[UPDATE #2] Consumerist.com begins censorship
In a move that will surely bring negative attention, consumerist.com has begun to censor user comments. Were not talking about the run-of-the-mill spam censorship, but rather banning user accounts from commenting if you have anything questionable to say about comsumerist.com postings. A couple of weeks ago one of the editors felt is was necessary to offer a shallow critique of the new mini cooper. While there is nothing wrong with this sort of thing on a personal/review/auto blog, the post did not fit in with their usual stories. I simply made a comment asking why the story was even posted in the first place. Now my account has been banned due to this single comment. Apparently I’m not alone. After perusing some forums I discovered that this seems to be happening quite frequently. Good work consumerist, you have begun to operate like an evil corporation. For a site devoted to the consumers voice you sure don’t like criticism yourself, do you…
- Update #1:
I received email confirmation of the ban. Below is a copy of the message. The first comment was as stated above. the second is from a posting where the chart was not rendering correctly. Moral of the story, if you see something wrong on the site you’d better not say it in a comment. Thanks consumerist!!! Enjoy your new status: Consumerist.com - where the consumer fights back against anyone but us.
=original message=
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Roz wrote:
> Your comment history shows several issues, including:
>
> - “Why is this even posted?”
> - “Your chart isnt displaying correctly.”
>
> This violates both our “no junk comments” rule and our request to send errors/typos/etc to the editor directly (they are not allowed in comments).
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Christopher Schiffner
>
> Im trying to find out why my account is no longer allowed to post comments. I have posted plenty before none of which were offensive or spam. My account name is “Schiff”.
> —
> Sincerely,
> Christopher Schiffner
> c***s@sch***ner.c*m
> —
> ROZ
> COMMENT MODERATOR
> CONSUMERIST.COM
> roz@consumerist.com
————————————————————————————————————————————————
- Update #2:
Myself and Roz have reached an agreement. I will adhere to the Comments Code and the comments ban on my account has been lifted. -To new beginnings-
[Feature Picture: Babble]
Aug 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
that is shitty…
Aug 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
You weren’t banned for “talking back.” The overall quality of your comments was low. If you don’t like this move… take it up with your fellow readers. They’re the ones who have been agitating for some time for us to institute stricter standards.
Aug 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
What a cop out.
This however an acknowledgment of censorship. As with any topic, the value of the comment lies with each individual reader.
Aug 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I was also banned, but I received no warning and no replies as to the reason. Only after several Email Bombs, as suggested by The Consumerist itrself, did I get a standard corporate bullshit form email.
How can a network of blogs which was close to becoming an internet institution, allow not only a policy which will eventually destroy one of the primary differentiators that made The Consumerist & overall Gawker Network worth reading, the user comments, but also hire such an incompetent boob to do the job.
It’s seems pretty clear that without free comments the level of discourse on the Gawker Network will approach mediocrity rapidly, along with their readership…
Aug 21st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
The editors there are incredibly thin skinned.
I’ve had one account blocked for referring to the subject of the article as an “attention whore”. I think the editor took is as referring to her (that narrows it down, eh?).
Another account was blocked as soon as I make a comment regarding the extreme liberties that the same editor had taken with the subject matter of the article, sensationalizing it and making a mountain out of a molehill.
But, when you’re the senior editor (who can’t spell, proofread, write accurate posts, etc), I guess you have to protect yourself at all costs. We can’t have someone calling your power into question when you are that unsure of yourself.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
You got banned for a good reason, “junk messages”. Most Gawker sites have that policy, because it’s annoying when people post comments like “First!” or “old” or “slow day”. “Why is this even posted” is also a common ban, since many…many people post that just because they don’t like the blog posts. It’s not censorship, it’s called forum rules/policy/terms of service. Read em up before you whine.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Consumerist.com might be getting a little heavy-handed with their moderation, but the comments listed here that got people banned are against that site’s new rules. Maybe they shouldn’t be so quick to ban, but if people want to post to that site, they should follow the posting rules. Their site, their rules. You break them, you pay the price.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Its not the end of the world but as a frequent reader of Gawker sites, I find it very annoying when people say “Why is this posted?”. The writers of blogs (even the ones that are popular) owe you nothing!
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Did you submit your blog entry about GM to Consumerist, or did they pick it up on their own to drive their page views?
http://consumerist.com/5040165/maybe-gm-cant-sell-cars-because-its-dealerships-wont-sell-them
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
If your attitude is “Well they should let me post whatever I want and if they don’t then screw ‘em” then you will be left behind. A simple acknowledgment of the fact that your posts were garbage posts under the forum posting rules and refraining from straying from the rules would put you on board with where the site is now.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
My personal feeling is that the ban was too harsh. Had a warning been provided ahead of time I would not be angered.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Gawker is a private entity. They have every right to censor you, and you have every right to not visit their site.
Period.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
But, see…there WAS a warning. At Consumerist, they made a big effort to post their rules several days in a row and comments like “Why is this posted?” are quite specifically detailed as being against the rules.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I love it that Ben says the quality of your comments was low, but allows comments like the one advising a pregnant woman having insurance problems to have an abortion. That’s some real quality right there! Way to go, Ben!
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
You’d be saying the same thing if they just Disemvoweled you rather than ban you outright. As a frequent visitor of Gawker sites like Kotaku, Consumerist, and Lifehacker, I find it frustrating to the point of anger when people post ‘not news’, ‘why was this posted?’, ’slow news day’, ‘what does this have to do with Comcast?’ etc. in the comments. It is not clever, witty, or adding anything to the discussion at hand.
The comment that you got ‘censored’ for is merely Gawker finally putting a stop to useless comments and commenters like yourself. Don’t like it? Tough. Deal with it. We’ll be better off without aggravating posts like yours.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I just started reading Consumerist recently (within the past three months, I think.) While I understand the need to keep some kind of a lid on trolls, I really think the moderator is getting a little bit too snotty and over the top with her “moderating.” It begins to remind me of another site, Television Without Pity, which has gone the same route. On the whole, I think I’d rather skim past a few silly comments than put up with the hamfisted, thinskinned moderation and “disemvowling.” For an example of a blog that has managed to keep a high level of discourse without getting all pissy about it, look at the Comics Curmudgeon. High traffic, few problems. Consumerist is getting to be less fun to read.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I will admit that the comments in question were not “high quality”. I simply do not feel they were ban worthy. Hopefully Roz will see it in her heart to allow commenting from my account again, assuming I explicitly following the comment guidelines/rules.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Yup, something similar happened to me. I was banned and wasn’t told why. For weeks I emailed and waited for a response. Finally did the EECB and got a reply stating I was banned because information in one of my posts was deemed to be incorrect. When I pointed out that the information in my post was correct in many locales, and that I was hardly the first commenter ever on Consumerist to post possibly erroneous info, yet the only one banned, the reason for the ban was changed because I used all-caps for 5 words in a 50 word post. I acquiesced to their request that I not use all-caps ever again, and regained my posting privileges. I must admit, though, that, by that point, I had become jaded by the whole experience, and I don’t post nowhere near as often. Maybe other forums were having problems with trolling and useless posts, but I didn’t see much of the “FIRST” or other such stupid comments on Consumerist. I like the disemvoweling idea as a warning, but still I think they single some people out (especially me) for ridiculous reasons. Ah, well, whatevs…
Aug 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I’ve noticed that over the past year, the website consumerist.com has really dropped the ball in terms of quality of posts. Some of them are great, but other are just down right pointless. Stories like the aforementioned Mini Cooper post are just shining examples of whats wrong with the site as a whole. Don’t get me wrong, its a great source of information. I just feel that the quality of the site has really gone downhill since it became more mainstream.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I can understand wanting to moderate comments because I know they can degenerate pretty quickly, but I have no problem with “Why is this posted” comments, provided that they explain why they feel it’s a none story.
My main problem lately has been the whole “Don’t Blame the victim” posts. I know they can get tedious at times, but when you have a story in which it was clearly the OPs fault in some way, how do you respond?
Also, some of the stories have been reaching lately, like the stories about stores advertising for christmas early. The one about Duracell Commercials seems to be a stretch too.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I’ve looked over your posting history, and you really do have some informative posts there. You also have a lot of pretty dumb things (I’m sure we all do). You seem to be aware of this, and have stated that you have feelings of contrition and would like to continue posting there. If you really are willing to follow all of their rules, I would be surprised that they are unwilling to reactivate your commenting ability. I’ve always had good luck conversing with the editors via e-mail. I wouldn’t say that this blog post helped your effort, but I don’t think it has made you untouchable. Worst case scenario; create a new profile (you can find many Gawker Media profiles that are “formerlyXXX”) and follow the rules.
VM
Aug 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I’m not going to judge YOUR comments in particular, Chris, as I don’t feel like sitting through them to make an opinion about them.
What I will say about Consumerist, though, is that Ben Popken is being a bit disingenuous when he says its the “fellow readers” who demanded the rules he put up.
