Commenters who react to the infrequent spam filter glitches by screaming "Censorship!" and spreading conspiracy theories about mass "censorship" will also be banned from commenting on the site.
Almost too perfect, isn't it?
WITH APOLOGIES TO BEAVERS: The 2007 article where I discovered that Brown and his goons had banned me from the site had at least 133 comments at one point, but they'd whittled it down to 127 by deleting both my comments and all responses to my comments by other people (you can see this for yourself in that first posting I cited above). Looking at that same article again today, five years later, it's down to just 120 comments—so the busy beavers at CommonDreams eventually achieved a 10% comment censorship rate on that one article. Impressive, but no surprise given that their scorched earth methods of erasing people involve removing not just a) the comment that crossed their invisible line but b) every comment the person has ever made on the site, c) responses to those comments by other people, and even d) comments by other people that merely mention the disappeared commenter's username. (They ban their victims by IP address as well, though that's outside the scope of our little analysis.)Has CommonDreams maintained this impressive 10% rate of censorship? Does a 10% deletion rate make them the most aggressively censoring news and opinion site on the Internet? And do the little Napoleons there ever feel even a twinge of conscience as they go about their shabby work? So many uninteresting questions we'll never have answers for.