Censorship

LostSoul

How do you feel about censorship? As a lay person I feel obligate to speak out & act against online censorship. Its a value I hold very highly - that value being the integrity of the internet. I wish more people held this value.

So that's me, what about you? I'm sure you've heard the NSA is scraping every last inch of data they can get, sending cease & desist letters, gag orders, etc. The government has much more control than most think over the internet. I've also seen first hand widespread censorship on popular websites & forums. It seems to be rising at an alarming rate.

I remember when I first heard of this NSA stuff, I was shocked. I mean, I knew deep down what was really happening, but didn't even think it would be to such an extent. You have to understand, as a computer scientist, this topic is very important to me. When I first heard of Snowden, what he was fighting for, and the Government's reaction I felt a lot of fear. Fear that we have been living in the society I thought were "the bad guys" my entire life.

How would you feel if robots controlled the medical industry, and were obviously using their patients as batteries instead of helping them? How would you feel if the Government controlled the Psychiastry industry, and every patient who walked through the door had to follow a strict guideline sent from "the man"? What if every time you talked to a police officer, you were filmed by cameras and it was illegal to film them back?

All the above I see possibilities stemming from over censoring the internet. To extremes, yes. Over dramatic, possibly. Is censorship an issue, I think so.

Just today I was banned from a forum. Why? Because I posted "Forum censorship is something that needs to be discussed" with a post detailing why I think we should discuss in a civil manner. I was banned without breaking any forum rules.

Is this right? Does it matter?

Jeffrey

You should discuss censorship on NB with Lincoln in a private message rather than write a post about censorship on the forum. As has been said before this is not a democracy.

Vastmind

I agree with Jeffrey. It's the house of the Admins and the mods run it.....
We come here to hang out.

FWIW.....They have good customer service ... .....

karasti

Did you read the forum rules at the other place? Discussion of the rules in place is often not allowed, and that could well be the reason you were removed. It's a topic worthy of discussion, however, there is a time and place for everything, and not every single online forum needs to have a discussion about censorship.

As far as what I think, it just depends on the people and the situation. Right now, our local high school has an anon. twitter confession page, where people direct message the account owner, and he posts the information. It makes a very easy route to bully kids, post sexually explicit material, make claims about who slept with whom and so on. Very ugly page, very unnecessary, very harmful to a lot of kids, does no good to anyone. In cases like that, I think those places need to be shut down, because people of certain ages don't even fully understand what they are doing and the harm they can cause themselves, or others, doing what they view as joking around. Freedom of speech? I suppose so. At what cost? One of the girls who was being bullied on there spent her lunch break, for 3 months straight, locked in a bathroom stall to avoid her tormentors. So much for her freedom.

As for forums like this, the admins/moderators reserve the right to run the forum as they see fit, as long as the rules are clear. I've been participating in online chat room types of places for 20 years, and every single one of them that is topic-based, has rules that allows them to put users in the corner or ban them for breaking the rules. It's necessary. If you've ever been a moderator of such a place you understand why. They are places meant to be a community of sorts, not someone else's punching bag or trolling grounds. And when we sign up and participate in such communities, we are agreeing to abide by the rules. If you don't agree with them, you don't have to sign up or participate.

lobster

How do you feel about censorship?

I am all for it . . . especially self censorship.

For example this morning I was talking to the police about someone unable to censor what was coming out of their mouth probably due to alcohol or illness. I did not think much of someone staggering around without due care and attention but the incident was distressing some fragile souls, who were phoning 'the man'.

As a long time Linux user, freedom is a big issue. Such are the insistence on 'freedom of speech' that we have to put up with the extremists such as HH St iGNUcius (PBUH)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Yes you are right it matters. Long live the trolls?

NSA for kids:
http://www.nsa.gov/kids/

Transparency for Beginners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government

LostSoul

I understand its usually against the rules. I checked the forum in question and didn't see anything against discussing the rules.

If this post is against "the rules" please let me know, I just wanted to have an open discussion.

Not trying to start a mutany.

Jeffrey

I don't think there are any rules, @LostSoul. But if one is having a problem with censorship then that should be discussed with the owner or moderators rather than have a forum post kind of creating some big controversy. In place of rules we have the judgement call of the owner and the moderators. You are allowed second chances on the forum is my experience.

LostSoul

OK what about - can we discuss censorship in general, its role in all things - media, society, personal, online - whatever.

I don't understand why everybody is skirting around it, censorship exists. Its everywhere. I just want to talk about it.

