The Media Inquiry, conducted by Justice Ray Finkelstein, started public hearings on Monday.
Evidence so far has focused on the role of the Press Council as a regulator, the possibility of publicly funded support for independent journalism, the parameters of political speech, the possibility of a right to reply to media criticism, and concentration of ownership.
[There's good coverage at Crikey, and an idea of the scope of the Inquiry's interests in its Issues Paper.]
Of particular interest is the discussion of inflammatory comments on MSM blogs, something that was canvassed in Robert Manne’s evidence:
Finally I raised as a matter for concern the question of the standards governing newspaper blogs in general and the Andrew Bolt Herald-Sun-Daily Telegraph blog in particular. Recently an email correspondent, David Barrow, had provided me with an electronic version of some blogs and comments published on the Bolt blog since 2006.
In my case there had been 188 Bolt incitements and 2043 comments from his followers which required 331 pages to print out. In the case of Tim Flannery there were 393 Bolt incitements and 7301 comments requiring 1,426 pages to print out. It was clear that virtually no moderation was at work. The blogs, and even more the comments, were frequently extremely vicious and even more frequently ill-informed. Many also seemed self-evidently defamatory. Although there might be nothing that could be done about this new form of newspaper-supported hate speech if the newspapers were unwilling to act, its appearance at this moment in our history should not pass unremarked.
Manne’s evidence hasn’t gone unnoticed by Andrew Bolt.
Jeez, Blot’s got a thin skin, hasn’t he?
The idea of him committing a thought crime is, of course, laughable …
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/more-mob-rage-after-the-break-20111109-1n60u.html
I read the article and had a quick read of most of the comments. I know “what a waste of time!” but I am developing a theory of the ‘right wing hivemind’ and astroturfing. This article was having a go at a shoddy right wing show so why were there no wingnut comments? If the article was about refugees or climate change or lenient sentencing there would be a flood of Pauline Hanson type of comments all trying to out do each other in blind, furious prejudice.
So if these are real people ringing up shock jocks, emailing in comments all over blogs and Facebook and newspaper sites why did they NOT comment or defend a show that affirms them in their nasty views? Even the most obscure blog will be flooded with vileness if they mention climate change or the carbon tax. Either these people are NOT people or they have only a few strongly held beliefs they think worthy of repeating ad nauseam. Say they just hold a few views very strongly but are not consistent politically. Why does this inconsistency not show through in their comments? Their comments have a consistent right wing bias ie the commentators are consistently right wing through and through but yet seemingly they will only let their views be known on about 3 or 4 topics.
So in conclusion I would say there is a lot of paid for right wing chatter out in there on the web. Occasionally you can see a smoking gun ie comments that have meme for the day but taken as a totality something very planned is obviously going on.
It is entirely open for anyone who has been defamed on Bolt’s blog to sue for defamation. That is, sue not just Bolt himself and New Limited, but the person who wrote the comment, through their IP address. If I were an enterprising lawyer I’d be making an offer to the victims on a no win-no fee basis. I’d clean up and so would they.
That is interesting Sam. I wonder why people like Bolt or Today Tonight haven’t been sued for defamation more? I have lost count how many times I have read or seen reports which would surely be grounds for defamation.
I don’t know that defamation actions are all that good a remedy. They’re reactive, in that you can only take the action when damage to your reputation has already been done. I think it would be a lot better to stop risible filth and abuse being published in the first place.
The scope to take up a case against a daily newspaper on the basis of comemnts made on its online site has been apparent since the Patrick Power/Daily Telegraph case of 2007, where the Tele chose to apologise and pay damages to a series of lawyers on the basis of comments made by readers on the site accompanying astory they published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Power_(lawyer)
That’s true Mark, but if sufficient people sued for defamation, News Ltd might actually start moderating much of the filth that passes for commentary.
Suing for defamation, adrian, is a costly process, and not risk free!
Suing for defamation, adrian, is a costly process, and not risk free!
It’s not costly if your lawyer takes the case on as no win no fee. Of course you are up for the other side’s costs if you lose, but it’s hard to imagine losing a case against some of the comments on some sites.
The issue, though, is that existing defamation law has not – to date, anyway – proved a disincentive for the publication of inflammatory and abusive comments.
Just curious. Defamation law differs from country to country and I am unfamiliar with its application in Australia. Does a potentially defamatory comment have to untrue for it to be defamation?
For instance, if I were to insist that Andrew Bolt slept with goats (which I am not of course) would he have to prove it was untrue for it to be defamation? Or likewise, would I have to prove it was true to avoid conviction? Or does the mere fact that the comment hurts his precious reputation provide evidence enough.
There’s a summary of Australian defamation law here:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html
Thank Mark. That’s a good summary. It appears truth is a valid defense. Before 2006 this was not the case in NSW. Hence my confusion.
