Unthreaded
@Jiminy Cricket
Not inviting someone to contribute isn't censorship in my view. However deleting a Delingpole comment on a Monbiot article is. Without identifying the deletion to the reader is also a subterfuge.
WUWT censors postings with the D word amongst others, but leaves a record, that's fine we know there's been censorship and can draw our own conclusions; mine will be different from BBs. NLP filters out unwanted comments and only the person making the comment knows; that is subterfuge. It keeps the writers readership happy in a world where no one disagrees or debates.
SandyS
The NLP folks seem intent on building a sort of ideologically-acceptable edifice around climate, and would like to do so without interruptions from others no matter how well-intentioned. Imagine it from their perspective. You are no mere stone-mason intent on chipping at a stone for your day's work. No, you are a builder of a cathedral and you have a vision. Someone popping up and saying 'I wouldn't put that there, mate', or even 'Have you actually thought this through?' is a bit of an irritation.
So perhaps a sister-site? An NLP-Examined one on and around the climate issue? The builders of the, inevitably I suspect, baroque edifices at NLP could drop by on their day off each week, and perhaps take part in discussions if the fancy takes them. But more important than that, the NLP lurkers, perhaps enrapt passers-by who did not have strong prior opinions, could also pop-in to help get the other place into perspective.
John Shade
Being invited to write above the line is one thing. Editorial choice. Being disinvited to write in a public comment space is another. It is censorship. Now what I didn't explain is that I don't regard censorship as a loaded word in this case. It plainly is censorship, but you may well say 'So what, it is their right to censor.' It IS their right, and it is their right to look daft, too.
(Unless you define censorship as a case where a third party, the censor, steps in to prevent person A writing in a medium published by person B. I don't think that is the only form.)
rhoda
Rhoda I still do not get the censorship.
Monbiot not being invited to write for the paper edition of the Telegraph is censorship?
Or Delingpole for the paper Guardian?
The old and new media situations are comparable.
Each of us makes a value judgement on the information source we read.
Each source has as much integrity as (a democractic) society wants to give them.
Jiminy Cricket
What we have is censorship. Here, where a comment not meeting the rules may be snipped, or under extreme circumstances a commenter banned, and at NLP, where the position is subtly different. We are all being disinvited to comment not for our behaviour but for our questioning the logic of the blog's position. When it is Ben and Geoff and to some extent Robin, there is no actual challenge to either the AGW myth or to Leftism. The challenge is to the policy which they appear to endorse, which seems to us to be illogical and harmful. That's all. You'd think they'd want to defend it against those charges, but they do not seem to have a defence. Fingers in the ears time.
I never did work out what that Shaw bloke was trying to say.
rhoda
Censorship is not the deletion of comments.
Censorship is the total prevention of an information transfer to a specified audience. The audience has no other means of receiving this information.
All you have to do is start your own blog. You have not been censored.
Each blog owner is like the Chairman of a committee meeting. The committee has a purpose. It is up to the Chairman how a meeting is run. You assess the integrity of the Chairman. You either give them your trust or you do not.
Who wants to be at a committee meeting with ZDB and BBD uncontrolled? EM and BB? well they would have their say, but ultimately the Chairman has to move things forward, otherwise he looses those positive individuals that give his committee weight.
Authority comes from trust, not the other way around.
Jiminy Cricket
@peterwalsh
I agree with you, but I think on the whole censorship is self defeating, especially in the age of the internet. the only place where it seems to work is North Korea and it won't work there forever. As you say in your first sentence we know what happens at RC, BB obviously thinks that this is a good thing and keeps the right wingers in there place.
I would like to be able to read the rantings of the likes of ZDB, and skip them when I'm not in the mood. It was just such a person on a radio phone in many years ago that convinced me that Global Warming, as it was then, was more political (as a tax raising scam) than scientific.
I did make a resolution not to engage but sometimes it is difficult not to, I also shout at the television although I know it is a waste of time. Perhaps it is part of the human psyche?
SandyS
Positive tension: Entropic Man, BitBicket
Negative tension: BBD, ZDB
Without people like EM and BB, the Camel engineered instead of a horse, would be easy to attain. Delusion is an easy state to attain.
Having said that, their recent comments on defending Marcott have been scientific and detailed. However, the Project Manager in me, being presented with Marcott would just say "it's rubbish, not fit for purpose" and tell them to move on. :)
Jiminy Cricket
@BB
I didn't actually mean to accuse AM(?) of dishonest subterfuge, not who AM is even. What I was talking about was not indicating that a posting had been made and then removed or edited without indicating the fact. TYhat happens a lot in all published media, because it happens a lot it doesn't make it right.
By the way, you didn't tell what it was/is if not censorship (Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good.)
I don't think it has anything to do with left, right or centre politically, as all claim to have the common good at heart.
SandyS
writers readership = writers and readership