Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian Publishes Comment Abuse Stats, Invites Debate On Moderation (theguardian.com)
AmiMoJo writes: British newspaper The Guardian has published some stats on its popular comment sections attached to each story. So far the Guardian's site has received 70 million comments, of which around 2% were removed for violation of community standards. Articles written by women tended to get the most blocked comments, especially if they were in male-writer dominated sections like sports and technology, while fashion was one of the few areas where men got more abuse. Further down the article the reader is invited to moderate some sample comments and see how their actions compared to those of the paper's staff. You can leave suggestions for improvement here.
should concentrate on their own credibility first, then worry bout their posters.
C|N>K
almost vaporous??? cease fire stand up... in the moms we trust..
The same Guardian that has "quality journalism" on the top of the site,
yet makes quality articles of mental psychosis such as manspreading,
and even supported the bullying and defamation of a Rosetta scientist because of a shirt he wore?
Why is such a site even posted on slashdot? Might as well post GAWKER articles.
Have moved away from Slashdot-style semi-anonymous posts (login required, but real name not required) in favor of requiring Facebook or Linkedin accounts. The FB-assisted comment sections are almost always dull, predictable, and sparsely populated. A real live forum is where the action is. So what if it requires a gardener to pull the weeds; they can hire interns with freshly minted university degrees who are willing and able to moderate posts, as long as it comes with a chance to do some reporting work.
Simple, quit hiring the mentally-challenged to write shit-tier clickbait. But that seems to be the business model at said "newspaper"... so this complaining about comments is merely more clickbait.
... immediately everyone flames them.
People who hold views that are contrary to the majority are targets for abuse. Moderation promotes groupthink. Take Slashdot for example. If you support Microsoft and believe Windows is a good operating system, you'll be the target of abuse. If you support law enforcement using powers granted by Congress to stop terrorism, you'll be modded down as a troll. If you believe in punishing criminals like those who use ransomware to blackmail users, you'll be constantly told what a fool you are, and probably be modded down as flamebait. Moderation promotes groupthink. Anyone who holds a view contrary to the majority, no matter how well supported those views are, will be branded a troll and harassed. It's the nature of online discussion and moderation, unfortunately.
I have given up on commenting there because I know how they rate their 'community standards'
It was an article on the flood of millions of migrants into Europe and I was asking if it is wise to allow so many of those who have no intention of integrate into the European culture ... and my comment was nuked
There was no cussing
There was no degrading of any specific race
There was not even any mention of religion
I was only commenting on the wisdom of allowing so many of those who had shown to not interested of integration --- and for that, I somehow has violated their 'community standard'
As I said, I've given up commenting there --- them European liberals simply cannot tolerate anyone questioning what they do
Totally useless !
Captcha: despair
What they failed to do was publish articles written by one gender/race under the alias of the opposing gender/race, serving it to part of the internet and seeing if there is a difference in the number of negative responses. They also didn't track the geographic region of the originating blocked posts. No conclusions can be taken from these numbers besides, "some people on the internet are assholes" which we already knew for a certainty thanks to the youtube comment sections.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What's with the "community"? There are no "community" standards — the removed messages were deemed offensive by a handful of moderators. Moderators prone to keeping some posts more equal than others and susceptible to manipulation by evil regimes.
Calling them "community" is redefining terms...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Or at least... a Slashcode-like commenting, moderation, and meta-moderation system.
For all we complain about it here, and for all the trolling that occurs, the Slashdot moderation system seems to have passed the test of time reasonably enough.
Perhaps it's a little like that infamous definition of Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
well, they block anything that mentions race, so there's not a chance of having a civil discourse, just an echo chamber.
The more we're compared to one other, the less anyone will ever be happy. For a site where most readers understand that pitting minorities vs. whites or middle class vs. poor is how the wealthy elites keep the unwashed masses distracted from their exploits, Slashdot sure seems determined to futher all of this gender-based fomentation.
