More uselessness from DBC

[quilp]

Sounds like you're a bit angry there Eddie. Which one are you then, Penfold? Spaniard? General bumholes autonomous Collective? Lie detector? Speaker of Truths? Or all of them? 😄

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by quilp

[thommo2010]

16 hours ago, Gladys said:

Perhaps those people could explain exactly what the issue is. 

I live in a flat. I have 2 recycling bags stick them in my kitchen when they get full take them to the tip. It's not really an inconvenience to be honest and doesn't take up much space

[Roger Mexico]

35 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

There seems to be some weird stuff going on again online. IOM Newspapers have now removed all comments from under the story they did yesterday so presumably someone at DBC has clearly complained. Most of the comments didn’t look that bad to be honest but why remove every one even if they don’t like some? You do get the impression that DBC really do have an issue with freedom of speech if it’s negative about them. That’s on top of comments that have also been removed on here.

It's more what John has referred to on Manx Forums before.  They're worried about becoming 'editors' accidentally, if an article keeps on getting comments that have to be removed for perfectly valid reasons (obscenity say or libel).  It's easier to stop any comments appearing and publish comments as letters, where the editing obligation is automatic anyway.

[Steady Eddie]

3 minutes ago, quilp said:

Sounds like you're a bit angry there Eddie. Which one are you then, Penfold? Spaniard? General bumholes automotive Collective? Lie detector? Speaker of Truths? Or all of them? 😄

 

To be fair it’s you who sound angry. None of them since you ask. I just noticed that the story on Facebook when you click on it had comments under it, but the story on the newspapers website then didn’t. Just seemed very odd which suggests someone has complained. From what I can see from the FB linked story hardly any of the comments seem worthy of deletion. 

[Steady Eddie]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's more what John has referred to on Manx Forums before.  They're worried about becoming 'editors' accidentally, if an article keeps on getting comments that have to be removed for perfectly valid reasons (obscenity say or libel).  It's easier to stop any comments appearing and publish comments as letters, where the editing obligation is automatic anyway.

That makes more sense. Thanks. 

[Albert Tatlock]

41 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

There seems to be some weird stuff going on again online. IOM Newspapers have now removed all comments from under the story they did yesterday so presumably someone at DBC has clearly complained. Most of the comments didn’t look that bad to be honest but why remove every one even if they don’t like some? You do get the impression that DBC really do have an issue with freedom of speech if it’s negative about them. That’s on top of comments that have also been removed on here.

The papers are now suggesting that they will only allow comments from people they have pre vetted first (name, address, email, phone). All very odd. It seems that DBC seem to believe that they can’t actually be that unpopular but given the attitude that is on display why would anyone come forward only to risk being targeted by people who are appearing to be more despotic by the day? 
 

That's because it's called 'The Isle of Man Examiner' Steady Eddie - not 'The ****ing Examiner'.

[Albert Tatlock]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's more what John has referred to on Manx Forums before.  They're worried about becoming 'editors' accidentally, if an article keeps on getting comments that have to be removed for perfectly valid reasons (obscenity say or libel).  It's easier to stop any comments appearing and publish comments as letters, where the editing obligation is automatic anyway.

Plus who wants to have to spend their xmas holidays watching out for comments appearing (obscenity say or libel)?

Oh crap! ...it's me.

[Steady Eddie]

5 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Plus who wants to have to spend their xmas holidays watching out for comments appearing (obscenity say or libel)?

Oh crap! ...it's me.

You can still see all the comments on the Facebook linked story. They’ve clearly had good engagement on that so don’t want to take that link down. None look especially libelous or obscene. In fact some of the FB comments look worse. It just looked odd that when to then go to the actual newspaper site it’s a totally different link to the same story but with the above statement about comments on it. Just suggests someone at town hall has complained.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Steady Eddie

[Roger Mexico]

32 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

You can still see all the comments on the Facebook linked story. They’ve clearly had good engagement on that so don’t want to take that link down. None look especially libelous or obscene. In fact some of the FB comments look worse. It just looked odd that when to then go to the actual newspaper site it’s a totally different link to the same story but with the above statement about comments on it. Just suggests someone at town hall has complained.

