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.

  • oh geez, part the second

    OK, so here's the $25,000 watch CGF brought me from Beijing: BLING! Here's a larger detail shot. It's a "replica" of a Patek Philippe…

  • oh geez

    CGF has been in Beijing for the last 10 days, and she returns today. In fact, I'm heading over to the PDX airport in a while to pick her up. She…

  • howdy, I'm teem wanh

    = = = CGF is not a native speaker of English. Like many Chinese people, she was taught to read and write English beginning in elementary school, and…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded