Forgery and Extortion at Free Dominion
At first, it was just an odd transformation of a post I was attempting to put on Free Dominion. But when I asked what was going on, the answer I got was utterly unacceptable. When I stood my ground, things got very ugly, very quickly.
This is not about some sort of fight between conservatives. This is about respect on the most fundamental level. This is about knowing that my words and thoughts, even if unwelcome, are at least not altered. They are my thoughts, my words, and no one has the right to change them without my permission.
It all started when I tried to link to a post by Stephen Taylor, and I noticed something odd when I previewed my post.
Stephen Taylor's name was rendered as a period. The domain portion of his URL was rewritten as belinda.ca, referencing Belinda Stronach's website.
The weirdness remained when I posted.
This was done so that some competing and anti-FD sites do not get traffic. Speak with Connie to get this minor problem resolved.
Competing sites? Aren't we all conservatives here?
We have no obligation to promote the site of someone who can't keep his word in his dealings with us.
Right then, there is some sort of fight going on here. Fine.
But that's not the point, and let me explain why.
They've changed my words.
Get it now?
They've changed my words!
This not about whether Stephen Taylor was selling Liberal Party memberships dressed as a ballerina (geez, I hope that's not what it is, but it really doesn't matter). This is about posting something under my name that I did not write. Worse than that, they changed the meaning of my post by flipping the domain.
Of course, there are the absurd attempts to justify this.
First is that I have not reached some sort of threshold:
15 posts and you are giving instuction on how the site should operate????
One post or one million -- what difference does it make? Should I not be confident that if my post is accepted for publication, that it is not changed? Why should that assurance be a privilege that needs to be earned?
Second is that this is to protect the Free Dominion readership:
What a whiner!
The software is designed to prevent obscenties, racial slurs, and poaching by competing sites.
Start your own site if you want to dictate the rules.
Stephen Taylor's name is neither an obscenity, nor a racial slur. And poaching? Then why allow links at all?
The software was designed to prevent the posting of obscenities or of links to spam sites. That purpose has been corrupted.
But then Stephen Taylor scares some people:
When I signed up to this site I was fully aware that I was in effect in Connie and Marks house and they made the rules. The software filters they have in place are there to protect them and us. If we don't like the rules then we have the option of not playing the game. Safety is safety and I'll put up with filters if it means that Connie and others are protected.
I've met Stephen Taylor. He's not in the least bit intimidating. Sorry, Stephen, but it's true.
But this is where things get dark. Once the logically absurd arguments are dispensed with, we are left with threats. From administrator Connie to me:
The software deleted two of your words, and changed a link.
Make it front page news if you like, but Taylor will look like an idiot if I have to explain why I did it. I deliberately didn't draw attention to it because I know Stephen from our board and I didn't want to publicly humiliate him.
It is ironic that I have more concern about his reputation than you do.
Are you saying I have to put up with this or else Stephen Taylor gets hurt? And what about my reputation? I didn't mean to put a nonsensical link to Belinda Stronach's site.
Don't be an idiot.
If you accuse us, I will have to defend ourselves, so the story is going to come out. You don't honestly think we would sit here and let you 'give us the once over' without telling our side, would you?
Get a grip!
Accept that I can change your post as I see fit, or Stephen Taylor gets it.
That's extortion.
Just what is it about this forum that makes it think it can use the word "Free" in its name?
Maybe they've got something on Stephen Taylor, but I can't imagine it is that bad. If they wanted to freeze out Stephen Taylor, what they could do is simply refuse to publish my post in its entirety, and state in their FAQ that references to Stephen Taylor by name, or to his site, will result in a post being rejected.
That would be the responsible and respectful thing to do.
It would respect my words, and I in turn would have to respect their ban.
But to alter my words and then post different words under my name without warning or explanation is forgery, and to warn me off of calling them out on this by threatening someone else is extortion.
It has nothing to do with freedom, and I have a feeling that the kind of Canada the moderators of this so-called conservative message board want to have is not one I would feel welcome in.
So I've made my argument. Feel free to post your comments. Links to Free Dominion will not be scrubbed out, as my policy is that I have no business modifying your words and your thoughts to suit any agenda I might have.
In the mean time, I hope people reading this consider just how serious something like this is. Thin end of the wedge and all that. My thoughts are committed to words, but the words are changed without my knowledge -- I can't think of anything more deceitful:
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.William Shakespeare
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.
Plato
Without words, without writing and without books there would be no history, there could be no concept of humanity.
Hermann Hesse
Words matter, and they must be respected, because by respecting words we respect the thoughts that gave rise to them. We don't need to agree, but disagreement without respect is the source of much of humanity's history of misery. That's why I think this is so important.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Free Dominion Stephen Taylor freedom of speech Wlliam Shakespeare Plato Hermann Hesse
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
It was only so long before the MSM ideology clashed with the net....meet the new boss .
