The Telegraph: lies & censorship online?

The Telegraph’s terms and conditions say

In submitting material to us, you warrant that any material you submit:
(5) is your own original work and that you own the copyright and any other relevant rights;
(6) is not obscene, threatening, menacing, offensive, defamatory, abusive, in breach of confidence, in breach of any intellectual property right (including, without limitation, copyright) or otherwise in breach of or violates any applicable law or regulation or code,

and

We may choose to publish or not publish any material you submit to us and exercise our rights in relation to that material in our absolute discretion.

So if the comment in question is sufficiently offensive to breach (6) they’ve given themselves every right to remove it.

As publishers I believe they are responsible for everything on their website, including users’ comments. That makes it essential for them to have some sort of means of controlling what’s said.

Banning users might seem harsh, but again in the T&Cs they clearly say they can “refuse or remove or suspend” you at any time. The warning’s there, you’ve just not read it.

Freedom of speech is a myth. Get over it.

I’ll try to get over never having believed in a myth, however I did think that fair treatment – and indeed truthfulness – might be something to rely on in this country. A main point I made was – & is – that TelOnline’s FAQ’s are untrue. They clearly declare that there is no ‘advance moderation’ while there certainly is regarding some words including the ‘n’ & ‘c’ words: From their FAQ’s:
(You are) ‘allowed to publish comments directly, right across The Telegraph website. We don’t read the comments before they go live so that discussions here flow freely. Therefore we rely on readers to complain about anything that is offensive or inappropriate.’

Try either of those words & you’ll find they actually rely on their system to prevent publication (‘going live’) until the mods have read them. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but it ought to be frankly admitted, not lied about. (They might also provide a helpful list of pre-flagged words, asterisked if need be..?) To claim direct ‘self-publication’ of comments is nonsense & the lie that I claim it to be. Wanna argue?

Then comes:

‘Complaints about users are dealt with in the same way as complaints about content. Each one is considered on its own merits and moderators will investigate the behaviour of the person concerned before they take any action. Simply complaining about a user does not mean that their account is automatically deleted.’

I had been commenting there for about three years & so far as I know one comment only has been altered by mods – though I may have missed more. As you say, it is THEIR site & I have no automatic right to use it. However, contracts, real & implied, are contracts & FAQ statements are really meant to be true – the 2-way ‘contract’ is clearly implied. I could have no complaint against their deletion of my comment itself, but they clearly breach their own standards of behaviour in banning my future comments whatever may be in them, after 3 years of no prob. That’s the Stalinist part – the lies are simply bog-standard.

Finally, the T&C you referred to were not included in their own email to me, being, I’m sure an umbrella beneath which comments are governed, re the FAQ link actually sent, tending to prove that. My comment was in the style of Boyle’s material, to satirise how nasty it is – perhaps some niave person took it too literally & threw a late-night fit..

I.S.

You say the FAQ says:

We don’t read the comments before they go live so that discussions here flow freely

Would they need to read the comments to filter out those with certain profanities? Presumably it’s possible to set the discussion area up so that comments are scanned as they’re posted for certain content and then automatically ditched. That way it’s machine rather than human intervention, and filtering rather than moderation. If you were to argue that that is a weasely way around the claim not to moderate posts and that users should be made aware of it I’d probably agree with you. But it would adhere to the letter of the claim not to moderate posts.

Wanna argue?

Deserves the same contempt you quite rightly gave my last line above ;-)

the T&C you referred to were not included in their own email to me, being, I’m sure an umbrella beneath which comments are governed, re the FAQ link actually sent, tending to prove that.

I can’t find a FAQ anywhere on the site, but the T&Cs are linked to at the bottom of every page. Can you link to the FAQ so I can have a look?

My comment was in the style of Boyle’s material, to satirise how nasty it is

Perhaps you ran the risk of sinking to his own level? You don’t need a big sweary rant to pop the bubble around a big sweary ranter.