I just sent a message to Lincoln thanks for the advice guys

Blessed Be

karasti

It's not that people are skirting around it. It's (in my eyes) that this is a forum about Buddhism. That's why I come here. Even within General Banter, most of the topics are Buddhist related, or, able to be discussed from a Buddhist point of view. I guess I just personally don't have a Buddhist point of view on censorship. Has nothing to do with avoiding the issue, I discuss it in other forums.
Why, exactly, do you want to talk about here rather than the numerous forums dedicated to exactly this topic? You brought it up, so what do YOU want to talk about?

Jeffrey

Yeah @LostSoul it is fine to discuss in general At least I think so. And it is in general banter rather than NB.com section so that is good.

Straight_Man

Part of the problem with freedom is that when folks use it to trample others there becomes friction-- be that from someone trying to rebel to a repressive admin in some cases. Here, we try to keep things going on Buddhism-related stuff. I read this thread, and will stick my neck out and say I think censorship of real severe kind is bad, but even Buddhists sometimes think rebels are troublemakers. That is my two cents, personally.

LostSoul

Thanks guys, I completely understand. Please accept my sincerest appology for being overly jumpy I just got banned from another forum and am feeling a little "heated" to say the least :P

That being said, I really do (try) to mean well.

@Straight_Man thanks for your perspective I think censorship at any extreme in terms of the internet's well being is "bad".

Also thanks for the picture of Stallman, @lobster, that one always cracks me up. I'm a linux guy so I know plenty about him. Don't agree with his "extremist" views, but I do agree with his basic points that software should be open.

Let's put it this way - my point of view differs from him because I realize there is a point where fighting for your views does you harm, in that you can't feed your family in the least.

Anyway I'm probably rambling but thanks for entertaining me.

Also I'm looking for a new forum as well to talk about these issues, if somebody finds one please let me know

Jeffrey

I've been banned from a forum too. Actually because in the 'speak your mind' section I defended Buddhism to the point that I proseltized when others were criticizing me.

LostSoul

@Jeffrey said:
I've been banned from a forum too. Actually because in the 'speak your mind' section I defended Buddhism to the point that I proseltized when others were criticizing me.

I see, that makes complete sense. I was probably a little "strong" in my wording of the post in the other forum, I just find it ridiculous I would be banned for 1 post that I editted over 20 times to try to sound like a normal calm person.

Anyway, that's just the anger talking I think. I meditated about this today and I've come to the conclusion I just need to let the "other forum" go. It never brought me peace, and actually bred more bad habits than not anyway. Maybe this is a blessing.

LostSoul

Also, I just found a cool site on censorship. Its mostly about censorship of horror films & the movie industry, but its definitely relevant IMO.

I loved the opening two paragraphs:

" The beast has been around for almost as long as the history of film itself. It’s a simple analysis; you produce art for the masses and someone somewhere will take offence and demand it to be removed from public consumption.

Eventually a council is organized to make decisions on behalf of the good of the people. The end result is art is censored, not all of it, but enough to make a so-called point. That point being that we live in an ultimately conservative world where freedom of expression is reigned in and subversion is frowned upon. "

And another interesting article I found about censorship in Rwanda: http://www.jambonews.net/en/news/20120817-rwanda-censorship-reaches-a-scary-level/

Just some random things I found today

And another strange blog about censorship on G+ http://occupygpluscensorship.blogspot.com/?zx=6fb32d6227678d08

Yes they're old articles but you try finding something similar today. I'm surprised those sites are still online.

Jason

Censorship exists at different levels throughout society, and it depends on what type we're talking about. While the First Amendment theoretically prohibits the government from censoring citizens, for example, it doesn't prohibit private entities from exerting control over the type of content they allow on/through the specific media they own, e.g., editors and publishers routinely censor/edit others' works that they've purchased the rights to; film studios have the right to censor/edit films that they have the rights to; forum owners have the right to allow certain content and not others their sites; etc.

In the case of the NSA, however, I don't think it's a matter of censorship and a violation of the First Amendment as much as a matter of privacy and a violation of the Fourth.

vinlyn

It's been my experience that:

a. Talking about censorship often brings on censorship.
b. We usually don't like someone else's censorship, but have no problem laying down our own censorship.