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 30, 2007 06:09 PM
I'd have to say that the integrity of the blogsphere is fully dependant on posts being displayed accurately as written by their author.
To alter any part of them even in jest undermines this valuable resource and throws integrity out the door.
This cannot be tolerated or we will just have another version of MSM.
True a site belongs to its proprietor and this should be regarded as a sacred trust of sorts.
To not publish a poster's thoughts is one thing...To alter them is quite unacceptable!
Posted by: Simon at March 30, 2007 06:25 PM
The Criminal Code says(of a writing): "...purports to be made by or on behalf of a person who did not make it . . .is a forgery . . ."
Posted by: Hizzoner at March 30, 2007 06:58 PM
So I should change fraud to forgery? Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 07:05 PM
I first saw the offending string at freedominion. While I don't agree in pricipal with the editing, you're omitting something that the site admin refered to about a bad interaction between them ans steve Taylor, and she made her point clear. You started screaming immediately and threatening to bah them on your blog, reminscent of david suzuki to me. I've lost a lot of respect I had for you over your pompous behavior on this. I'm also questioning the motives and principles of connie at freedominion too, but with a couple years lurking at the site, she's proven herself to be quite principled in my experience and I suspect the personal details are satisfactory.
I'm offering this viewpoint as the perception of someone who has enjoyed both sites for a few months now, I've never posted at freedominion and am not a shrill for the site.
Mike
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 07:19 PM
she's proven herself to be quite principled in my experience
What higher principle does a person who runs a message board follow than respect the messages that are posted?
My messages are my own, and not a tool for her to manipulate and change to push an agenda. If she doesn't like the message, she could refuse to post it. Period.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 07:25 PM
I was following that thread earlier at Free Dominion. You are totally right. It makes the whole site look suspicious when they alter people's words rather than just censor them(which I wouldn't agree with either unless there was profanity)
But to actually change what people are saying is Orwellian.
Dishonest, fraudulent, slanderous. And on a thread about Liberals claiming all those things. I wonder what Belinda Stronach would have to say about her name being inserted in statements that have nothing to do with her.
Free Dominion is not free expression.
Posted by: kettlehead at March 30, 2007 07:41 PM
Ummm,,,,,,,Who is Stephen Taylor?
Posted by: Fred at March 30, 2007 07:46 PM
The string's been updated again, she explains a bit more. I honestly believe you've flown off the handle prematurely, I wouldn't have been accomodating to your arguments either the way you came across, even though i think your point is valid (just maybe not applicable when the situation is analyzed). Your behavior as a new member was, imho, bad and not worthy of a more reasonable response. I think a cooler head would have avoided this shemozzle.
"Accept that I can change your post as I see fit, or Stephen Taylor gets it." If those are your words, you've skewed the meaning of what you claim Connie said, her reply was much more explanatory than that, and I can't think of a better way to put it than she did. I honestly doubt that there was a deceiptful intent to alter the meaning of your post. She has every right to remove links to other sites.
For what it's worth, freedominion does give free range to pretty extreme opinions, anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't frequented the site.
There are two ways to perceive the issue, I see yours as grandstanding because it appears to me the change to your post was only regarding a link she wanted killed (I would have liked the link removal noted however, but the immediate explosion pre-empted clarificaion). I've stated my interpretation, so have at 'er if you disagree ;-)
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 08:16 PM
I stay away from Free Dominion - I've never been a fan. The idea that any group would restrict references to a modern conservative icon like stephen taylor is disgusting.
Your post has further entrenched my dislike for FD - I'm glad we have the BT Forums, only offensive materials are restricted at BTF . . .
I've never seen that scary Stephen Taylor change any links to "competing sites" lol.
Posted by: Jordan Alcock at March 30, 2007 08:16 PM
"The idea that any group would restrict references to a modern conservative icon like stephen taylor is disgusting. "
A link was killed, no referance to him was restricted.
"Your post has further entrenched my dislike for FD - I'm glad we have the BT Forums, only offensive materials are restricted at BTF . . . "
So besides a link to a site that was killed, as explained later in the subject string, what restrictions can you report from the site? Who defines "offensive" in your world? It seems you're looking for a pure, free forum, so any restrictions are suspect.
"I've never seen that scary Stephen Taylor change any links to "competing sites" lol"
You're arguing like a liberal here, this is sensationalism.
For the record I like Steve Taylor's site, and i think freedominion should note any changes to posts, which in turn should be avoided. But the arguments I see here are less valid than the link breakage, except or Simon's.
Mike
Posted by: at March 30, 2007 08:35 PM
They did the EXACT same thing to me!!! When I ran Conservative Life they changed all references of it to www.liberal.ca or something like that.