We are thus spared the sight of Andrew Bolt proving that he does not sleep with goats. Allah be praised.
Manne is doing himself a disservice here. He should know, or should be bothered to find out, that MSM blogs are heavily moderated. His judgment of what is and is not actionable for defamation is obviously questionable. Viciousness and ignorance are not sufficient grounds for a moderator to restrict speech per se.
It would be more accurate to remark that judging by the stuff they let through, the stuff they delete must be horrific.
I don’t know if that was the case when Andrew Bolt and his wife were responsible for moderating comments on Bolt’s blog, m0nty.
You’d think someone who is quite a big cheese in the media would have cottoned on to this fact somewhat earlier. It’s been going on since the 90s.
As has been demonstrated a number of times (see Pure Poison Lolbolt threads for starters) Blot tends to not publish comments that disagree with him.
Helen @ 16 – and before that it happened on usenet. People write the most outlandish things online they wouldn’t dream of saying face to face.
existing defamation law has not – to date, anyway – proved a disincentive for the publication of inflammatory and abusive comments
Give it time. If there’s more cases like this, the disincentive will be there, in spades.
http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=610:anonymous-and-pseudonym-lose-defamation-cases&catid=23:ip&Itemid=114
No they’re not. Two weeks ago, when the lower house passed the carbon pricing legislation, Yahoo7 — operated by Channel Seven — ran an article entitled “Anti-carbon protesters take aim at Queen.” The article attracted about 50 comments, but the following passed muster.
1. Rein said: “The carbon tax is law, so get used to it you losers!” — to which Pilot replied: “Your the loser mate. I would love to smash you!”
2. alan piled on: “the only good greenie is a dead greenie like rein you loser”
3. tom offered: “The Queen is a lovely old dear but Juliar and Brownknob need a summary execution”
4. Pilot had a second shot: “You would only need two bullets, one for this old tart & the other for the liar. Good riddance to murderers, thieves & liars.”
Mark @ 15 – I was really surprised to find out that Bolt is expected to moderate his own blog. With a high comment volume site like that I don’t know how he would have time to reasonably moderate comments and still do anything else.
The line between what is allowed and what is deleted is the thing at question here, not that MSM blogs are not moderated at all. To say there is “virtually no moderation at work” is just silly. Manne and Disney have different views on what is publishable to the MSM social media managers, that is all.
If Manne thinks the line is on the wrong side of actionability in terms of defamation, let him (or those he advises) sue and let the courts work it out. That’s what the law is there for, if they win then MSM attitudes will change. Attempts to mandate civil standards of discourse through legislation or regulation are doomed to failure anywhere, but especially on the Internet.
On the subject of Bolt, Melbourne right wing talk back radio station MTR, home of Bolt, Steve Price and other … personalities … will shut its doors tomorrow, so poor has been its ratings.
The market has spoken.
It’s strange how in Melbourne there is such a large audience for Bolt in the Herald Sun but talk back radio, which is to right wingers what shit is to flies, fails dismally – unlike in Sydney, where shock jocks proliferate like the most aggressive of cancer cells.
Interesting news Sam. It looks like Melbourne may get Alan Jones instead.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/owners-of-mtr-headed-for-court-in-dispute-over-whether-to-shut-it-down/story-e6frf9ho-1226190967885
I very much doubt that streaming a Sydney station into Melbourne will work. Most of the things talked about on AM radio are local. It’s unlikely that Melbournians will be much interested in Sydney weather, traffic, rugby league, escapes from Long Bay gaol and the latest goings on in the NSW Parliament.
It’s also unlikely that Alan Jones will play well in Melbourne where the radio listeners just don’t take to that of hyper ventilated aggression. Sydney and Melbourne are just different kinds of places.
@14
” Viciousness and ignorance are not sufficient grounds for a moderator to restrict speech per se”
Why, surely it’s up to the moderator to decide? Defamation and statute may impose themselves but beyond that as this blog points out”
“Our blog, our publishing discretion.”
@23 – maybe people buy the Herald Sun for the racing form and the AFL news not for Bolt, Sam.
I am the David Barrow referred to by Prof Manne in the last 2 paras of The Monthly and ABC Drum who provided some data analysis on the News Limited Blogs:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3654470.html
For reasons unknown, the Independent Media Inquiry has not as yet accepted (and may not at all accept) my actual Submissions to the Inquiry even though I believe I may have been referred to in passing in the public hearings — and certainly the data I generated for Manne was (and also then referred to again by Prof Disney per media reports).