Jason

@karasti said:
As far as what I think, it just depends on the people and the situation. Right now, our local high school has an anon. twitter confession page, where people direct message the account owner, and he posts the information. It makes a very easy route to bully kids, post sexually explicit material, make claims about who slept with whom and so on. Very ugly page, very unnecessary, very harmful to a lot of kids, does no good to anyone. In cases like that, I think those places need to be shut down, because people of certain ages don't even fully understand what they are doing and the harm they can cause themselves, or others, doing what they view as joking around. Freedom of speech? I suppose so. At what cost? One of the girls who was being bullied on there spent her lunch break, for 3 months straight, locked in a bathroom stall to avoid her tormentors. So much for her freedom.

I think that's a good point, @karasti and it reminds me of a recent discussion I had about the First Amendment and fascist rallies:

It's interesting to note that, despite the First Amendment, free speech is already limited under our current bourgeois political form by things like the fighting words doctrine, which, established by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, holds that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Even though subsequent Supreme Court rulings have since narrowed what's considered 'fighting words' (e.g., Street v. New York, Cohen v. California, etc.), and concluded that "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio), it can't be ignored that a constitutional line has been drawn between free speech and non-protected speech, e.g., speech that's intended to, and will likely cause, immediate breach of the peace (acts of violence). And I think that advocates of censorship, at least in certain instances, have more ground to stand on, intellectually as well as legally, than many free-speech advocate are willing to admit.

The real question, in my opinion, is whether this is due to the vagueness of the line drawn by the Supreme Court or some kind of inherent weakness in the institution of constitutionally protected free speech itself. In other words, is there an inherently repressive aspect to liberal ideas of, and basis for, free speech rights (as some coming from a Marxist perspective might argue, for example), or is this repressiveness (i.e., grounds for censorship) simply due to conflicts in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment? Or even more provocatively, does America's institution of free speech allow dominant ideas and forms of expression (i.e., those sanctioned by the state and/or ruling class) to create a background in which progressive (or one could even say radical) ideas are limited "even before the courts create whatever explicit limitations they devise," as the authors of "Codes of Silence" suggest Herbert Marcuse argues in "Repressive Tolerance"?

To phrase it yet another way and add another dimension to the discussion, does censorship = (or lead to) freedom in certain contexts, or is this simply Orwellian doublespeak for a possibly well-meaning but ultimately repressive attitude towards tolerance? Should tolerance extend to all things equally (as some die-hard free-speech advocates would argue), or should a distinction be made between what Marcuse called "liberating tolerance," which enlarges "the range and content of freedom" and is "intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo," and "indiscriminate [or repressive] tolerance," which, under the current societal structure, allows "the expression of 'false words and wrong deeds' to work against the attainment of 'liberation' and of true 'freedom and happiness'" and becomes "an instrument for the continuation of servitude" by those in power?

To use an extreme example, take the Nazi's racist ideology, which made being Jewish dangerous and ultimately a death sentence in Germany: Should their expression of anti-Semitism be defended on free speech grounds, or would it better (and more moral) to oppose and actively attempt to suppress such ideas? Should Mein Kampf and Hitler's hate speech against the Jews et al. be defended, or should it, too, be opposed and suppressed? Same with present-day fascists. Aren't fascist rallies and actions forms of intimidation for gays, minorities, etc., whom they verbal and sometime physically threaten?

In essence, does being unequivocally pro-free speech mean sometimes being placed in a seemingly contradictory position, such as defending the Nazi's right to promote their racist ideology and rhetoric of violence against the Jews, which helped turn German society against Jews and make the Holocaust possible, while at the same time supporting military violence against them for the consequences that arose out of supporting a situation where such ideas became dominant in the first place?

A legitimate question emerges, I think: Is it ever justifiable (at least in certain situations) to suppress free speech, or should we always be tolerant of everything? For me, it's still an open question, but I'm definitely leaning more towards the position that certain kinds of speech should be censored/suppressed.

The above was part of a discussion I had with a friend who was arguing that the anti-fascist rally I went to, which was organized in response a local nationalist group's planned "White Man March," was akin to censorship and silencing them through intimidation; whereas I made the point that the anti-fascists have a right under the First Amendment to express their anti-fascist views through counter-protests, and that fascists intimidate and threaten others with their views and actions (e.g., gays, minorities, etc.), the same he accused the anti-fascist movement of.

In short, I can sympathize with those who have a distaste for censorship. In most cases, I share that distaste. However, I don't think the reality re: free speech is as simplistic as I once thought it to be. For one, even under the First Amendment, the state limits free speech for various reasons. In addition, some forms of speech/expression can actually intimidate, oppress, and threaten others and effectively restrict their liberties. So, in the end, I don't see it in such black and white terms, and ultimately think that we have a right (and even an obligation) in some cases to oppose dangerous and hateful speech.