Now, I agree there needs to be some kind of policing of the comments. Some comments are stupid. However, lets look at each time Ben puts up one of his arrogant holier-than-thou “PSAS” on the Consumerist. He does *NOT* let readers leave a comment on these. He explicitly disables commenting functionality on any story that has to do with his rules and his justifications.
Ben, if you’re going to cop out by saying that you’re merely doing what the readers want, you should at least PRETEND to be doing this instead of preventing the very people you claim to be deferring to from saying anything in public.
-Darren
Aug 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
By the way, I’ve been banned 3-4 times from the Gawker network of sites.
Its mostly because (1) Editors do *not* tolerate criticism of inaccuracies they post and (2) You’re not allowed to take on certain opinions because they’re unpopular, regardless of how civil and factual you are.
I created new accounts each time. I suggest that you do the same. If you need to, just change your IP address (change your MAC address, reboot your modem, etc) so they can’t correlate you to your old posts.
The whole moderation system and banning process is petty garbage by petty people.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Many of you talk about being angry at junk comments. Many of you question whether or not what occurred was actually censorship. Several of you espouse following the rules that exist, simply because they exist. This is the most blatantly unintelligent, closed-minded way to pursue a topic, or for that matter “thought” in general, I’ve ever seen.
A rule CAN NEVER justify its own application based solely on the merit of its existence. I’d much rather have a forum full of “l33t h@xxorzzz n00bs” screaming out exactly what they think than a half-empty, closed-minded, stagnant cesspool of conformist bullcrap whisperings. The idea that someone less intelligent than you (statistically quite probable for the denizens of this type of site) is trying to influence and/or modify what you think and say should be almost as laughable as it is offensive.
The greatest indicator and mechanism of genius is the ability to pick up and lay down variegated perspectives at whim. Anything that works contrary to the achievement of broader/more perspective(s) is anti-intelligent, period.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I think part of the strict enforcement of the rules is due partly to Benpop making the site more mainstream by being interviewed by major news outlets. In an effort to make the site seem more open yet mature, they have to enforce rules that some people don’t like. I understand the procedure and respect them for it, however, I believe that they should really look at the quality of the posts made. Just because NBC ran a story about Comcast not paying for customers destroyed equipment, doesn’t mean Consumerist.com needs to run it as well. I cannot honestly see how this has anything to do with the central theme of Consumerist and just like many of the other stories they’ve run it seems that they are reaching for something that isn’t there.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Consumerist and Moderator-Roz are getting a little too big for their britches. How dare anyone criticize them! And their censorship is quite arbitrary to say the least. After several contributions that were at the very least no worse than many, many others on there I emailed Roz a few times and she basically said to stop emailing her. Since obviously I was now an annoyance to her, I knew I’d never be “approved” at that point. So I just began commenting under another name and bingo, I’m in. Were my comments suddenly “better”? They should really quit censoring and let people speak their minds!
Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
@ Izzy: You’re absolutely right, Roz is WAY too snotty & over the top. Quite the little power trip she’s on! Just look at her reply to “jamesdenver” when he mentioned this Schiffner blog: “While I have let people back who were willing to change their problem behavior, I do not let people back who insist that they should be allowed to continue.” What an effing b!tch. “Change our problem behavior?” You’re just a moderator minion, not the Grand Supreme Comment Critic nor are you an effing psychiatrist. A little humility goes a long way, b!tch.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hmm i am banned from theyre forum , a few months back a rewards site (netwinner) screwed a bunch of us out of our rewards and i thought maybe consumerist could help , so i posted in the forum , and then put a link to my post on another site where other ex-netwinner players had gathered to commiserate .
4-5 people posted on the consumerist forum , and they claimed it was all me , and i was spamming.
i asked him to simply check the ip addresses and see that it wasnt me ,well that never happened .
since then i read maybe once a week what used to be my fave site , and even then its with a heavy heart that something i used to think was the best thing since sliced bread has became a censored mouthpiece for nonsense postings .
Aug 21st, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Gawker networks banned my account from posting in their forums. That’s fine. So I banned their ads from appearing in my browser. Thank you Firefox + Ad Block Plus.
Aug 21st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Hi folks, I wanted to address “Jaded Consumerist Reader” who didn’t get an acknowledgement to their original email. Unfortunately, using the webform doesn’t always reach me, but I do read all of the emails I receive.
Email me moderator AT consumerist DOT com for any questions you have about your account status to make sure I get your email. Thanks!
