Minnesota attempts limit access to free online education (Cousera) and somehow its out of bounds for the FP? [more inside]
posted by specialk420
on Oct 19, 2012 -
I can understand closing a thread that becomes vitriolic, but there doesn't seem much point having obituary
posts if we have to shy away from controversy
- especially when the decedent notoriously embraced
posted by Joe in Australia
on Jul 22, 2012 -
I was repeatedly censored in a thread while discussing freedom of speech. When I posted again, connecting my censorship directly to the topic, I was censored again. I would like an explanation. [more inside]
posted by charlie don't surf
on Apr 27, 2012 -
Reddit will be blacked out
for 12 hours on January 18th in protest against SOPA. Will Metafilter be doing similar?
posted by Artw
on Jan 10, 2012 -
What's that black thing on the logo? MetaFilter is participating in American Censorship Day
to help draw attention to a bill in congress that could hurt sites with user-contributed content—sites like MetaFilter. [more inside]
posted by pb
on Nov 15, 2011 -
My post titled "The Most Dangerous Video on the Internets"
was pulled after appearing for a mere 10 minutes or so. In addition to that, jessamyn's posted "reason" was a cheap resort to name-calling. The video to which I was linking is 2 hours long. How can you possibly have decided that it was worth censoring after a mere 10 minutes? Are Metafilter readers really unable to decide for themselves whether or not they should view the video? I've received an email reply from jessamyn which I appreciate, but believe her reasons to be without merit. I like Metafilter a lot (it's my homepage), but really don't like censorship which is exactly what this smells like. I'd like to know more about this decision.
posted by msquare
on Jul 18, 2007 -
My post "Hollywood or Bust" was deleted because someone thought it was too much like a chat topic. However, you allowed a post on MetaFilter that linked to an article describing the narcissism that threatens to lead a whole generation into the illusion that fame is not only within their reach, but is an unquestionably desirable goal.
As someone who lives in this world and is as exposed to the media as much as anyone else, I wished to question this prevailing assumption and thought others might wish to share their thoughts as well.
I am not the only one who has had their posts censored. I see a lot of pretentious bullying going on and it will ruin this web community. Have a little more imagination and tolerance, maybe see where things go before you jump in and pull the plug. Perhaps I will not be missed if I leave this site and never return (you have my $5 right?), but I doubt I will be the last one to do so.
posted by melangell
on Mar 20, 2007 -
Matt: Do you have a "watch list" like the Department of Homeland Security apparetly has? I mean a list of potential offenders in terms of breaking the MeFi code. Dumb posters like me. Do you look out for certain types of threads and within them do you purge threatening content? Do you profile? What does the "War On Terror" mean to MetaFilter in terms of spying stuff and administration people? Has George W. Bush's adminstration had an impact on MetFilter in a concrete way? Beyond NewsFilter have you been seriously pressured at any time beyond the five bucks? Sorry for the double query. has Karl Rove or his proxy knocked on your door?
posted by persona non grata
on Aug 11, 2006 -
Deleting MetaTalk threads?
Deleting blue threads, I understand and support. But deleting a metatalk thread is unexpected. Of course I'm not on the grey much. Maybe this happens all the time. This has been the first time in a very long time I've been interested in anything going on here so maybe I've just not noticed.
I would think a MetaTalk thread might be closed, but deleted too? That seems counter to what the grey is for, why it even exists. Maybe I just don't understand.
The grey is to discuss things you shouldn't discuss/don't belong on the blue. So now things in the grey are to be slashed as well?
I would prefer it not to be, but of course it is not my say. But I would like clarification, because there are other threads in the grey that have gone FAR BEYOND what I can only assume caused the demise of the affected one and survived.
(Deleted thread purposefully not mentioned so as to perhaps increase the lifespan of this question).
posted by Ynoxas
on Oct 9, 2003 -
, for the fourth time, I have been banned from, and censored by, metafilter.com for politically incorrect speech."
posted by waxpancake
on Nov 18, 2002 -
Why is a post about someone having sex with a goat not worthy of discussion. The story had everything - intrigue, surpise, excitement, passion, shock, and much more. I know why it was delete - because mat thought it was 'sophmoric' to post something like that - well I didn't post it in a sophmoric manner, I posted it because it is a very interesting story. I have never heard of anything like it in my life. It makes me wonder whether you even bother to read past the headline before cracking the sensorship whip.
posted by RobertLoch
on Feb 7, 2002 -
The America's Terrorist Training Camp
thread prompts me to suggest that the obscenity filter be turned up on Mefi and be more of a basis for being "evicted." Obscenity is an excellent predictor of uncivilized, vapid, ad hominem debate. Not a ban on it, just less. Please.
posted by ParisParamus
on Nov 1, 2001 -
This thread sucks
. The link doesn't jump down to the story, the subject matter isn't very funny or interesting, it's just stupid. The post is too long, the comments are pretty pointless. I would delete it, but it could create more trouble than it is worth. What should be done about sub-par links? Anything? Take the good with the bad?
posted by mathowie
on Aug 29, 2001 -
Couldn't find the earlier mention of this, so I'll pick up on it here.
A new user user (RightWinger) just posted a fairly feeble defense of Dubya and was almost immediately called a troll for his pains. I think this is basically because he didn't have an email address. Rogers has mentioned lately, rightly I think, how many potential conflicts can be defused that way, and now I think people are starting to see the lack of email as prima facie
evidence of bad faith, and responding accordingly. His post wasn't really that inflammatory, but I think the level of trust is really low for people who can't be contacted offline. Total anonymity and community membership just may not mesh very well.
Matt has floated the idea of making everyone email-authenticable (word?). I think it's a good idea: people will trust more when they see a "real" identity, more offline diplomacy can happen, and I think people will be more responsible if they have a little bit of accountability built in. If it's *that* important to them to be anonymous, why are they posting to MetaFilter?
posted by rodii
on Mar 19, 2001 -