Possibly, but if it's a comment on Facebook it's Mr Zuckerberg's problem not Mr Butt's.  Of course in both places the really bad stuff may already have been deleted.

39 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Plus who wants to have to spend their xmas holidays watching out for comments appearing (obscenity say or libel)?

Oh crap! ...it's me.

Technically you don't - you just have to watch out for people reporting them.  Which is probably worse as you have to deal with two lots of whiny bastards.

[Albert Tatlock]

4 hours ago, thommo2010 said:

I live in a flat. I have 2 recycling bags stick them in my kitchen when they get full take them to the tip. It's not really an inconvenience to be honest and doesn't take up much space

I think I remember you from school 😀

 

[Amadeus]

5 hours ago, Steady Eddie said:

There seems to be some weird stuff going on again online. IOM Newspapers have now removed all comments from under the story they did yesterday so presumably someone at DBC has clearly complained. Most of the comments didn’t look that bad to be honest but why remove every one even if they don’t like some? You do get the impression that DBC really do have an issue with freedom of speech if it’s negative about them. That’s on top of comments that have also been removed on here.

The papers are now suggesting that they will only allow comments from people they have pre vetted first (name, address, email, phone). All very odd. It seems that DBC seem to believe that they can’t actually be that unpopular but given the attitude that is on display why would anyone come forward only to risk being targeted by people who are appearing to be more despotic by the day? 
 

I contacted them initially and then also made town hall aware who got in touch officially. If you read through this thread you’ll know that I am not against criticism and very much value free speech and the ability for people to - even anonymously - vent. But as I explained before there’s a line and it’s primarily a legal one. When things get defamatory and libellous, I can’t just sit there and watch. 

[John Wright]

32 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

I contacted them initially and then also made town hall aware who got in touch officially. If you read through this thread you’ll know that I am not against criticism and very much value free speech and the ability for people to - even anonymously - vent. But as I explained before there’s a line and it’s primarily a legal one. When things get defamatory and libellous, I can’t just sit there and watch. 

Except it’s not possible, legally, to defame a local authority. Only individual members or employees. And the LA has no legal right to object on their behalf.

We've had it on here before when your CEO has tried to stifle freedom of expression under the guise of “protecting employees”.

[Amadeus]

13 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except it’s not possible, legally, to defame a local authority. Only individual members or employees. And the LA has no legal right to object on their behalf.

We've had it on here before when your CEO has tried to stifle freedom of expression under the guise of “protecting employees”.

You are correct and the comments in question were directed against myself. 

[Steady Eddie]

1 hour ago, Amadeus said:

I contacted them initially and then also made town hall aware who got in touch officially. If you read through this thread you’ll know that I am not against criticism and very much value free speech and the ability for people to - even anonymously - vent. But as I explained before there’s a line and it’s primarily a legal one. When things get defamatory and libellous, I can’t just sit there and watch. 

Do you know how mad that reads? Those comments still seem to be up and readable via FB linked to the original story and none would appear to be particularly defamatory from what I can see. If you can even defame an authority collectively. Which, as John has already pointed out, you can’t. So basically someone (you, you suggest) complained about comments you simply didn’t like. That sounds a bit like censorship to be fair. I just find all this online stuff disappearing to be really interesting. It’s a good gauge of the sort of people involved I’d guess. Maybe some people have grown to believe that they actually control the local media? 

Here’s the link still accessible via FB. I honestly can’t see anything that’s defamatory that needs to be deleted. 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/council-promises-support-for-people-who-are-struggling-with-their-bins-585169

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Steady Eddie

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

2 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

Do you know how mad that reads? The comments still seem to be up on FB linked to the original story and none would appear to be defamatory from what I can see. If you can even defame an authority collectively. Which, as John has already pointed out, you can’t. 

He phoned James Davis and said “everyone’s being mean” and like any paid for lackey JD got them removed (because that’s what DBC pay him for).

Managing the message is how it’s phrased.