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Man, I have been reading the consumerist for over a year now, and the Moderator Roz seems like a real bi*** with a stick up her a$$. Her selection of what will and what won’t be tolerated seems to be totally arbitrary. A comment on one post will deleted/warned/criticized by her, while other comments, by ‘regular’ commenters will be completely ignored.
Consumerist, this is my vote to get rid of Roz!!! She is as useless as they come.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
It’s a blog. It’s not a Democracy. Don’t like it? Don’t read it. Amazing how that works.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Instead of negotiating with these little dictators, you should change this page to hardcore fetish porn and see what happens when people start linking to it from their page.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Out of the bad can come some good. In a way I think that this post has exposed the consumerist.com mods to the other side of comment bans. Yes, moderation is a necessary evil … but jumping to a ban may not be the best solution. Roz mentioned that they are looking into other methods of dealing with trouble comments including devoweling (not to be confused with disemboweling). This would serve as a warning. She even stated that in hindsight my case was not necessarily worthy of a ban and devoweling would have sufficed.
@Banned, too., I can understand why someone might be angered enough to do such a thing but what would it accomplish? Much like threads on the consumerist, this threads intention was bring attention to an issue.
Lets see how things continue from this point forward. It would be nice to see them jump to bans for only severe infractions, but just using a lighter fist would be a move in the right direction.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I know it’s just semantics, but it isn’t censorship when it is a private entity. You have to join, so you have to abide by the rules. Of course, the conversation is a two way street, so if they do not warn you first, the rules are broken.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“I know it’s just semantics, but it isn’t censorship when it is a private entity”
Uh, yes it is.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
We’re not denying that they have the ultimate right to run their blog as they see fit, we’re just criticizing them and calling them what they are.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Nice to see that I’m not the only one who sees how petty and arbitrary “Roz” is. Maybe she will learn something.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
@ Consumerist-Moderator-Roz
This was before you were brought in, so I have no beef with you. My commenting ability was restored, so I’m good.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I hope things improve. Warnings should be given and they should take a lighter stand on some issues IMO. I wrote a semi scathing rant on my blog about this whole mess.
Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 am
Well, Chris, I’m glad you worked things out with Ben, and the comment Nazi ‘Roz’.
Please be sure to keep to a “higher standard of commenting” from now on!
An example of this higher level is this recent quote nugget from the sham worst company contest:
“The Lucky Golden Shit award will get shipped to Angelo “Golden Boy” Mozilo, former Countrywide CEO” posted by Ben himself.
…or this recent article entitled “Huggies Baby Wipes Are The Shit”
http://consumerist.com/consumer/customer-service/huggies-baby-wipes-are-the-shit-210614.php
Ciao!
Aug 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I can’t help but notice how much more professional (on the surface) Comment Nazi Roz has become since this all came up. Maybe she DID learn something!
Aug 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I just wanted to let everyone know whats been transpiring with re-approving Comsumerist accounts…
Basically they have an issue with re-approving un-banned accounts. Without going into specificsthere is a privacy issue, and the bug is legitimate. If you were previously banned, and have had Roz agree to un-ban your account … but your stuck in approval limbo, just hold on for a tech fix. Supposedly Gawker is working on it.
Aug 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
The problem with all the “it’s a private enitity” and “they can do whatever they want, don’t read it” comments is that the site is guilty itself of the behavior it intends to dissuade and abhor. They censor or simply disallow posts that dissent or poke holes in stories they post. So anyone can try to back them up by throwing up the “private blog” flag, but that mentality belittles and negates the very form of thinking and expression Consumerist claims to try and “fight” for. They are hypocrites who don’t like being disagreed with.
Sep 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I agree with the others about Roz. Today there is a post basically congratulating the work she’s done, (Consumerist Comment Code Brings Back Jaded Reader) and notice that out of 3000+ views, not a single person has posted in agreement.
I wonder why.
I’ve seen entire threads in agreement that Roz is way too heavy handed, and doesn’t seem to understand the rules entirely herself.
I’ve emailed her over an issue, and she was completely unhelpful, arrogant and seemed pretty lazy.
I’m not nearly as fond of The Consumerist as I used to be.
No, I’ve never been banned. Not an issue of sour grapes here.
Sep 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
My apologies. No one has commented on the Consumerist Comment Code Brings Back Jaded Reader because commenting has been disabled.
Why is that, Ben?
Sep 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Because Mr. Popken has decided that dissenting opinions would only slow down his movement against personal responsibility on behalf of the consumer.