Censorship & The Catch-22 Answer  

rockwriter58 56M
1524 posts
11/17/2005 7:38 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

Censorship & The Catch-22 Answer

The censors have been extra busy this week. Well, they’ve been extra busy with this blog. I can’t pretend to know about elsewhere.

Last night’s football posting (See: [post 144879].) grabbed their attention. Sure, it was primarily about cheerleaders and lesbian sex. But that wasn’t the problem. The problem was the mention of the website of the most popular sports cable network. (Maybe someone is brave enough to put a guess to that in the comments section. If I list it here, this post will be censored too.)

Of course, that might not have been the only problem. I also mentioned the most popular newspaper in the DC-area. (Any guesses on that publication?) Remove those two media references and voila, the post is acceptable.

Now, I’ve been around here long enough to know that was pushing the envelope. I’ve had posts denied before because I mentioned the most highly regarded paper in New York City too. But then again, I’ve had posts accepted with the same information. (See: [post 81844].) So one never really knows.

And that’s the problem. How can you encourage free expression about topics on a sex site, which should be about free expression, when the monitors don’t understand copyright law or fair use? Or they use software to make those decisions.

And on top of it, they never tell you exactly why the material was censored. The author is left to guess.

That is not the worst example. This week, I had one section of this blog’s index censored. (See: Ruminations Index (P-Z).) It was censored twice. I couldn’t figure out why, so I sent a note to Customer Service. What could be objectionable about an index?!? Here’s what they sent back:

Unfortunately, I am unable to determine why your blog was denied, as it was removed from our system when it was denied. If you feel it was denied in error please submit it again.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.

AdultFriendFinder Support


I have to wonder if the answer was generated by the same software that censors the blogs. Your guess is as good as mine.

(For other posts on censorship see: Censorship & The Bunny; Censorship?; Intolerable Censorship; Censorship Revisited; and Censorship Reconsidered.)

(For the complete blog index see: Ruminations Index (A-E); Ruminations Index ( F - O ); and Ruminations Index (P-Z).)

© ♪rockwriter58♪


greatnsexy69 47M

11/17/2005 7:51 pm

It sounds like a form letter. I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone actually in those offices.


007sexy40plus 51F  
7603 posts
11/17/2005 8:27 pm

hey rock this site still have issues.

BTW, YOU NEED TO WRITE TO ME SINCE I am back to standard membership, I can't initiate email. I need to give you something I picked up yesterday. Hurry before the time run out or expire. *smooches*

I am the real deal! "Come Get Me!!!"


rockwriter58 56M
1389 posts
11/18/2005 7:11 am

>>>How true. How true, greatnsexy69.

>>>Welcome back to The Official Caramel Queen. Always good to see you in this neighborhood. I hope your membership change doesn't signal you are leaving the Land of Blog too. (Although how can we blame anyone given the frustrations of staying.) As always: {=}


rockwriter58 56M
1389 posts
1/11/2006 9:05 pm

>>>[blog Dysgyzed].... well, I would agree, except I’ll just get myself into more trouble!


longergirthy4u 52M
71 posts
1/24/2006 8:26 am

I am beginning to really believe my own theary that this site is being ran by the same bunch of non spelling, brainless, couthless group of people that write a lot of the profiles on here! As well as a computer that has a plethora of malware installed in it that infects peoples personal computers on a daily basis. I have been wondering lately if Bush and his counter terrorism tactics and domestic surveillance has been diligently at work in here as well as in the outer atmosphere of our planet(satellite surveilance)as well as in our phone lines too. Sounds like a little first amendment rights violations going on around this country. I really am curious as to what was in your posting that was so horrible or deemed not acceptable that it was censored in such a fashion as to be unceremoniously deleted. You were not even to be allowed the opportunity to finesse and resubmit the original, with no forthcoming explanation as to why you were censored. Strange indeed. Rock,Keep on trying as their computers are only as smart as the dummies in charge, and the programs they are using in their puters. Eventually something is bound to repeatedly slip under their radar. BC


keithcancook 60M
17718 posts
1/24/2006 9:35 am

whenever i have one denied, i simply resubmit it unchanged until it is accepted. the most i ever had to do it was 6x, and that was in the late Spring of 2005.


rockwriter58 56M
1389 posts
1/25/2006 12:52 pm

>>>I have to say that both Keith and longergirthy4u are correct. Otherwise, how could I have gotten into trouble post-facto? But that is the whole point. If you aren’t willing to pay the ultimate price of getting unplugged then you shouldn’t post material that some view as troublesome. Except the line of where troublesome starts can be rather slippery and shady. So now I am forced to be extra careful.

Further, some of what you surmise is true. What I can tell you is that the posts were deleted and I had to agree they would stay deleted from those spots in the blog. In addition, I was told anything that reflects negatively on a member either directly or indirectly is forbidden. And the terms here back that up, as I have written in various postings. Think what you will about how that plays out, those are the rules. And I have agreed to play by those rules as long as I stay here.

I have to admit I even re-edited this response, worried that some of the material might start down that troublesome slope.


Become a member to create a blog