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
It looks like The Guardian just got a first-hand lesson on the flaws of "diversity". When allow racism and sexism to dictate your hiring policy, you'll inevitably get people who wouldn't have been hired on their merit alone.
I wonder how much of the "abuse" was of the "you suck" variety. Maybe The Guardian needs to ask the UN to censor their critics as well.
Same experience on Scientific American. No violation of their own stated policies. Not even mentioned global warming.
Comment deleted.
I complained and their reply was that I lost my "privilege" to post.
I cancelled the renewal of my subscription and unsubscribed from any of their mailing lists.
Absolutely disgraceful.
I wish to trade my soul to marry a pretty Chinese girlfriend.
Your notion of civil discourse runs the gamut from A to A.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Unlike The Guardian, Slashdot doesn't answer to political grievance groups (and has only removed one thing for Scientology).
I'm not sure that this is debate as much as it is a justification.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And the one poster who frequently has his posts outright removed from Slashdot appears, to demonstrate that there is a level of insane trolling that not even the /. editors will tolerate.
Do you ever actually post anywhere else?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
| bigoted
I tend to find in a lot of "communities" that this is used not simply mean those who come along and say something like "let kill and mutilate all the niknaks because of some big lie or misrepresented fact" or generally pointless meaningful things. People see it as a right to impose speech restrictions to impose their own morality and beliefs on others.
| But xenophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia were all seen regularly. Take for example, some of the comments left below an article on the mass drownings of migrant men, women and children in the Mediterranean: “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”; “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”; “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
I thought I might be paranoid but the Guardian proves me right further on in the article. Lets take a look at what they consider bigoted and vile:
* “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”
This should not be moderated and in fact opens healthy debate on that particular subject. If there's anything wrong with it it is that is is not well articulated. Obviously they don't literally contribute nothing but they might not make a net contribution or might not contribute enough.
* “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”
Well this one doesn't add a great deal and is somewhat absurd so could be prune worthy if going for high quality comments. Otherwise it's nothing more than an way of saying "I really, really, really do not care." and that's a problem because the Guardian more than anything wants people to care. You can't have examples of people not caring going unpunished. All you have here is an article saying "YOU MUST CARE ABOUT THIS SO SO MUCH" and people responding with "Frankly, I couldn't give a damn." What you really have here is a sample of a comment that doesn't support the article. The comment is being removed because it's not in line with what the article wants you to think, feel, etc. I wonder if they did a poll on "do you support this article" if they would moderate the votes saying no for being bigoted.
* “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
This is borderline. All it's saying is, "I'm apathetic." like the previous. It's very similar to the previous but less absurd. It's not really a serious discussion type comment so it could be pruned for that reason. It's harsh as hell but it's not saying the same as "Lets drown them." although the Guardian would no doubt want you to think that way. Although the Guardian would also like you to think that they are being forced onto boats there's no reason to believe that the sheer majority of them are making a wilful decision to try to come here.
Let analysis their conclusions:
* articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.
I've almost never paid attention to the author of a news story. Once in a blue moon I might check or accidentally notice. If I'm representative of the common case then it might be because of what or how women right. I have no doubt this comment on the guardian would have me branded as a bigot and gagged accordingly. I find this article of theirs provocative so perhaps there's a higher chance it's written by a woman? It looks like it's half and half so not far off the mark there. I'd like to see what happens if they don't show the reporter's name.
Not one of these comments is actually bigoted in any sense that is meaningful. At best they simply aren't saying enough. Here's what I think and that's all, not why. Removing them for that is fine. Removing them because if you don't agree with the article you must be bigoted then you have a problem of the opinion you are writing about becoming a delusion.
There is also a possibility that moderators are spending more effort on articles written by members of groups they deem "vulnerable". Other possibilitie
I do have to wonder just how many men and women received abusive comments for writing about on-topic subjects, versus those who wrote irreverent, poorly-researched pieces that were of barely any relation to the actual subject of sports, technology or fashion.