Hamsaka

Censorship is completely neutral. It can be useful or oppressive, depending upon the intentions. This is pretty obvious. I can understand that it looks like people are skirting around the issue, but for me, you aren't asking your real question, and possibly are hoping for answers of a certain type. That's fine . . . and if you aren't clear on what your real question is, that's fine too, just be honest with yourself and the people you seek feedback from. I'm not accusing you of deliberate dishonesty, btw.

Jason

@vinlyn said:
It's been my experience that:

a. Talking about censorship often brings on censorship.
b. We usually don't like someone else's censorship, but have no problem laying down our own censorship.

Mine as well. One of the reasons I didn't want to become a moderator here was that I was afraid I might abuse my power; and one of the reasons I'm relatively conservative in what I tend to moderate is the level of 'over-moderation' I've experienced in the past. It's not a responsibility that I particularly enjoy or think I'm good at, but in some cases I think moderation (i.e., censorship) is necessary to maintain a relatively harmonious community.

poptart

Linc

@LostSoul said:
Just today I was banned from a forum. Why? Because I posted "Forum censorship is something that needs to be discussed" with a post detailing why I think we should discuss in a civil manner. I was banned without breaking any forum rules.

Is this right? Does it matter?

I'll selectively address this point as I am wont to do. A forum is a private establishment, much like a friend's home or the local pub. There is no exercise of free speech, as in a town square or commons, to be had in a place like this, only what the proprietor will allow.

One thing we actively censor here is any "goodbye tour" thread in which a member announces they are leaving the community and collects their well wishes & boy voyages or gets to grind one last axe. We (the owners) think it's an extreme disservice to any community to reward folks for leaving by giving them the attention of everyone. It's the only particular standing "remove on sight" instructions the moderators have (that I can think of off hand, anyway). You could make arguments against this rule, but please don't; it's not going to change, and we're simply not interested in debating it.

In general, this site is rather liberal with what we allow, which is a reflection of the owners. We don't have a Buddhist axe to grind and we've been doing this so long that we don't feel threatened by what happens on our forums nor do we find its current condition too precious to rock the boat. It's also of course a reflection of who your moderators are - one reason I like @federica and @Jason moderating so much is they still tend to disagree (with each other and with me) sometimes, even after doing this together for a decade. If all the moderators always agree, you're likely to stop thinking as you get immersed in your own echo chamber.

While I think an immediate banning for a discussion titled "Forum censorship is something that needs to be discussed" is rather heavy-handed (unless the contents were particularly vitriolic or you had past run-ins with the moderators), I'd defend the forum's management for their right to do so, and they have no obligation to give you any recourse.

That said, I've unbanned more than one person after a year passed & an apology landed in my inbox. We all change.

vinlyn

The concept of censorship is very interesting. Most people agree that it's a negative, but want to practice it selectively.

karasti

I don't think it's something where I, or mostly anyone else, will say "yes, it's bad, all the time. No one, ever, should be censored for anything."
Some groups of people, especially younger students, never want to be censored for anything no matter who it hurts. I remember feeling that way, just wanting complete freedom, advocating for "anarchy" because of feeling controlled and stifled. But the rest of us know better and know there are circumstances, times, places, where certain things cannot and should not be expressed. Even on the twitter page I mentioned, the person running it said if someone doesn't like what is said, he will remove it if requested. But most of the kids participating in the page have thrown a tantrum. They don't want anything to be removed, because "removing what we right is exerting control over us!" nevermind that the things depict sexual cartoons using photos of actual students and so on. I'm sure a lot of it, even most of it maybe, is just made up silliness. But it doesn't feel that way when you are the 14 year old girl whose picture is being used on snapchat to depict her sucking a bunch of penises. In certain cases, such as that one, her right to dignity and self worth trumps the right of "free speech" of her classmates. IMO anyhow.

