually at least removed those posts, but that person...herr_doktor still is allowed to post and MY account posts now show up as deleted if I log out and refresh the page. Yahoo got rid of their discussion boards because a few people tried to dominate every discussion. SF Gate seems to let them.
BEWARE, people who don't like your views just repeatedly report you as obscene or spam even when you are not until your posts disappear. I've seen it many times. Certain people on there have multiple ID's and make it look like it is a complaint from several users.
"YOU are more concerned about getting your little liberal bashing comments in rather than just focusing on the issues, yet you want to be taken seriously?"
I'll do my best to forget the Left's collective all out war on the Washington Post for deleting redundant hate comments because the Washington Post factually reported Jack Abramoff gave a lot of money to Democrats too.
OH - I can't forget. It's all about the issues now, eh? Hypocrite. Liar.
Groklaw's been doing something similar for a few years, and is often called "sand-boxing". Some, but not everyone, regard it as deceitful.
Recently, one Groklaw commenter, Weeble, discovered that one of his comments had been sand-boxed, and he was not happy. The comment thread is quite a good example of how the issue of sand-boxing is regarded, though if you look at the profile pages for Weeble and Carla Schroder, you may find that even the subsequent discussion involved a bit of sand-boxing.
I don't know whether or not Groklaw pioneered sand-boxing, but it's subsequently been included in Geeklog, a customised version of which is used for Groklaw. Such sand-boxing might be quite widespread now, though I haven't investigated to find out.
I will finally add that when one of my comments was sand-boxed, I really wasn't bothered about the sand-boxing itself, because I was already aware of sand-boxing at Groklaw. If mention of it is made in comments moderation policy statements on websites, it could make a significant difference between commenters feeling deceived, and commenters feeling they should have bothered to read such policy statements in the first place. But that's just my view.
Simon G Best
I'm sorry, but I missed the lengthy discussion on SFGate site amongst SFgate commenters regarding SFGate's so-called "sand boxing" of JimJam's comments.
And if I followed your link correctly, it was the offender- Weeb? - who initiated and discussed his "sand boxed" comments on the offended blog.
I believe "weeb's" comments were just erased to all, with no explanation.
What this blog raises, main stream media secretly censoring comments so that commenter is talking to a mirror but doesn't know it.
Basically stifling dissent Alice in wonderland in 1984.
I develop forum software like this (even with this specific feature--it's quite a common request), and I write it to be able to sell it to my customers. I know my competitor's software has similar features. It's a common requirement of several social software and groupware platforms.
If my customer wants a feature that works this way (with the logged-in/logged-out splitview), I write it for them, sell it to them, and make my profit.
I do not particularly care how they choose to use it. It is not in my interest to set usage requirements for my customers. I don't think any of us here would be interested in doing so. (Libs: please ignore this. You have ideology, rather than common sense, on your side.)
Let the SF Chronicle and other sites that turn on this feature in their software continue to do so. They bought it and paid for it. It's their choice how they use it.
I don't read those newspapers. Why should I when so many better unbiased sources of truth are out there. I doubt anyone really cares how a dead-tree media's website polices its crazed fanboy base.
--
Friend of Fred
Show your Support
www.fred08.com
As a fellow conservative and frequent commentator at Patterico.com, I think you will have to eat crow on this one.
Something just occurred to me… when I was recently suspended from Patterico.com for one week, any comments I posted would, from my computer, appear to have been posted successfully, but when I cleared my cookies, which I do frequently, would no longer be there.
I was automatically greylisted so to speak, after being clearly informed of the reason and length of time, so deception isn’t what I’m talking about here.
I’m thinking, technically, unless there’s something I’m missing, perhaps the SF Chronicle et al.s' software just works the same way and commentators never were told they were suspended/banned or missed that?
Now their reasons for banning may be wrong, but isn’t their software working the same way Patterico.com's does?
By the way, as someone who has built a WordPress template (this is what Patterico.com uses) before, I know there is code you can use to show a comment is in moderation (usually shows text like, "Your comment is awaiting moderation."), but Patterico.com's theme is missing this code by oversight or design so it's impossible to tell when your comments are in moderation from your own computer unless you periodically clear your cookies.
