The Times and gender critical comments.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

Dh occasionally comments on Times articles. Today, he has tried and tried and tried again, to comment on a piece in today’s paper about rapists being allowed to identify as female, and their crimes being reported as female crimes in Scotland. He keeps getting told that his language ‘may upset the Times’ community’, but has finally managed to get one past the moderators, asking if the Times is ready to lose female readers when they feel thrown under the bus by the Times.

The piece is in the Scottish edition of the Times.

He feels - and I have to agree - that the Times has caved to the TRAs on this issue.

it will also lead to a logarithm determining what is socially acceptable comment or behaviour.

Algorithms reflect the biases that are built into them. It's inevitable that there will be no right of appeal or way to correct the errors that may have far-reaching consequences.

Seriously - we've had some good advice before from various posters but does this make anyone think they need to start taking use of a VPN and privacy measures etc. very seriously?

It hasn't stopped the critical comments about Scottish drag artists getting through

Wait a while and see how it goes. On another busy thread about events in Scotland 20% of the comments ended up getting deleted overnight.

‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'

Definitely been a change, I got a comment deleted last week ( about the suffragacy story getting old and why in style), it was pretty tame and originally was posted ( got emails telling me it was liked), later deleted, there was nothing offensive. There appears to be certain subjects / people that are sacrosanct while others eg older columnists you can say nearly anything. I am considering cancelling subscription but holding back for now as on whole pretty supportive, but may change to private eye!!

@Procrastinator3

I have been censored twice in the last week, for polite comments. Thinking about cancelling my subscription.

Same. I had a fairly innocuous comment censored, which was surprising. I only subscribed to the Times in support of them publishing GC articles, but if we are not even allowed to comment honestly, then what's the point. If it keeps happening I will definitely unsubscribe.

Some complaints about it here:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dfb8dc82-9de1-11eb-9528-e3733dc789af?shareToken=d696b6e5c1ef2ed759be84b852db314b

Same. I had a fairly innocuous comment censored, which was surprising. I only subscribed to the Times in support of them publishing GC articles, but if we are not even allowed to comment honestly, then what's the point. If it keeps happening I will definitely unsubscribe

To be fair, the Times comment section has become far more populated in recent times, and it has started to attract lots of really negative trolls who are not interested in discussion. So maybe that is why this new platform has been brought in.

I was commenting on the Greenshill scandal the other day, and made reference to what was going on at Liverpool City council ( where there is now government over-sight and a police investigation) as a result of corrupted practices. Just using the word 'corruption' seemed to trigger the moderator and I was requested to alter my comment.

The 'like' button has now disappeared, which is maybe not a bad thing. Social media is predicated on being rewarded for posts with 'likes', but this can also become a tool of bullying. So, the idea is that posts stand on their own merit, and not on the goading or support of the crowd.

The "recommend" option is still there.

Its the battle of reality thing again isn't it?

If you don't let anyone say it then it isn't happening and doesn't exist. Stamp out all evidence that messes with the chosen reality and that reality stops existing.

Except that's like a toddler, putting their hands over their eyes and insisting that because they can't see you, you can't see them. It's not rational or coherent thinking.

New Labour tried this. 'Nobody talk about Immigration. We never discuss immigration. Anyone who talks about immigration is a Bad Person Bigot.' It was made a taboo subject.

How did that end? In one big "Oh fuck, we're out of the EU."

Not letting people speak does not make their opinions or feelings go away. It just makes them increasingly angry and unsympathetic, and that will come back to be a major problem. Those of us who care about the interests of everyone in this situation have been pointing out for years, this is going to end up biting in the bum those who have been pushing for it.

Unfortunately reality is a shared, objective, fact based thing. It cannot be controlled, or shaped to something someone else subjectively prefers, and it is not possible to force everyone else to comply with and service someone else's reality against their will and their own perceptions. Even with threats, PC Gull and Nicola Sturgeon to help, it's never going to work. It's not a rational or ethical thing to do and it's impossible. This has to be faced up to.

That's a good analogy MichelleofzeResistance with the immigration stuff and how it came back to bite Labour.

Its the battle of reality thing again isn't it?

If you don't let anyone say it then it isn't happening and doesn't exist. Stamp out all evidence that messes with the chosen reality and that reality stops existing.

It's a disturbingly on-point analogy. Do the drivers of this and previous policy mis-steps within Labour (such as no discussion about contentious topics) indicate that they genuinely thought they could 're-educate' everyone (saw no attempt at this) or that there would be sufficient examples made by modern versions of the gulag (such as social media hounding, job loss etc.) that everyone would be persuaded, irrespective of the wider social consequences and lack of an evidence base?

[quote Igneococcus]Some complaints about it here:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dfb8dc82-9de1-11eb-9528-e3733dc789af?shareToken=d696b6e5c1ef2ed759be84b852db314b[/quote]
Good - and a good place for such comments to be made.

What a mess the comments on the original article are. I tried to post, it said it was pending. Then I received two emails saying it had been rejected. Then I went back and looked and my comment was there! Along with 300 others all saying a combination of exactly what they thought of the policy and complaining about their comments being rejected, which includes comments about how their posts were rejected when they didn’t even say [insert thing you think it might be rejected for]! Lunacy!

Hopefully it’s just temporary madness and Janice Turner can write a decent article on it and we can all say what we really think.

Perhaps that suggests a human has intervened to prevent the effective censorship of free speech?

I do the Times Polygon word puzzle every day - you have to make words using the central letter, and letters from the outside of the polygon.

Interestingly, today’s central letter was I, and the outer letters included C and S - but it did NOT accept ‘cis’ as being a real word. I was pleased.

@ErrolTheDragon

Some members of the community may find your comment inappropriate. Try Again?

This member of the 'community' finds this all extremely disappointing. The 'community' includes many who have subscribed as a result direct of the excellent reporting and commentary by journalists such as Janice Turner, Lucy Bannerman and Andrew Gilligan.

Once you see the 'c' word you are on a slippery slope. Here you have someone who has yet to learn that newspapers have readers and that's how editors refer to them. When this apprentice couples the 'c' with the damning 'inappropriate' you know you have gone over the cliff and there is no hope.

Just went to my email and I have messages from The Times this morning telling me 3 comments have been rejected or approved.... from April 2019! I haven't had a Times account for 18 months or so!

That's a bit random Eresh - I guess the new moderators thought it important to let you know.