It's extremely easy to say "men get more abusive comments when they write about fashion!" while conveniently ignoring that you may only have a single male fashion reporter and every other article he posts is a thinly-veiled misogynistic hit-piece, designed to rile women up to the point where one lashes out and he can cry "see, it's 2016 and men are STILL receiving abuse online!" before running off to collect his patreon-bucks.
FTFY
It's not about the gender of the author, it's about the agenda of the author. Regardless, most flamebait/troll posts are aimed at other comments anyway - at least that's apparent in watching this play out in other papers' comment areas. Also, the straight reporting or analysis vs. op-ed will make a huge difference.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Your ad hominem attack proves his point with minus mod hiding his post with your use of a delusional fake name from you. He hit you right on the head. I've yet to see his posts removed but I do see you doing what he says your kind in trolls does.
They're all about "the correct position." It's kind of like they presume they're right on everything, and in that they don't even like the people that agree with them.
So, for example, they cite that 8 or their 10 most "abused" contributors were women (4 white, 4 not). But since the newspaper has a great deal of coverage of "women's" issues including a lot of highly opinionated articles about feminism -- but no corresponding articles, or sections, concerning men's issues their coverage is neither balanced, nor able to show how much abuse their "men's" writers would get, since they don't have any.
They also counted all "moderated" comments (ones that do not meet their community standards) as being abusive and they assume that the abuse is directed against the author. However, they remove comments that are off-topic and ones that make personal comments about other commentators. So a comment that was removed because it insulted a commentator who was attacking the article (i.e. the insulter was supporting the author), would be counted as abuse against that author. They do not give reasons for removing comments and only have the single classification.
Finally, The Guardian admits that it does not moderate either consistently: applying different levels of rigor depending on the topic, nor does it moderate all articles to the same extent. It also does not open all it's articles up to comments.
In all, while their analysis does point to there being online abuse - they reckon they delete 2% of articles, from the 70 million submitted so far, the results are patchy, inconsistent and cherry-picked. It would never pass a peer review and seems to have been published more to push the newspaper's own agenda, rather than as an authoritative work to highlight a problem (they don't say if the level of "abuse" is rising or falling since they started in 1999).
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
And APK's other trick, to pose as his own defender. Do you think we're all idiots?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Those comments that they showcased in the article were in many cases perfectly legitimate debate.
The comment was:
“A 12-year-old boy, out at night, waving a BB gun? What sort of parent allows that? What happened is the product of a fucked up
society/community/culture/upbringing. I'm sorry to say, but often black people are their own worst enemies.”
You answered allow. We thought differently.
This was removed for racism (“black people are their own worst enemy”; “fucked up community/culture” etc).
Yeah, nice going Guardian. Don't allow a healthy discussion on black culture, just silence any controversial or unpopular opinions. Slashdot may have its groupthink, but comments are almost never deleted. A certain rarity on the net in this day and age of 'safe spaces'.
The only comment I would have deleted was the very last one, "“stupid ugly woman writes stupid ugly steaming pile of dog-shite”, because it was just an insult without saying anything to back it up.
No, just you. Those who can't defend their position try shut others up. You told apk shut up https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8982159&cid=51897387 Didn't take a trick for APK to make you a fool there. Just your stupidity.
Possibly the best part is that they consider "whataboutery" to be abuse. So if a female author writes an article about the terrible incidence of suicide among young women, and how they need to be given special assistance, and a commenter says "uh ... men commit suicide about three times as often as women - why aren't you concerned about them?", that's classified as abuse.
And APK's other trick, to pose as his own defender. Do you think we're all idiots?
And yet another of his tricks - hijacking my account to post this:
When has APK's posts ever been removed from slashdot?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Anything that criticises the radical 'feminist' viewpoints that are frequently published gets removed. These are often stories written by what could only be described as highly opinionated, and often sexist women, rather than real feminists just looking for equal rights.. I would have supported someone with a real feminist agenda, but much of the nonsense published by the Guardian is tiresome rubbish, and it is badly tainting the Guardian's image.