Dear oh dear,

(that’s not a form of address, just a sigh.) First, thank you for the last-line ‘apology’ – I’m tempted to think I somewhat moderated you.. Perhaps I ought to have begun, Irony oh irony.. (That’s a joke, a ‘nice’ one..?)

The FAQs are extremely easy to find, because they’re meant to be. Herewith:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/aboutus/mytelegraph/12/moderation-faqs/

I agree that a comment such as mine runs the risk you describe. It was only a brief, less-than-one-full-liner, around 11pm, when children (at least in the UK – one cannot cover everything!) shouldn’t have been reading, thus giving ample time for moderation before dawn. One also has to assume reasonable adult sophistication at the Tel. in interpreting the remark. In fact after the first attempt – the one-liner only was whisked off, I repeated it with the offending word thus ‘c*nt’ – hopefully that’s ok for this site! – and an explanation of why I was putting it up. Thereby not entirely sinking to FB’s level & making my intentions and opposition to FB glaringly obvious. Delete one comment from such a person, but not the person. (I glimpsed Gervais beginning his act on tv last night with a torrent of ‘c’ words – obviously I’m doomed to failure here. I have seen Tel bloggers endorsing similar ‘comedians’ repeatedly.

Finally – you ought really to do proper research yourself before criticising others? The panel that came up re my first (unasterisked) version actually said that ‘this comment has been flagged for moderation’ – verbatim. Sinking your para 2. (Cap’n Smith? – another joke..)

Therefore, everything I have claimed is perfectly true & verifiable. However, if you can find anything amiss in the FAQs doubtless you’ll be back. I’ll assume silence implies non-dissent?

I.S.

They clearly declare that there is no ‘advance moderation’ while there certainly is regarding some words including the ‘n’ & ‘c’ words

I think you’re confusing “advance moderation” with a word filter.

The Telegraph (just like Media UK) don’t humanly read posts before they’re published. As they say:

We don’t read the comments before they go live so that discussions here flow freely.

Many discussion systems will also include an automated word filter. (Disqus may well include one that is outside of the Telegraph’s control). Many people find those words offensive; and they’re acting as a responsible publisher by ensuring that messages containing those words are not used. Word filters don’t protect against libel: but they do protect against offence.

It was only a brief, less-than-one-full-liner, around 11pm, when children (at least in the UK – one cannot cover everything!) shouldn’t have been reading, thus giving ample time for moderation before dawn.

So you posted an offensive message, knowing full well that it would require “moderation before dawn”? And, on being rightly kicked off the service, you use the words “lies”, “Stalinist”, and “deceit”? Goodness. I think they did the right thing. Over-react much?

Incidentally, Media UK’s commenting policy is different – including the phrase

We reserve the right to remove or hide posts that are rude or offensive, or for any other reason that we deem necessary to ensure a great discussion area.

You might call that censorship; but up to you. We also can, of course, withdraw anyone’s account. As a matter of interest, we don’t use a word filter: we think our visitors are grown-up enough to behave, irrespective of however anyone wishes to explain away their potty mouth.

Dear JC,

I see no need to extend this with any discussion of your policy or what I think of it, ‘incidentally’ or not.

However you have – transparently – ignored the facts about the Tel’s operation. As above, they DO MODERATE – not FILTER ONLY comments, exactly as I quoted. My ‘late night’ reference scarcely shows that I was trying to get an offensive comment published, it was simply deference to their own preferences. I have seen the ‘c’ word in the comments of others in past years – then it was obviously not pre-moderated. Of course they could have been taken down later due to Reports.

None of that excuses deletion of my second version nor myself. Your ‘potty mouth’ – a silly US loan if ever there was – the three years I commented before contradict any hint of that.Indeed labelling me thus on a one-incident matter is quite offensive itself. It’s FB who’s that! (Since you’re the MD I won’t report you tho’..)

(I’d be interested to know: are you American – & have you been ‘watching’ me write this, just curious.)

I’ll end by re-asserting that their claim of no pre-moderation is untrue, moderate they do! Try it & see.

I.S.

I’ll assume silence implies non-dissent?

You could assume that, but you’d be wrong.