LostSoul

@karasti said:
I don't think it's something where I, or mostly anyone else, will say "yes, it's bad, all the time. No one, ever, should be censored for anything."
Some groups of people, especially younger students, never want to be censored for anything no matter who it hurts. I remember feeling that way, just wanting complete freedom, advocating for "anarchy" because of feeling controlled and stifled. But the rest of us know better and know there are circumstances, times, places, where certain things cannot and should not be expressed. Even on the twitter page I mentioned, the person running it said if someone doesn't like what is said, he will remove it if requested. But most of the kids participating in the page have thrown a tantrum. They don't want anything to be removed, because "removing what we right is exerting control over us!" nevermind that the things depict sexual cartoons using photos of actual students and so on. I'm sure a lot of it, even most of it maybe, is just made up silliness. But it doesn't feel that way when you are the 14 year old girl whose picture is being used on snapchat to depict her sucking a bunch of penises. In certain cases, such as that one, her right to dignity and self worth trumps the right of "free speech" of her classmates. IMO anyhow.

Thank you.

I love social networks. They really show the negative effects of censorship.

Hey, I guess I love the News, NSA, and all other media too.

Another reason Buddhism is right - I'll try to practice showing more metta towards censorship

LostSoul

@Lincoln said:
That said, I've unbanned more than one person after a year passed & an apology landed in my inbox. We all change.

Thank you for posting in my thread! I didn't see you before

I'd like to respond to your post, if you don't mind. Since this is my own thread, I'm going to type my opinion about your post and I'm not trying to argue with you. If I come across that way, I'm very sorry - my wife tells me I have an issue with that.

The first point I don't agree with, is that this forum is a private establishment. Yes, its private to you - but its not private to me. I share lots of my personal information here, and feel like this forum is one of my personal social investments.

Am I wrong in thinking this? Yes, and I reaiize that. But the fact stands that plenty of other people do think this way.

My point, put another way - do you consider your Google searches private? Your email inbox? Your private facebook messages?

They're not private. The company you are using the service on is able to use this information however they (not you) wish - including sell this info to third parties, including harvest your information and put it on the black market, including give your information to government entities you may not personally trust & that have it out to get you. I'm sure its in the terms somewhere.

Yes I'm very paranoid. I accept that. I also accept that I don't think this is the way the internet is supposed to be. The internet is supposed to be a free world. A world where I can post a picture of my child, search what I wish, and discuss my personal matters without recourse from government or other authority figures. Since I'm a lay person, I'm bringing this post up on a buddhist forum in the effort that other like minded buddhists will see my post and realize these things are wrong where they did not realize so before.

That is all . And yes I do understand how a forum works, and am looking at opening a buddhist forum myself. But I won't post a link to it here, since I'm sure that is against the rules

I've also managed over 10-20 forums personally. I'm a software developer and have lots of personal experience with these things, hence my dissatisfaction in how they work. They can work better you know. Its up to the people who own the forums, the people who use the internet to make a stand - its not anybody else's responsibility.

LostSoul

(And, by saying that "the internet is supposed to be a free world" - I mean that in my opinion based on all my previous experience with the internet, my feelings are that the people who created such a place would never want it to be in the place it is now. And its very sad to me to see the internet being compromised in this way (among many). Just my 2 cents.)

LostSoul

That's another video that was submitted just 12 hours ago. Think about this. How long until youtube takes it down?

robot

@LostSoul said:
(And, by saying that "the internet is supposed to be a free world" - I mean that in my opinion based on all my previous experience with the internet, my feelings are that the people who created such a place would never want it to be in the place it is now. And its very sad to me to see the internet being compromised in this way (among many). Just my 2 cents.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Internet started by the US military? It would seem to me that it is working better than they could have dreamed as an almost limitless source of information about their friends and enemies.

In your previous post you have confused the privately owned nature of this site with the obviously unprivate nature of posting here. It's two separate issues.

Linc

@LostSoul said:
Yes, its private to you - but its not private to me. I share lots of my personal information here, and feel like this forum is one of my personal social investments.

You're conflating the ideas of private/public ownership with private/public information ( @robot narrowly beat me in pointing this out).

@LostSoul said:
The internet is supposed to be a free world. A world where I can post a picture of my child, search what I wish, and discuss my personal matters without recourse from government or other authority figures.

Posting private matters publicly will engender public recourse. That's not misuse of the Internet, it's how society has worked since the beginning of history. People are only just discovering how bad they are at keeping quiet when technology makes it so easy to spill the proverbial beans in such an epic fashion.

karasti

People give up their privacy without a thought. No one has to use the internet. They don't have to use facebook and twitter and instagram, and so on. They don't have to agree to the ToS that the sign up for and then give up their privacy. But they do, for instant gratification and ego fulfillment. They throw their privacy right out the window, and then when it comes back to haunt them they look like a deer caught in the headlights like they had no idea. Nothing is private on the internet. Nothing. When you choose to use those online sites that have ToS that specify that, you don't then get to pick or choose who you are giving up your privacy to. If you are going to give up your privacy entirely to Facebook and Twitter, you are thereby giving it up also to the police and the government. If you don't like those agreements, you have the choice to opt out.