This means, effectively, Patterico.com works exactly the same as the allegedly dastardly software denounced in the post above. Further, by consigning said commentator to moderation, this creates the automatic "greylist".
Note: This is with the tag in question looks like in my theme at the file located here: wp-content/themes/theme_name/comments.php
<?php if ($comment->comment_approved == '0') : ?>
<em>Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em>
<?php endif; ?>
Gekkobear at Ace of Spades HQ points out there is a difference insofar as Patterico.com doesn't use a login so it's cookie-based there. IF it did use a login, however (and WordPress has this functionality), it would have the exact same behaviour as SF Chronicle because of the deficiency in Patterico's theme missing this standard code.
So the next obvious question is have they admitted to doing this when asked?
Surely by now someone has queried SFGate about this...
If they follow standard liberal patterns they will deny doing it no matter how obvious it is that they were in fact doing it.
Or perhaps they will just stonewall and not say anything at all.
Shocking! I would expect this kind of evil media manipulation in totalitarian regimes like Texas or Canada;but Washington? My Gawd! Thanks for doing such a great job of investigative reporting on this JIMJAMS!
--Alex
The justifications you guys use for your behavior is very funny. The "Washington Monthly" may or may not delete comments, I have no idea, never read it. I live in the bay area so I read the Chronicle, not a Washington paper.
If you people would just stop posting troll-like comments only designed to inflame, then maybe you could enjoy a good conversation. I suspect, though, that is NOT why you spend time on the Chroncile's web site. You do so just to bait and annoy "the liberals" like some half wit Coulter/Savage clone (even using many of the same exact words). If so, then you get what you deserve.
I find the Chronicle's actions distasteful, but not quite as distasteful as I find people who come to a party only to make fun of the guests. If you don't like the Chronicle's policies, then I would suggest you find another place to post your comments.
"Christoph said...
As a fellow conservative and frequent commentator at Patterico.com, I think you will have to eat crow on this one...."
Christoph, why would I have to eat crow? I'm not posting about Patterico. I'm posting about SFGate. I'm mostly interested in how major newspapers use this system. Patterico's moderation policies are a completely different issue. Just because there may be a blog out there that may use a somewhat similar system doesn't somehow justify what SFGate does. There's nothing to eat crow about. In fact, the more places that turn out to be using this system, the bigger this story gets.
"anonymous said:
...If you don't like the Chronicle's policies, then I would suggest you find another place to post your comments."
Very good suggestion, anonymous! I think that's exactly what a lot of people will be doing. They'll find another place to post their comments. In fact, people will stay away from the Chronicle in droves, and the paper's readership will dwindle and dwindle, until no one is reading it -- except perhaps you.
Yes, driving away readers has long been recognized as the best way to run a newspaper and make a profit.
Maybe the Chronicle can hire you as a consultant, anonymous, and you can advise them on more and better ways to drive away readers.
jimjams, with all due respect, the kind of people who ONLY go to the chronicle to engage in trolling and baiting can go elsewhere with no loss of readership. The great majority wouldn't read the Chronicle if it showed up free on their doorstep every day, because it's a "liberal" paper. They are only there to make trouble, to insult, etc.
If you want to read the chronicle, and comment about the story itself sans political digs and jabs, then I think you would be welcome.
anonymous:
Well, then, the Chronicle should just simply ban those trolls outright: Delete their accounts, prevent them from posting. Don't pull underhanded tricks.
Besides which, it's not the trolls who seems to be getting crypto-deleted. If you are seeing some troll's comments (and you must be, if you're complaining about them), then those comments have been allowed to stand. No, the Chronicle seems to target commenters who attack the framework of the coverage itself, who criticize the Chronicle's very "narrative."
I'm sure some actual trolls do get "graylisted," but from emails I've been getting and from comments I've read, many non-trolls (such as myself) are getting the treatment as well.
Surely someone has asked them if they are doing this?
I would be very interested in their response.
Great job in exposing this decidedly leftist SFGate-forum trickery. There's not much else to say; except that they had to know that someday this would come out in the open. What's their response? I predict they will completely ignore you. Screw 'em (well, that's something they may appreciate!)
And, "Sand Boxing" as a term is already in use (Google's old practice of ranking new web sites) so "JimJamming" seems to be a great new Internet Verb.
Especially if you keep a running tab of SFGate-style offenders.
