Tim (littlebluedog) wrote,


In damnportlanders, a com I co-mod, a user made a post a few days ago griping about the organizers of a local event.

We have a Twitter account set up that automatically tweets some intro text and a link whenever a new public DP post is made.

Yesterday, the publicity director of said event contacted the DP mods via email, asking for the tweet to be removed. Not the DP post, the email specifically explained, just the tweet. The offered rationale was a bit weird; the email conceded that the user had the right to say whatever she wants on DP, but that the "libelous comments [shouldn't be] re-posted by a non-discriminating third party."

I pointed out that the same rationale (about freedom of expression) would apply to Twitter as well, considering the DP users are advised how the Twitter account works. (You can opt-out by making a post members-only.) The organizer seemed mollified by that.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking, really? The publicity director of this event, rather than engage the disgruntled user in conversation, instead wanted to censor the negative feedback. Yeesh.

  • a more perfect union

    I think this speech made me a fanboi. Here is the full text (as prepared for delivery), and here is a report that Obama himself wrote this speech.…

  • rob for county

    We're rarely political here at Blue Dog Blog, Inc., but every once in a while, an issue merits note. That, or one of my friends runs for political…

  • phone-y polls?

    I've been following the EV war by tracking the updates on both electoral-vote.com and its Republican twin election projection. Most if not all of…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded