Come on you Daily Mail supporters

GNHQ explained that they'd thought about it again, hence the title change. Unfortunately, I think that thread got deleted.

If you say so, when.

I don't think they caved in, Ana. They had another look at how the headline to that thread could appear to be offensive and negatively provocative i.e. the phrase 'fucking hijab' and wisely changed the title. It could have brought Gransnet into disrepute.

Thinly veiled....never. Quite bare faced.

Thinly veiled personal attacks? Surely not!

absent

Oh, come on! There were apparently (according to GNHQ) a number of complaints about one swear word in a thread title - not against the guidelines but still they caved in and edited it.

On the other hand there have been very thinly veiled personal attacks which are allowed to stand, despite other posters saying they have reported them. The Gransnet 'guidelines' seem very flexible.

Wow Absent!

petallus No doubt there are posts reported that are not deleted by GNHQ but I don't know – and nor do you – why they were reported. Perhaps whoever reported a non-deleted post really thought it was against the guidelines. There have been quite a few posts that have sailed very close to the wind.

If I posted something along the lines of accusing you of having just the one brain cell and posting yet another load of old rubbish, suggesting that you should just pack up and leave gransnet alone as you are simply not welcome on the forums, you might or might not be offended. Other gransnetters might or might not be offended on your behalf. The post, however, would contravene gransnet guidlines and GNHQ would be entitled to delete it. By joining Gransnet we accepted the guidelines.

There are always limits to free speech.

Petallus Internet forums are not comparable with newspapers.
They have to be moderated for the benefit of the majority. The Saga forum closed down because the moderators failed to tackle abuse.

Sometimes there are complaints to GNHQ which are not upheld and the post is not deleted. In other words, people are not just reporting posts that they think go against the guidelines but also those which personally offend them.

Whatever, reporting a post is an attempt at censorship.

I don't see how you can logically think it's okay to censor things you personally find offensive and support freedom for the things which do not offend you.

And it's a question of personal judgement. Some of the posts which have really offended other posters in the past have seemed fairly mild to me and some others.

I'm sure that GNHQ do monitor every post - they can be held liable should any of us defame someone!

Greatnan is over thinking it all again.

(it's only a forum)

Look Greatnan - I didn't cross that out. (I know how you hate it)

Does anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size really believe everything they read in any newspaper? You all seem to be having a violent agreement.

Did Petallus say that, or am I missing something here?

Petallus - are you quite happy for posts which are cruel, untrue, abusive or unkind to be allowed to stand? GNHQ decide which posts to delete, not members, buy they cannot monitor every post.

The DM was the only paper that British Air were giving out in Athens yesterday. Therefore I had to read it! The first and last time I hope!

this is an interesting thread, and one that shows a lot of independent thought which is good to read.
Pen - agree with your long post. I've been reading the Huffington Post on line, sometimes Private Eye, and the Exaro site. I feel the mainstream press have avoided printing some stories which appear in these other publications.
I've been a Guardian reader since I was 20. I don't believe everything it prints, and I disagree with some articles, and columnists views. It's the Observer on Sunday. I read the Telegraph on holiday this year, and enjoyed it. Didn't agree with everything of course, but found it interesting and informative. It's also good on gardening.
Bags - I agree with you that the DM article on Ralph Milliband has provoked a real debate about the press, and that can only be positive. I wonder the Dacre will re-consider his editorial style.

Reporting a post is an attempt at censorship of something that is not liked or approved of. Sometimes the post is not breaking forum guidelines.

There have been other, more subtle attempts to shut people up, for instance by being hostile or aggressive or telling them they are being silly.

All very normal!

There is quite a lot of censorship in society in general. We have libel laws andlaws against racist and sexist language, for instance.

As for freedom carrying responsibilities, well yes of course. But who decides where those responsibilities kick in? Opinions are bound to differ.

Posts are only removed when they break forum guidelines. When you sign up for the forum, you are accepting the rules. That is totally different from a newspaper traducing a dead man. Freedom, of the press or anything else, carries responsibilities.

I assumed that the article was an attempt to brainwash people into voting Conservative and that worries me more than Milliband being upset about his dad.

I read the Guardian for thirty years and then stopped a few years ago because I began to see it as boringly predictable, not left wing enough and smug. It's readers are too bloody proud of being Guardianistas as well.

I read The Mail now and then in Waitrose cafe but after Millibandgate will not read it again.

As for censorship, well there's quite a bit of it on GN isn't there, every time someone reports a post with the aim of getting it removed.

I only read the DM article in question because so many people were shouting about it. Seems to me there's something to be said for deliberate provocation.

And I've read several things since replying to it and defending Ralph Miliband. As I said before, all the rest of what I've read puts the DM article in perspective (and in the rubbish bin).

It has provoked a great deal of discussion about values and what is important. Thats all to the good in my view.

Don't you think people do shout loud enough about rubbish like the Ralph Miliband article, then, pen? Seems to me there is a huge backlash, otherwise, what's all this?

I think publications various have always tried to push a certain political viewpoint and always will. I also think that even the better publications are often economical with the truth, without necessarily being actually dishonest. If someone writes from a particular perspective, it's bound to happen. I expect we all do it, even if subconsciously.

But I've seen contrasting articles in the same paper on the same subject quite often, which is great to see.

I don't think bad reporting or bad writing of articles or political bias is any worse than it ever was.

My friend had her letter published in the Grauniad earlier this week. It was censored!! She was complaining about the amount of print given over to certain issues across the globe, compared with a tiny reference to a current political issue here that should have been given more, wider coverage, as in the other serious papers.

Her last sentence - 'Shame on you, Guardian!' was removed!

My late aunt, a lifelong Liberal, always took the Torygraph for the crossword - or so she said! I don't take a daily paper largely because they would account for a ridiculous proportion of my pension! Online versions of the Guardian and the Independent give me the information I want and some opinions I relate to. I buy the Observer on Sunday and the I when I'm travelling by train. I am, however, quite capable of making up my own mind on political and social issues and am no longer a member of a political party.