The internet, i don't think, isn't meant to be a massive black hole where you can do and say what you want without recourse, but that is how a lot of people use it. If I went to a bar one night and got drunk and slammed my boss and her company all night, I could fairly expect her to be pissed off when she found out the next day. Same goes for me posting the same information on Facebook. That people don't understand that kind of amazes me.

vinlyn

@LostSoul, in a general sense, I tend to agree with some of your feelings about internet forums...again, in general...but not specially to this forum.

First, Lincoln has invested a great deal of time, a great deal of effort, and I'm sure a fair amount of money in opening, developing, and maintaining this website. Your investment is virtually nothing.

Second, your long response to Lincoln should have, in my view, been a private, not a public message. While I'm sure it's unintentional on your part, you sort of remind me of the invited guest who then tries to destroy a happy home.

Third, while I don't agree with every call the mods here make, for the most part, they're pretty balanced and fair, with some individual variances. I'm happy here, which I can't say about some other Buddhist forums. It's Lincoln's dime, so to speak.

This is one of the few threads I would close if I were a mod.

LostSoul

Sorry guys. I didn't mean to create more dukkha, I simply wanted to discuss the title.

Thank you all for your posts. I have marked all I found interesting. I won't quote anybody because I don't want to start any arguments or create any anger. I've already done enough and have learned from my mistakes.

Please know I love you all and am just a lost soul trying to find a way in the chaos.

LostSoul

If this thread is unwanted here please delete.

vinlyn

@LostSoul said:
Sorry guys. I didn't mean to create more dukkha, I simply wanted to discuss the title.

Thank you all for your posts. I have marked all I found interesting. I won't quote anybody because I don't want to start any arguments or create any anger. I've already done enough and have learned from my mistakes.

Please know I love you all and am just a lost soul trying to find a way in the chaos.

As are we all. Thanks for your response!

lobster

As @Lincoln mentions the censorship is liberal due to varied moderation. On other forums the agendas are often hidden from the moderators themselves even . . .

I was recently moderator on a Buddhist forum where I spent most of my time reporting myself and fellow moderators for censoring . . . and continually trying to bring back a banned member who was worth the trouble in my estimation . . . (he was an Arayan Supremist and liar, anti-zen etc . . . but there are worse people . . . me for example). If we can not refute the arguments of the hell dwellers, where are we gonna get those skilful memes? I believe this right wing racist dharmaist fundie has rightly been banned from this forum, where the innocent and new Buddhists like me, are susceptible to the pseudo Buddhism of the semi experienced . . .

On other forums I am censored so heavily, for the benefit of the spiritually fragile, that I rarely go there anymore. Sad. I feel the moderators are well meaning.

It is very difficult to deal with the well meaning. It is why I admire the restraint @Jason mentions. Power is very corrupting to the immature. It is for this very reason I threw myself out of the Yinyana School of Buddhism, in case anyone might think it exists and needs censoring.
http://yinyana.tumblr.com/day/2013/09/12

Incidentally we are not 'the resistence' as mentioned in the video.

We are Buddha Borg, Resistence is futile.

LostSoul

LOL @lobster your posts always bring me great joy

Thank you for sharing your experience. I think we can all relate to a little censorship.

I was always disillusioned with the Borg myself

LostSoul

Well, maybe there is hope in the world. Yesterday I heard the wonderful news that Mark Dice's youtube channel has been restored.

Its sad what the world is coming to, but hopefully there can be change.

Steve_B

I don't frequent many internet sites. The ones I go to are intelligently moderated. The ones I disliked were un moderated or under moderated, and degenerated into free-for-alls that were not worth the time. I guess I wouldn't recognize over moderation, because I wouldn't see the posts that were deleted.

anataman

@LostSoul said:

That's another video that was submitted just 12 hours ago. Think about this. How long until youtube takes it down?

Ssshh Mark Dice is really the head of the illuminati and this was just a skilful ruse for him to distract and disinform you, and take you into his confidence.

I'm going into hiding until all conspiracy theories are proved. But where do I go?

Who will accept this refugee, seeking truth.

Cheers guys!