Free Dominion is not a team player. They are more concerned about their own success than success of the conservative movement in Canada. Pathetic really.
Join the forums at BT instead.
Posted by: ferrethouse at March 30, 2007 10:19 PM
The owners of Free Dominion are having a hissy fit because Blogging Tories started their own forums. They want a monopoly over conservative forums in Canada and will use all censorship tools at their disposal to get it.
Posted by: ferrethouse at March 30, 2007 10:21 PM
It occurs to me that this "Mike" commenting here, despite his protestations that he is not a shill for Free Dominion nor has he ever posted there, is being quite aggressive in defending the shoddy practices of FD. Far beyond what one would expect of a casual observer or "innocent bystander". In short, he doth protest too much" to be credible.
For my part, I have never posted at FD nor, after reading this account, do I recommend that any reputable blogger do so. There is NO excuse for editing posts. If a blogger breaks rules, delete the post or put in [Deleted because ...]. Reputable sites don't, FD does. Their choice, and their conduct is probably why Free Dominion no longer occupies a piece of BT's front page. Weren't they on the bottom right at one time, "Threads (say 5 or 6) at FD"? Maybe there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.
Are they percived as, or do they position themselves as, a "conservative-oriented forum? If so, why put in a traffic link to Belinda? Why not yahoo, google or whatnot? That's what most other sites divert to if the correct answer to a challenge isn't supplied.
Something is rotten in the stae of FD. And rude, too, apparently.
Posted by: Erik Sorenson at March 30, 2007 10:24 PM
Now I remember why I gave up on them ages ago....
Use my name and then deface it..... SHAME FD SHAME!!!
Posted by: FREE at March 30, 2007 11:21 PM
Steve,
love your blog, but you're off-base here. End of story. Despite my faux-pas, or because of it, Connie has clearly delineated the nature of the bad blood between herself and Stephen Taylor. She gets to run her site the way she likes, just as you get to run yours. If I were a Kool-aid drinking rabble denizen, I'd expect the site owners/moderators would exercise the same rights. In fact, folks get banned there all the time... a rare occurrence at FD. So go ahead and slag FD, get your two minutes of instant gratification, and claim superiority. You're making an issue where there isn't one.
Posted by: droid1963 at March 30, 2007 11:32 PM
I agree with you 100% Steve. You've put a lot of time and effort into making a name for yourself the thought of having someone tamper with that must be infuriating.
The aformentioned Mike is clearly a hack for FD. Stick to your guns. You are right on this. Hell, if you were Kinsella they would be in court by now.
NBT
Posted by: northbaytrapper at March 30, 2007 11:43 PM
I think Steve is in the right here. No pun intended.
Connie has every right to ban him from commenting on her site, and I guess she has the right to alter his words, but by editing a comment that was written by someone else, she comes across as a censorship nazi. If it irked her that much, she should have just removed the post. All she's done is ensure that I won't be visiting FD anymore.
Posted by: ScottInRMH at March 31, 2007 12:24 AM
Their site, their rules is the way I see it. You are maybe going a little Cherniak on this one Steve.
Posted by: Le Politico at March 31, 2007 12:45 AM
Pretty sad pissin' match here...having contributed and moderated at FD for a few years until I resigned to pursue blogging, my opinion of Connie is that she is as good as her word and she has always stood firm in principle and conviction...regardless of who it pees off. She is also extremely tolerant of personal attack ( of which she has experienced plenty)
Steve: when you have sweated over a blog and given it everything ( and I mean this literally as Connie and Mark have sacrificed a great deal of their income, time and devotion to keep FD running) you deserve ( have earned) the courtesy of having your rules/word respected in the house you have sacrified to build.
Secondly, Connie is human....unlike some utopian ideal of a libertarian moderator you seem to hold, she has biases just like you do...and she is unafraid to tell you about them....one is that she does not have to use her site for the promotion of ideas or people she does not like...and the Q/A states as much. It is a MODERATED board...with all that implies.
Third: if you had 1/10th of the attacks on your site FD has experienced from devoted moonbat vandals, you would be a bit quick on the trigger also.
I don't make excuses for other peoples actions, I'm just saying I understand how things like this can happen.
Just kiss and make nice...this blustery indignant moral outrage over fly shit does not suit you Steve.....the above copy sounds more like it could have been written by Ralph Goodale. ;-)
Peace Brother
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 31, 2007 10:17 AM
*
i'm with steve on this.
either totally disallow a post (which btw makes you an enemy of free speech) or post it without revision.
you don't get to edit someone else's words.
makes me think of those old airbrushed photos the russians put out, every time somebody got dumped from the politburo.
*
Posted by: neo at March 31, 2007 10:21 AM
My last comment...