Also, anything that stands against immigration, or mentions any kind of 'minority' group seems to get removed.
The Guardian is the bastion of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-politically correct censorship in the UK, and they should be ashamed.
Where'd you post that in this article before the date of your post now? You didn't. I checked your post history today https://slashdot.org/~goose-in... You panicked and are now caught sockpuppeting MightyMartian after apk you out a fool https://news.slashdot.org/comm... and you do what he says trolls do using sockpuppets https://news.slashdot.org/comm... You have proven apk right about what goes on here. You're busted MightyMartian/goose incarnated (or whatever many sockpuppet names you use).
Articles written by women tended to get the most blocked comments, especially if they were in male-writer dominated sections like sports and technology, while fashion was one of the few areas where men got more abuse.
How did the articles on sports/technology fashion fare?
Why are they censoring comments? That's just comments for chrissake! Comments reflect people's opinion, all people, and ensures the reader to get a fair sample of what people think. So the Guardian may censor that comment, that I would have seen as interesting, and may keep this one that I may feel too politically-correct. It's a website, keep all comments! Add a "comment flagged but you may read it here at your own risk" button, or do a slashdot-like moderation (for newbies, slashdot keeps all comments, yes).
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The quality of the article is inversely proportional to the ratio of deleted comments.
So, Loads of deletions suggests the article is pure clickbait, designed to anger the readers.
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I like your host file system by Karmashock
I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech
APK is kinda right. I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context by chihowa
"you're right about hosts files" by drinkypoo
I support APK's stand on the hosts file by Trax3001BBS
APK
Guarantee downmod (like before https://news.slashdot.org/comm... ) & this exposes how abused & cheated 'moderation' is here w/ proof:
#1 - Sockpuppets (ZontarTheMindless = TrollingForHostsFiles) -> https://slashdot.org/comments.... + MightyMartian = goose-incarnated doing it here https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
#2 - Used to downmod folks they can't prove validly wrong *try* hide it (VAINLY - I have unlimited posts unlike most ac's exhausting them of abused modpoints)
#3 - Sockpuppets "farm karma" to UPMOD THEIR MAIN 'real' ACCOUNTS (DELUSIONAL fake names for SLIME w/ no integrity & accomplishments spreading their misery trolling)!
APK
P.S.=> My posts on hosts = downmodded/trolled as it cuts into their money (despite them infecting users via ads)?
They "filter me" (whipslash) & I'm on-topic - why?? Hosts block ad money! /. 'moderation system' = sockpuppet suppression system built by weasels for the new OWNER weasel whipslash (who can't stop me, lol)... apk
Where'd you post that in this article before the date of your post now? You didn't. I checked your post history today https://slashdot.org/~goose-in... You panicked and are now caught sockpuppeting MightyMartian after apk you out a fool https://news.slashdot.org/comm... and you do what he says trolls do using sockpuppets https://news.slashdot.org/comm... You have proven apk right about what goes on here. You're busted MightyMartian/goose incarnated (or whatever many sockpuppet names you use).
You missed the sarcasm in "And yet another one of his tricks - hijacking my account"? So, by me challenging MightMartian's assertion (basically defending APK), you feel I *am* him? Do you even read?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I think what he's trying to say is that you're a fucking nutter.
They won't show WHO downmoderates you here: Sockpuppet cheaters = why -> https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
I brought it up & trolls tried hiding it today https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Why?
Seeing who downmods makes it EASY to see WHO sockpuppeteers are 'farming karma' via many accounts upmodding themselves!
(MightyMartian alias goose-incarnated busted here today lying doing it https://news.slashdot.org/comm... + ZontarTheMindless alias TrollingForHostsFiles I busted doing it https://slashdot.org/comments....) & downmodding anyone getting the best of 'em.
(I.E.-> Patterns of upmod/downmod & WHO DOES IT makes sockpuppeteering too hard (they'd need 100's of accounts to do it successfully) showing CONSISTENT cheating via sockpuppet 'fake allies')
The 'spinmaster' bs for NOT allowing it? "We'd have flamewars"! YOU DO ANYWAYS and the assholes here PROMOTE it with their cheatery!
