The Gate's meltdown was unveiled for all to see on 2/23/08. You could have witnessed it for yourself had you been posting a comment at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/22/BAT6V6JF7.DTL&hw=zoo+grotto&sn=001&sc=1000
At that URL you would have found many pages of notations that a comment had been removed, interspersed with cautious speculations and random taunts by those who remained online. As events unfolded and the Gate's computer filled its own pages, one poster stated, "This comment has been removed by SFGate"! That's encourageing [sic] comments all right!" The effect was chilling, to say the least.
It began just after 2:18 p.m. PST and continued at intervals until after 10:30 p.m. As I watched in amazement the comment board began to remind me of "The Shining." Like Nicholson madly typing, "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy," the Gate's computer was numbing us all with page after electronic page filled with nothing but line upon line of, "This comment has been removed by SFGate." By 2/25/08, all traces of the chaos and purge had been removed. The comment page had shrunk back to about half its former size overnight and had dropped from 458 comments back to only 246. Of course some posters may also have been removed in the process.
I fear that still more of the same will follow and less transparent software will be developed. In the end the corporations may choose to silence all but those who tap their keyboards in rhythm to a familiar corporate anthem. Of course, speculation such as I have indulged in here is unwelcome commentary at the Gate, though it realistically violates no stated policy or Terms and Conditions [hereafter "T&C"] that I could determine. Some contributors now watch as their posts disappear, one by one, if they comment negatively about the Christmas day survivors or even the Gatekeepers themselves. Posts may vanish if they contain complaints about the disappearance of posts or mention that other contributors have been banished by the Gatekeepers. Paranoia and accusations of paranoia have crept under the Gate, and many who visited the comment pages feel uncomfortable.
Here's one contributor's view of the Gate who encountered "problems" early in the game: http://investigatethemedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/san-francisco-chronicle-deceives-its.html At yet another site (and in spite of the number of posters who agreed with the blogger's analysis), his 2007 blog is discussed and taken with a virtual grain of salt at: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/es_crackberry_chronicles_071128.shtml
How weird has the Gate's world become since its beta version appeared in October 2007 and the blogs cited above were posted? Kafka would feel at home, but he might be deleted since famous quotations from scholars and philosophers can be routinely removed as "spam." Some posters awake to find that their passwords no longer work and all their comments for months have been removed. Some believe that this happens with commentary on articles about the zoo as a result of a few posters who work in concert to "eliminate" any contributor they do not like. (It may be done by "reporting abuse" repeatedly to the Gate when the disliked contributor comments.) At times, the entire comment section of an article is "blanked out" and inaccessible though comments previously existed.
Others believe that banishment results from the Chronicle's apparent bias against the zoo and offer the many negative articles that have been published recently as "evidence" of an agenda at the Gate. I have found evidence within the Gate that contributors are being removed from other stories, as well as those whose subject is the zoo. The blog cited above has no connection to the zoo, its director or the Zoological Society, but those who have been removed express the same bewilderment at their fate. The suspicions of some may be labeled "paranoia" by others, but to paraphrase Clairol, only the Gate knows for sure. It's not telling, but it is leaving evidence of its amputations behind.
A cursory Google search turned up this posters' experience with perceived censorship at the Gate, again on a topic completely unrelated to issues dear to my heart and discussed at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/16/18479632.php In a later update this author discusses the Gate's newer "techniques" that seem to control unwanted posting at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482632.php It's even mentioned in passing at Yelp! See http://www.yelp.com/biz/san-francisco-chronicle-san-francisco-3
One who commented on the Indybay article invoked the rights of a private corporation to control content on their website and even pointed to the dreaded T&C as justification for control (or suppression) of public debate. To me, the point is much simpler. Rightly or wrongly, most of us think of SFGate as the digital portal of The San Francisco Chronicle. After all, is is printed on their "front page." As public media representing the best known newspaper in the Bay Area, we expect it to comply with fair reporting standards as any "real" newspaper should. We have missed the point that it is not a "real newspaper" any longer, but apparently the law supports its right to masquerade as one while it functions as little more than a well publicized blog.
If the Gate is only a corporate blog and is not upholding journalistic standards, it should place that statement as a caveat to an unwary public on every digital page in bold type. Then, I would have no problem with its "moderating" comments or removing them entirely. Until it does that, I hold the Gate and its Gatekeepers responsible for meeting the standards of fair reporting and giving space to every voice with two exceptions, i.e., threats of violence and for obscenity as defined by prevailing community standards. No one (or group) of posters should be able to "ban" another simply because they dislike the point of view that contributor expressed. If the Gate participates on that basis, they are no better than McCarthy and his followers in my opinion.