Banning people outright is impossible, of course. Everyone knows the can sign up for an unlimited number of email addresses.
I'm seeing the comments of trolls (which DO get deleted) and the many others who just post to try and rile up people by making crass anti-liberal comments ( just like you see RIGHT HERE too) as part of what could otherwise be a good post.
It's all a game, and you know it. If you want to fill the comments section up with crap, then you can (and many have). Sign up for free accounts and pound away.
I don't know why people have so much time on their hands... and as I said, I will NEVER understand those who come to a party just to insult the guests.
San Francisco is a LIBERAL city for the most part. The Chronicle represents their community by being a left leaning newspaper. Duh. The great majority of people who have comments deleted that I have seen are making anti-liberal comments and NOT contributing to the discussion otherwise. The Chronicle has every right to delete their comments, AND to play games with those who come just to turn the comments section into an unreadable mismash.
You leftys just dont get it. Its all about the hypocrisy of them doing this so underhandedly. And they will still lie about doing it.
But that probably doesnt bother you when it is a fellow lib doing it. After all its just the comments of trollish repugs right? Although some might call it merely a differing opinion.
Let the same thing happen at Free Republic or Redstate and youll be up in arms full of righteous indignation screaming censorship.
rico, with all due respect, I contribute to several online boards, and in all cases I respect the rights of the owners.
In this case, it's simple. Play fair and you can play. Don't and you can't.
I suspect the Chronicle would rather disable comments all together rather than have the comments section taken over by people with an agenda, from outside the bay area, who are only coming to insult other people. I certainly do NOT go to ANY right wing (or even far left wing) boards and insult.
For the record, I have voted Republican many times. My comments are not about party.
By the way, I know who set many right wingers up to start frequenting the boards at the Chronicle. I heard one talk show host suggest listeners do just that. Lets not be disingenuous here.
Anonymous, with all due respect to you as well, the left can not handle differing opinions. It is really just that simple. All they want is an echo chamber.
Now if they would simply admit that rather than make their ridiculous claims of respecting free speech people would likely move on without further ado.
I guess I have to keep repeating this: Its all about their hypocrisy.
I have never posted there myself likely never will but I have at enough other lefty forums and blogs to know exactly what they will do.
I have ran forums side by side with liberals and saw first hand how they do it. They called me an anarchist because I refused to micro-manage comments in the same draconian manner as they did.
What is the point of even making noises about a forum or blog having open discussion when it is patently false?
Let me say something again: I respect the right of any site owner to edit commentary as they see fit. The only thing I expect, and yes even demand, is that they be honest about what they are doing. SFGate is not being honest.
rico,
"left can not handle differing opinions"
Unfortunately, you really share the tunnel vision factor that both the far right and far left suffer from. EVERYBODY is a hypocrite. EVERYBODY can have trouble hearing a differing opinion. EVERYBODY wants to believe they are open minded, rational, deep thinking, etc. EVERYBODY thinks they are objective. NONE of us actually are. You are obviously not objective if you think the left can or can not handle differing opinions better than the right.
One example. The Bush administration has pulled people off parade routes as "security risks" if they were wearing a piece of clothing that criticized the president. Oh, I KNOW the Clinton administration did it too, and that is EXACTLY my point.
Cheer for "your team" as much as you want, but they are not any better, all things considered. In some ways they are worse and in some ways better.
Yes, Anonymous, all mortals are flawed and hypocrites. This is known. But liberals like to pretend they are not flawed; but that everyone but THEMSELVES is flawed.
They assert to heralding free speech; but when given free speech which conflicts with their religious quota of tolerance, liberals use sneaky tactics to avoid any appearance of seeming "human".
Your example in using the Parade, anti-Bush protestors, and their being banned is really not useful in comparison to what is going on at various newspapers in now, two countries.
The President receives death threats; movies and books have been written about "murdering" the President; class assignments have been given out for students to write about "ending the Bush regime", and you think he's being a hypocrite? Oh boyo, ever heard of the miracle bullet and JFK?
Giving posters the mistaken idea that they are contributing to their community in the form of online commentary at newspapers, when in fact said comments are being banned and deleted, and the commentator never being told is REALLY rank, low brow, sneaky, and devious.
And absolutely without valor or courage.