How would anyone know that posts haven't been published unless the complainant was the author of said posts? Or are you saying that some of your replies to the 'known suspects' weren't published?
If so, yep that sounds like censorship to me.
Moderation, or lack of, has been criticised on here before. Maybe with the new site format, there's a change to moderation also. I think it's a good step, but it needs to be balanced, fair, and most importantly, consistent.
Some of the permitted 'anon' posts don't do the site any good whatsoever, or show it in a good light. Maybe it's a steady work in progress. I'd personally ban anons from posting, & have everyone who wants to comment create an account.
Censorship is censorship. The site administration can’t claim to operate a free speech platform when it has consistently failed to provide one.
I am aware of 3 instances (1 my own) in the last few days were challenges to racist and homophobic replies to the 'known suspects' weren't published.
I have used this site as an Anon for 17 years or so. I have no interest in becoming a registered user. I pop in, get some info, and generally pop back out again. This changed last summer with the overwhelming influx of racial and homophobic abuse posted by registered users: one who should be well known to most who retains the same user name and two others who have re-registered under ‘new’ user names.
Several users (registered and anon) requested changes to the site rules and offered a number of possible solutions. Davidt moved this discussion to a specific thread and then subsequently dismissed all of the possible solutions provided. His generalised response being: if you don’t like it. leave. Seemingly unaware that non-racists and supporters of LGBT rights leaving wouldn’t deal with the racism and homophobia that was and is rank within his site.
I agree that “Maybe with the new site format, there's a change to moderation also. I think it's a good step, but it needs to be balanced, fair, and most importantly, consistent.” But if previous experience is anything to go by this will not occur.
I would also add that some of the registered user posts don't do the site any good whatsoever, or show it in a good light and that most of the racist and homophobic comments stem from approx. 3 to 4 registered users.
Banning anonymous posters would mean, I believe, the demise of the site.
On writing this there is a total of 291 people using the site:
261 guests
30 members (13 of whom are using the site anonymously i.e. not being tracked)
I just don’t understand that when concerns are raised the response from Solo is to stick its head in the sand? Time and time again issues are raised either directly with Davidt, in generalised threads or in specific threads and time and time again nothing changes; racism and homophobia prevail.
Most of the consistent antagonism on the site is provoked by less than a handful of people (registered users) surely that can be dealt with? I’m not all suggesting that anonymous users are free from blame, far from it, but the racist and homophobic rhetoric is largely from registered users.