Democracy is a lie. Remember that now.
This reply has been removed.
I don’t know.
I clicked on it quickly, so I think I can still see it. But it’s still gone from the main screen.
I’m upset, the post seemed to have a certain naïve innocence to it. Just that reasoning, ‘because I don’t like it’.
Always interesting when a private site removes damning UGC. I mean on my websites I tend to leave it up as there is most often more fallout from removing it.
Unless of course its damning to the advertises. Advertises own this world…
Censorship is what you get when you have people whos job it is to censor stuff,
and those people assume that they have a unchecked divin right to do so.
Capitalize “Bush” or suffer the consequences!
the website has a right to remove every post they dont like.whats the big deal?
This account has been deactivated.
fallenmonkeydwar wrote:
the website has a right to remove every post they dont like.whats the big deal?
Its about accountability and is a reflection on CNET Networks. I hold the belief that when dealing with UGC and you get negative comments, you should leave it up (where legally permissible) and let the community sort it out - or by stepping in and making a statement/rebuttal. Just like Google refrains from messing with the search results but instead offers explanations of what when wrong (see: http://www.google.com/explanation.html).
Or, if you must remove something, leave a note to say that you have and offer a reason for doing so.
Again, that’s just my feelings on the matter. I’m not overly worried that its happening, I’m not about to organise a mass boycott of Help.com or anything - just offering my two cents as I’m interested to hear what others have to say.
:)
ya evangee.You got issues man.Im just saying that they own the site,so they deserve the right to change what they dont like on their own property.i agree they should maybe offer a exp[lanation however.
This account has been deactivated.
The ownership of UGC should be with the people! Free the web. Woot! Now i’m sounding like some kind of radical freedom fighter.
And if the people don’t own the content, that only leaves the shareholders. As a CNET Networks shareholder, I want it back :P
But on a serious not, silently pulling content leads to the users of a site not trusting the site and its Admins - never good for the site if the visitors, the paying customers lose faith. All i ask for is transparency - conduct business in a way that everyone can see. :)
Ps. I’m not specifically talking about Help.com here - i’m generalising. For the most part, Help.com is great community and one which I am proud to belong to…
Thats true,maybe a page consisting of all removed posts of the day,with only certifiable accounts able to read.With a breif explanation of why it was removed.that would make sense : )
This account has been deactivated.
It was probably against the TOS, we all read them before joining, or should have read them, so we know what we can and cannot say, it shouldn’t be some really big shock to have a post closed if you read the rules really, actually allot of it is common sence and what annoys me is people wondering why their post r reply was removed, read the TOS and you will know….
I mean, do you try to make a flat pack wih out the instructions?
Do you try to reprograme a gadget without the manual?
If you try this things without reading the info first then you are not supprised when you get it wrong, so why be so supprised here?
})i({ ~LazyDaze wrote:
It was probably against the TOS
‘probably’ does not sound like you read them. As it has been a while since I last looked myself, don’t quote me on this, but I do think they have a ‘get out’ clause in which they reserve the right to do anything to anyone for any or no reason without warning.
})i({ ~LazyDaze wrote:
Do you try to reprograme a gadget without the manual?
all the time!
rosscbrown wrote:
})i({ ~LazyDaze wrote:
Do you try to reprograme a gadget without the manual?
all the time!
LMAO, ok then, I was only adding my opinion into this, there must have been a reason for takeing that post down, ok so they do have the ability to take down what they want but within reason, they can’t just take something down because they felt like it.
rosscbrown wrote:
})i({ ~LazyDaze wrote:
It was probably against the TOS
‘probably’ does not sound like you read them.
I think what LazyDaze meant was that the POST was probably against the TOS, and seeing how she couldn’t read the post, cause it was removed, she just had to speculate why it was shut down.
Correct Moniker, that is what I meant, thankyou for translateing that :D
AnishK
Im08Just97Me
Enilorac
Eden
mou
fallenmonkeydwar
~LazyDaze
JesusMurphy