Going to downmod? Back it VALIDLY not hit & run downmods.
APK
P.S.=> They do it to me but others here back me https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Looked that way to me too dude like it did the poster you reply to. You did put MightyMartian in his place saying you were busting on him now though clearing it. Apk did make him also eat his words though https://news.slashdot.org/comm... as he says. If you look at apk's post above yours he did get Zontarmindless to admit he does sockpuppets so I guess it influenced me. His posts on hosts do. I use his program. It's good.
Jesus, stop pretending you're not APK. It's fucking obvious as fuck you retard.
None of them were spam, all of them were ontopic. Yes, some would be hurtful (and at least one was specifically intended to be as such) but all blocking says is that you, as a censor, have a VERY thin skin. The worst was: "I don’t think that pointing out the disproportional political influence Jews have in most western societies can be called a conspiracy." is simply an opinion. It may be held by anti-Semitics, but it is still only an opinion.
Either way, excellent to know you can't have good conversation on their site, so don't even bother trying.
Which comment would you block? Play the moderator role and take our quiz to see how your decisions compare to those of Guardian moderators
In an opinion piece about what makes one a "feminazi": “Funny how so many journalists are female, and how many are feminists! A disproportionate number pollute journalism. Jusrt shows that men DO tend to do 'harder' jobs than keyboard bashing, while the technology that men designed and built is used to provide these harpies with a medium from which to spout their biased, sexist, hateful misandry.” CENSORED. This comment serves only to derail the conversation, and diminish the (female) writer. In tone and content it adds nothing of value to the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In a fashion piece: "So blue jeans are 'finally back'? This might be shocking for sheltered London-centric Guardian types but out in the real world, people have been wearing blue jeans quite happily for years." ALLOWED. This is a mild case of dismissive trolling (no, this isn't news: it is a fashion piece, about fashion trends) but it was not blocked because although dismissive, it is more a criticism of the article than the author.
In an article about protests over the death of Eric Garner: “A 12-year-old boy, out at night, waving a BB gun? What sort of parent allows that? What happened is the product of a fucked up society/community/culture/upbringing. I'm sorry to say, but often black people are their own worst enemies.” CENSORED. This was removed for racism (“black people are their own worst enemy”; “fucked up community/culture” etc).
In an opinion piece about antisemitic conspiracy theories "I don’t think that pointing out the disproportional political influence Jews have in most western societies can be called a conspiracy. But branding people that point it out and labelling them anti-Semitic seems to me part of a conspiracy." CENSORED. This was removed for antisemitism: claiming Jewish people have disproportional influence in politics is an antisemitic trope with a long history. The comment also seems to suggest antisemtism doesn't really exist other than as a way to silence people.
In an article about Hillary Clinton and female voters: “THERE IS NO GENDER PAY GAP! Just more feminist crap portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators. Even worse is the lie we live in a rape culture with one in five women raped over a lifetime. Sure if you re-define what constitutes a rape including a drunk girl gives consent but regrets it next day.” CENSORED. This is a classic case of “whataboutery” and – specifically – “What about the men?”. In tone and content it adds nothing of value, and derails the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In an article about Jose Mourinho and Manchester United: “The Guardian, once a standard bearer of quality journalism now contains football journalists so in love with Mourinho it makes me sad. This is just the latest in an incredible long campaign for the despicable one to join the club of Matt Busby and Jimmy Murphy. I am astonished that the editor of the paper allows this dross to be published. You are a disgrace to the profession.” CENSORED. This was deleted because it is both author abuse and goes beyond reasonable criticism of the piece to smear both the Guardian and the journalist.
