tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519141181875256743.post3845188427321465380..comments2024-01-27T04:08:17.460+11:00Comments on Capital Idea: Twitter and CensorshipBorn Dancin'http://www.blogger.com/profile/14526760383290674186noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519141181875256743.post-35589124297284529022010-05-07T02:04:22.511+10:002010-05-07T02:04:22.511+10:00BD
I see your point. I saw the frequent reference...BD<br /><br />I see your point. I saw the frequent references about censorship and particularly the one I highlighted and shot from the hip. <br /><br />I still don't agree that it's censorship of any kind. It leaves any rejection of a plight for wider elevation to prominence for any voice to be considered censorship. By that logic a national column becomes a birth right and the vast majority of us are thereby censored for the ostensible fact that that is just not reality. It's not so much that she was censored as she was "un-followed" in a big way; someone took the tannoy away.<br /><br />Some people complain that it's an attack on democracy, which is just what Deveny would have us believe if her new twitter bio is any indication. <br /><br />"Caucasian fancier, dog whistler, atheista, torturer of middle-aged middle-class uptight white honkies in suits and lover of little boys and swear words."<br /><br />Changed from, the slightly less advantageous in her current circumstances, something like 'professional pain in the arse.' (Not exact)<br /><br />But that version of democracy says that if a person loses a privileged voice they've effectively been unjustly censored. Well with that logic how do we vote out a politician from a privileged position? Surely that's a coup of some sort?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519141181875256743.post-9073861813292372822010-05-06T10:46:35.621+10:002010-05-06T10:46:35.621+10:00Wake Up, I thought that was what I said. We seem t...Wake Up, I thought that was what I said. We seem to be in agreement. And Marco, apparently Deveny had been warned before about some of her content so I'd not be surprised if this was a tipping point rather than a snap decision.Born Dancin'https://www.blogger.com/profile/14526760383290674186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519141181875256743.post-11913874768450401032010-05-05T23:55:32.899+10:002010-05-05T23:55:32.899+10:00I wouldn't be too concerned about your words o...I wouldn't be too concerned about your words on this blog being taken out of context (although the frequent references to monkeys is a little worrying). <br /><br />Maybe Deveny was already on the nose and logies twittergate was a good enough excuse to give her the heave ho.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519141181875256743.post-10562355013534073732010-05-05T23:08:09.575+10:002010-05-05T23:08:09.575+10:00"For Deveny to be effectively censored – whic..."For Deveny to be effectively censored – which is what the sacking amounts to – involves an editor (or committee) stepping into that process of argument and exercising an inordinate amount of power."<br /><br />Oh bollocks. You don't get given a paid national media platform with your citizenship. Did I get one? Did you? No. <br /><br />Did anyone shutdown her show? Did anyone cancel her Twitter account? Has she been locked up in a gulag? Assassinated by the military? No, they just don't want to pay handsomely for her ranty inane columns anymore and have their credibility dragged down with her witless, vulgar and callous pot shots at celebs... as is their right.<br /><br />Wake up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com