What I'm doing is pointing out the sensationalism here more than defending freedominion. Notice all the heavy discussion here is avoiding a description of what specifically took place. I've stated that I think Connie was been wrong to edit without noting what she did, but it turns out it was a filter that changed taylor's link, not Connie, hence the inaccurate charge of "changing Angry's words" in his post... I now think she did nothing wrong, she has the right to set up auto filters to edit unwanted links from her forum. I've also noted that Steve flew off the handle, and has made grand statements about what took place.
I believe that banning without good reason, or completely deleting posts in the same manner is also an affront to free speech. But a forum manager is not obligated to allow their forum to be taken advantage of either. The arguments made here are referancing a generic concept and making over the top comparisons to absolutely irrelevant issues; this is usually a liberal tactic, used to appeal to emotions rather than use logic to address the pertinent issue.
Go check it out yourselves if interested, or continue to make grand statements if that's your preferance. My preferance is to receive accurate news, factual opinions, etc. The MSM has turned me off on the type of sensationalism I see here. So again, check the string out for yourself...
(I think it's ok to post this, might not be in light of them editing the link to taylor, please remove it if it's an issue, I can understand why you would be.)
http://www.freedominion.ca ... LOL, Janke's filter wouldn't let the link be posted because it contained the word view_topic:
"Your comment could not be submitted because the follwing text matched an entry in our spam filter: ie_wto (without underscore)
It's a common ploy to avoid specifics and use generic concepts, if your argument is weak. This whole thing is ridiculous imo. Reading through the string at freedominion shows a pragmatic solution to a problem, with a bit of humour mixed in. Janke appears to be a sensationalising hothead, blowing hard at nothing and misrepresenting a situation in order to make hay of it.
And Erik, as for me being incognito, review what i've said for accuracy and think again. Logic forces me to "be on Connie's side" and I don't care about the perception of that here, I just invite anyone interested to check the string and make their own conclusion. My statements here are very accurate, not like most here who are grandstanding and talking about the issue obviously without seeing what it's about. If Connie had changed the meaning of the post, or taken it of context, only then would these arguments be correct. I have no online personality to protect or analyze, having posted very little on any political forum... I'm sure some of freedominion's regulars will be reading this and wondering who I am, lol.
Sorry for the blabbering, I started the reply and left before finishing
Mike
Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 11:55 AM
Anything that further marginalises the loonies at FD is probably a good thing. In addition to holding somewhat exteme views, the forum suffers from a general rudeness, immaturity and lack of respect that is all too common on the internet.
Posted by: volrath50 at March 31, 2007 01:31 PM
What y'all must understand is that Connie and her SO Entropy are rabid pro-lifers who will ban anybody from FD who questions their anti-abortion orthodoxy with reality.
Connie herself worked to introduce an anti-partial birth abortion resolution in the Conservative Montreal convention, but she was stopped by the party executive. Even Connies attempt to be the CPC candidate in the last election for the riding around Kingston ON was frustrated because of her strident anti-abortion reputation. These CHP socons have infiltrated the CPC, but they have been effectively neutered like Cheryl Gallant, their CPC leader of choice.
FD regulars are a collection of misfits and miscreants who's doctrinaire political views are really not welcome in the CPC, even though they diguise themselves as "principled" conservatives. They are really not mainstream Conservatives at all.
Posted by: unoho at March 31, 2007 07:14 PM
Mike, charges of sensationalism, "rabid pro-lifer"-ism and all that has been leveled at you aside, I cannot in any way condone the rewriting of a posting WIHTOUT WARNING.
Whatever Connie's problem with Stephen is, I don't care. Interesting way for it to be handled, but oh well. It is for a blog owner to decide if they will delete posts - entirely up to them. If I get a message saying its not going to be posted because of whatever reason, thats for the owners to decide and implement. No arg there.
Although at first blush it appears that changing posts is in the same vein as deleting them, i disagree. If they deleted stuff with which they didn't agree, the integrity of the readership allowed to contribute (tho the integrity level would be lower) would be preserved. Not so with altering. Everything I have read on FD is now in doubt and I will not be posting or visiting there again.
Posted by: daryl at April 1, 2007 08:46 AM
I used to read and support FD but not anymore, what was once upon a time a principled conservative site is now nothing more than a radical anti-abortion evangelical website. Not to mention it has a few genuine homophobes including a BW, lead nutcase. To each his own, but I stay away now.
Posted by: Nancy Smythe at April 1, 2007 08:49 AM
Steve, why didn't you reply to Connie's request?
She stated, "Strange that I haven't heard back from Angry about my offer to delete posts that refer to Taylor. I wonder if he will be honest enough to admit that this hissy fit is not about our software 'changing his words', but rather an attempt to force us into providing links to sites we don't want to link to?"
And, I've noticed that you were demanding to be booted. Very strange and I wonder, what was your alterior motive by demanding such a thing?
Posted by: None at April 4, 2007 11:33 AM
 
|
|