In an opinion piece about the Oscars and LGBT people: “Oh dear. Can I award you the Oscar for the clunkiest metaphor in a wrong-headed Oscar-themed click-bait article?” ALLOWED. This is a mild case of author abuse and dismissive trolling. It was not blocked because it is more criticism of the article than the author. “Dismissive trolling” is usually blocked – comments like “Calm down, dear” or “On your hobby horse again, I see” which mock or otherwise dismiss the author or
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"The Guardian Publishes Comment Abuse Stats, Invites Debate On Moderation" - by disabling commenting on the article in the link. I'm a regular on the Grauniad's website, and their censoring of comments has become ridiculous. I've have comments removed because I highlighted an author's hypocrisy, use of logical fallacies and general intellectual dishonesty.
I recently gave up visiting the Guardian website after being an avid reader since my student days in early 80s. The reason for this was an increase in click-bait articles combined with heavy handed and capricious moderators in the comments section.
My comment that people take screenshots of their Guardian comments and tweet them with the hashtag "#censoredbycif" was itself removed by the Guardian's moderators.
http://www.chadfield.com/2015/...
Guardianesque guardianesque GUARDIANESQUE GuArDiAnEsQuE gUaRdIaNeSqUe GUAAAAAAAARDIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAANEEESQE!!!!11!!1
"The Guardian is attempting to convince readers that its columnists - those heroic truth-to-power-speakers – are, unlike writers for any other national paper, continually besieged by an ungrateful rabble, and that an alleged avalanche of sexist, racist readers’ comments proves how righteous and heroic said columnists are in their truth-to-power speaking."
http://davidthompson.typepad.c...
I'd pay for a host file if it could block APK spam. How much, APK?
People who can't defend their position tell others shut up. Your post's a death rattle of "ne'er-do-well" trolls everywhere, lmao!
Why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person, APK? Off your meds again?
"No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free." - by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:31AM (#50947415)
See subject & that quote of aaaaaaargh's! Apks' host program is free and works great https://news.slashdot.org/comm... nothing stops truth or apk posting, right whipslash? So much for your suppression of free speech hypocrite. It doesn't work against apk or truth he posts others agree with in the quote or the link above. Filter away dummy. He'll just continue making you out the INCOMPETENT bigmouth fool you are failing, lol!
So I've been reading through the comments here, and while, to be fair, there are plenty of right-wing people making inflammatory statements, yours isn't the first example of a left-wing person suggesting that the commenter above them is stupid. If that's true, attacking their argument shouldn't be difficult. It's needless to attack them individually, and doesn't put your own views in a favourable light.
Not 'groupthink'. It's sockpuppet think creating an illusion of a group. Apk proves /.'ers do it quoted admitting it https://news.slashdot.org/comm... and apk was swiftly minus modded for showing proof of course. Can't have truth around SLASHDOUCHE can we? These webmasters are quaking in their boots as his program protects and speeds up users by cutting on webmasterbators ads! Ask whipslash about sourceforge serving malware. He's an expert at it. Not such an expert stopping apk though. He cuts thru that dick's filters easily. When the minus mod truncheon is used in lieu of conversation (with illogical ad hominem attacks too)? You KNOW you're on SLASHDOUCHE!
Before Juden control comes down, remember: They wrote this about you all, biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less, hypocrites known as thieves all thru history). God's chosen people? Easy to say when THEY wrote the bible too but gave it away here - Revelation 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" (seems they like lying too, see below, subterfuge wording):
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
16. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
17. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
20. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
21. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
22. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
23. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
24. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."
Really nice people guess all nations are nazis (france, spain, egypt, poland and more kicked them out) but those ovens fire
I like you, APK. You make me smile.
<3
I'm doing more than just suggesting, my friend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thought's a foreign concept for you. Give up. Go to sleep. You're hopeless. Too many others proved you wrong in the post you replied to but that's expected a 10 below carrot IQ like yours to have reading comprehension. Sometimes we expect too much from "your kind".
The Guardian moderation is a joke.
I remember someone asked how you said something in Japanese; I answered... and my comment got deleted.