If you thought the "bad old days" were gone and that there was free speech in cyberspace, please think again. T&C and other "stated policies" are always open to interpretation when you have a legal department on call. So far, it is the corporations' "virtual world," and we are only allowed to "play in it" at our own risk under current law, with some important exceptions made under California civil law. The penalty for even unwitting offense may be the forcible removal of your cyber tongue. The Gatekeepers call it a "public service," but what public does it really serve? If media is a guardian of the public interest, who guards this guardian?
I discovered today that individuals like myself, whose aim is to speak the truth as best they can determine it, are being targeted by "SLAPP Suits" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) all over America for posting opinion online. The point of such a suit is to intimidate individuals into remaining silent about perceived corporate abuse. No legal merit or truthful basis is required of a corporation to file suit, but the victim can still be bankrupted without legal recourse in the process of mounting a defense. In other words, you may wind up being vindicated and find yourself homeless for daring to think and to express your thoughts. Orwell saw it coming, and it has been loose among us for some time without drawing much attention. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP I haven't been sued yet, but then I haven't been noticed out here in space yet either. I do believe that I am acting in the public interest, as I perceive it, so I must resist being silenced as best I can.
Is this personal? You bet! Something I valued was taken from me, and that was my identify, my voice, every word I ever wrote at the Gate, along with my hope to touch the public heart and raise public awareness. My offense? I posted what I believe are relevant and life affirming quotes by Gandhi, Sinclair Lewis, Kant and others in response to race baiting and/or hostile posts from a small group of regulars. I was praised by fellow contributors for doing so and asked to provide quotes from Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Schweitzer which I did. My family tried to make a positive contribution to a public forum, and our mouths were hermetically sealed by a woman who began as a blogger on the Internet. Orwell met Sinclair Lewis and was shown the Gate.
Ironically and perhaps poetically, when I called the Gate I was told by the Head Gatekeeper and former blogger [hereafter, "HG"] that a quotation from the author of, "It Can't Happen Here" had triggered my demise: “Pugnacity is a form of courage, but a very bad form.” I offered those words in response to the cyber bullying I felt was taking place at the Gate on a daily basis, but HG told me that my use of quotations was "irrelevant" and "unresponsive." HG couldn't spell my name or Gandhi's, but she was sure that his words and mine were "spam" and a violation of the Gate's legal T&C. (Pretty good for someone who is neither an attorney nor a journalist, as far as I can determine.) You can read what appears to be independent commentary about the Gate's view of complaints like mine at HG's former website -- the one that propelled her to her current position: See http://sfist.com/2007/11/27/crypto_deletion.php and you can read a complete rebuttal of her remarks at: http://investigatethemedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/sf-chronicle-admits-to-deceptive.html
I realized when I saw Sfist's article that the Gate might be just the tiniest bit worried about this topic being discussed and more people than I thought must be complaining or this story would never have hit the Internet. BTW, do serious journalists and their editors actually refer to contributors (and in my family's case, paid subscribers) as "trolls"? That's a blog term or internet slur, unless I'm mistaken. I found yet another view of the Gate's T&C policies at: http://www.straight.com/article-120137/media-outlets-censoring-user-comments
My family was removed, along with me, for sharing the same ISP address, though our identities and style of posting were separate and highly individual. We shared characteristics, as any family would. It did not occur to the Gate that a family would share the same computer and internet service provider or perhaps our well-intentioned posts offended in some mysterious (and unspecified) manner. We do not know. The Gatekeepers generally do not offer enlightenment, only banishment, as I was told.
And thereby hangs a tale, as they say. T&C may be the cyber refuge of scoundrels. No one but the Legal Department seems to read them or understand them, but we are all bound by them in the end. They demand, "Didn't you read the T&C?!" "Yes, but I bogged down on page 666," we say, but it's no excuse and will not save us. We agree to a T&C without understanding because that's how they're written by corporate attorneys. Then we find ourselves victimized by a nation that despises lawyers while it worships legalese at the expense of justice. It's the classic no-win scenario.
Do I love quotations? Oh, yes, I do, so I'll leave you with two "spam" favorites: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (I may have been silenced by the corporate minions at the ever narrowing Gate for "offenses" real or imagined, but I still hope to share my thoughts with you here. The Master of "Spam" himself, Gandhi, said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Never let them grind you down, no matter what they do. The Samurai says, "Never say die!" but if you must, make it honorable. Make it count!
COMING SOON: Who was Tatiana and why should you care?
No comments:
Post a Comment