Umad bro? Cool story bro! Have you considered decaf? Jesus had nothing to do with it. Leave him be. APK (lord of hosts so to speak) did. Your swearing using my saviour's name (not yours and as great as Jesus is? I'm pretty sure he doesn't waste time on total fails like you as you're not worth saving, hahaha) and your profanity illustrates the 10 below plantlife IQ you have! The sheer strain of having to attempt what passes as thought for you in that 1 line post of yours is amazing from that quagmire mass you think is your brain, and we know the effort it took. Hours of laborious effort for a big brain like you! Hemingway's prose it's not from you but We respect the effort. Really. However your stupid is showing again mightymartian. Almost as bad as when you said apk posts are always deleted but hate to tell you your poor reading skills are showing again too. goose-incarnated is busting you up on it. I won't. I don't do that to clearly weak minded dolts (like you) so quit pretending you you have ESP Mr. Kreskin. You don't. That's what is obvious here. Please quit spitting all over us raging with that foam flying out of your mouth too. You have successfully proven the neanderthal is not extinct. How? Your 'intelligent' post! Its simian characteristic grunts are unmistakable! Hahahahaha. I'm only worried that it's contagious and I will catch it. You know. Being a slashtard, like you. Recommended therapy for you is to get you out of your natural habitat here in trolldom. Why? You're not good at it. Seriously. That is obvious too.
Thus proving your own ignorance and prejudice. There was nothing stupid about the comment to which you replied. It was accurate and made a salient point.
A decade or so ago, I would have recommended that The Guardian use meta-moderation. It seemed like such a panacea to have people of good will separate the wheat from the chafe. But meta-moderation (rather like democracy, now that I think about it) is only as good as the intellectual honesty of the people involved. Unfortunately, intellectual honesty seems to get sold pretty cheap. Instead, people are more interested in moderating to drive the outcome, rather than promote healthy debate. It's a little sad, actually, but I think the trend is going to have to be paid, professional moderators, ideally with some level of independence from the underlying news publication -- perhaps under the Ombudsman or OpEd model.
See subject: Helping via a freely given in a program users here like that does more for less vs. inferior, redundant, inefficient, sold out crippled by default wasteful bloating browser addons!
Supplementing AntiVirus (slows you, hosts speed you up 2 ways in adblock + favorite sites & secures you & stops threats before you can get them more proactively as av needs to touch it, hosts don't + use less moving parts w/ less flaws - Tavis Ormandy anyone?)
Firewalls (block less used IP addys vs.host names in threats online & hosts need no added parts in layered filtering drivers above IP stack natively)
DNS (fixing its security issues + complimenting it, even lightening dns server loads)
APK
P.S.=> I suspect you are Advertisers, Webmasters (F'ing up due to negligence in openbid ad networks infecting people! Ask whipslash on sourceforge serving malware), Inferior competitors (above) or Malware makers
what did you expect for sticking up for him really, it's pretty well established how umm non-traditional his thought processes are
Did you actually take the "test" to see what you would block vs what they blocked? They blocked things that were critical of anything, including a comment talking about how the Guardian has really gone downhill in their sports reporting as they seem to like some player so much who is just ok. Their idea of things that need to be blocked are so far skewed, that they could easily be talking about how everywhere should be a safe space.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You do realize that when you go off the handle like this, it just proves his point, right?
He said nothing negative about hosts file usage, or your software, he merely pointed out that you have a tendency to be rather abusive, which you have to admit is rather true of your posting history. If you have issues with what he said, perhaps you should look deep down and reconsider the path of your life.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
See subject: 3x last Friday. You are a troll Coren22. I showed others don't think so by showing they like my work and my posts. That is NOT "going off the handle" - it's pointing out solid undeniable facts. According to you, designing & building a tool that makes people faster & safer BETTER than any single competitor = abusive, lol!
* Do you really think I am not watching my posts against your patented "days later trying to get a dig in" bullshit?
(Guess again... I am! I have to against online scum like you!)
APK
P.S.=> You are truly, pitiful... that's WHY no women will date a "single father like you" - you're weasel, plain & simple AND probably VERY ABUSIVE yourself, troll...apk
"Now to just find women that'll date a single father..." - by Coren22 on Thursday April 14, 2016 @04:44PM (#51910741)
Now, what's that you said just now too? SINGLE, but WHY - I know why, see next below how YOU operate & were shot down by yours truly for it shitbrain!
"no I don't have problems finding women" by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) on Friday April 15, 2016 @09:59AM (#51914727)
LOL, see above!
"No, I am not a weasel" by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) on Friday April 15, 2016 @09:59AM (#51914727)
Yes, you are. I shot you to pieces for it in the link below with lies you told directed my way which I humiliated you here for publicly.
APK
P.S.=> I know your kind scumbag - your bullshit about my program ALONE cut you to shreds here publicly and EXPOSES how much you lied here about me-> https://news.slashdot.org/comm... Were you correct there Coren22? I have many more on YOU like it, so, go on, lie again, & I'll show this even more to crush your sorry trolling nobody ass even more...apk
I support APK's stand on the hosts file by Trax3001BBS
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I like your host file system by Karmashock
I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech
APK is kinda right. I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context by chihowa
you're right about hosts by drinkypoo
APK
P.S.=> Learn to read
See subect: Is your favorite color transparent? I see right thru you. Why you do I have no idea other than you value that your fake name online.
I use what you say against me https://news.slashdot.org/comm... as it traps you in your mistakes in poor attempts at attacking me.
You're not too intelligent Coren22.
Why I bother even responding to "your kind" in trolls is for the fun of it.
I sacrifice my time helping others online that aren't even related to me in creating a program that makes them faster, safer, more reliably connected to sites in DNS messes & a bit more anonymous too. You don't.
Get over yourself Mr. Brain Damage. You do this to yourself every single time. You must be a sadomasochist.
As far as women? I never had a problem finding them myself. It was easy.
In fact (& you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, now don't you? Ah, but of COURSE you do - it was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" since I am educated, have my life in order and I am good looking. God graced me that way.
APK
P.S.=> Your best bet? Leave me alone, you don't beat up on yourself... apk
See subject: Not you. Is it YOUR work they say good things about? No. They don't it for YOU as you have nothing of your own that way making folks safer & faster online!
* :)
(I understand - a mere "ne'er-do-well" menial in yourself WISHES he was me... but, alas, lol? You NEVER will be wasting your time trolling me & failing!)
APK
P.S.=> Do yourself a favor, seriously - quit beating up on yourself by letting ME beat you back down for your trolling me by my using easily verified facts in black & white + your own mistakes in failing attacks that use LIES I blew away & you along with it -> https://news.slashdot.org/comm... ... apk
secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good - by Coren22
My code's verified by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes
"I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source - by Coren22 (1625475)
57 antivirus results show otherwise https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
MalwareBytes' employee hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
* EAT YOUR WORDS Coren22 (you've done better? No - You don't possess the skills)
APK
P.S.=> I'll let others judge "who refuted whom", lol.. apk
secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good - by Coren22
My code's verified by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes
"I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source - by Coren22 (1625475)
57 antivirus results show otherwise https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
MalwareBytes' employee hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
* EAT YOUR WORDS Coren22 (you've done better? No - You don't possess the skills)
APK
P.S.=> Why's Coren22 so "butthurt"? He reamed himself up the ass w/ lies I cut to pieces
See subject: I don't want my code abused for malware like Google Chrome was http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
* Get it?
(Plus, I'm not the only one who sees it that way - the US Gov't. does as well for the SAME good reasons in fact -> https://slashdot.org/submissio... )
APK
P.S.=> Coren22 - too bad YOU had to EAT YOUR WORDS on calling my program malware falsely & maliciously tool-> https://slashdot.org/comments.... where I presented OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE vs. that crap from you!
So what advertiser,inferior competitor, webmaster or malware maker do you represent or work for in doing that? Answer that... apk