My Submissions can be read at:
http://www.courtrules.net.au/News.aspx
And regardless of the recommendation that the Inquiry makes by 28 Feb 2012, it appears that my First Submission may have already had an actual impact. So that’s good:
http://www.courtrules.net.au/Portals/0/CourtRules-DotNet-Dot-AU.pdf
…as within one day of me sending a courtesy copy of this First Submission to Andrew Bolt and News Ltd a more stringent moderation policy shift was announced for the Bolt Blog (and with it a reduced exposure to what might be $mils of defamation lawsuits). See Andrew Bolt:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sorry_to_you/
One way or the other I hope that those interested might take a look at my Submissions.
David Barrow
Pretty much, Kim.
Plus the Herald Sun is sold everywhere in Victoria.
MTR you could only pick up in Melbourne.
@29 – Nick, it’s a bit late at night to search the archives, but I caught Bolt out in an absolute howler over his claims on traffic to his blog at one point. I suspect his actual readership doesn’t extend that far beyond the wingnuts. When they put him on the front page of the paper after his “silencing” over Eatock v. Bolt, I think it was mad excess. I’m sure most of the Herald Sun readers wouldn’t have had a clue who he was.
@28 – Thanks for the comment, and the links, David.
“I suspect his actual readership doesn’t extend that far beyond the wingnuts.”
Maybe…if I remember right, he used to write a fair bit about state issues, the pipeline a few years back, desalination that kind of thing.
Stuff that people in the country will read because they probably agree with it.
I’d guess at one time he probably did build up a decent enough audience, but I like to think he’s blown it and its only the rusted on wingnuts left now.
If they did know who it was on the front page, I don’t think many people cared.
Bolt’s blog gets 270,000 unique visitors a month.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/andrew-bolt-and-making-opportunist-bolt-factor-anne-summers-4014
His TV & radio shows get poor ratings.
Re: Melbourne Talk Radio.
Some years ago, a Sydney radio shock-jock Stan Zemanek (or something like that) came down to Melbourne to do the Drive show on 3AW talk radio, and I don’t think he lasted a year before he was off air. He just didn’t work, or didn’t get Melbourne. Maybe we are a little more polite about our bigotry. (By the way, what do you call a beautiful woman on the arm of a Collingwood player? A tattoo!).
So when Price, Bolt, Smith etc started up, it was always going to be a big ask for them to last the distance. In some ways it would be good if Jones et al were streamed into Melbourne. Because I doubt the listener numbers would increase, more likely decrease. Our PM – could ask Jones “how are your ratings in Melbourne Alan, does anybody listen to you there?”. Anyway, the ABC’s morning host Jon Faine reckons its the FOOTY that is MTR’s problem. No coverage of games. The previous incarnation of MTR was SEN and they rated better, but from memory they didn’t have game coverage either.
However, the times I’ve listened MTR does have a lot of advertising. This has possibly been sold in packages with Sydney. But they do have a lot of adverts. Unless sold too cheaply, from their ad content, you’d think they would be making a $$ or two. So it must be the costs of ‘talent’ or debt that has been loaded into the books, that is causing them problems.
Re: Bolt and Herald Sun circulation, blog numbers
The Hun had high sales and readership before Bolt. Yes, it is a great platform for him and has allowed him to manifest a career as a ‘commentator’. But if Bolt wasn’t in the paper tomorrow, they still would have same sales. As for blog numbers, where are the eyeballs located?
On topic about the media enquiry, it would be really good if something came out of it, but would any government have the wherewithall to act?
Q: Can the Proteas be bowled out for under 154?
The failure of Sydney shock jocks to rate in Melbourne isin a large measure a matter of tone.
Hysterics, shouters, haranguers, preening self-aggrandisers alienate Melbourne listeners.
Blot’s politics may be just as toxic as the Parrot’s but he expresses himself in a more reserved manner.
This tone goes back at least as far as Norman Banks, who was a dreadful fellow but who made understatement his stock-in-trade.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Banks
Ah yes, Norman Banks. My mother inflicted him upon me during all my school holidays in the 60s and 70s.
Until he went blind Norman Banks was a lucid and entertaining football commentator. He set the standard for the best callers who succeeded him. It may be recalled that all the Melbourne stations, with the exception of 3AW and 3KZ, crossed from the footy for a live call of Metropolitan horse racing. Even the ABC (3LO) used to do this.
The 3KZ alternative to Norman Banks was Jack Dyer, whose trademark was a stream of consciousness rumble of malapropisms.
I distinctly recall that 3UZ’s football coverage was particularly shredded by the live crosses to the races.
Jack Dyer – “and big Mark Lee in the last line of defence puts up his great long arms like giant testicles!”
“Fitzroy copulated to the opposition”.
Charlie asked:
On the evidence of the first innings where they went for 96 after being 1/49 and losing 9/47, yes. Amla was dropped last ball of the day.
Plainly, something is messing with the players’ capacity to stay within their performance bands.
Taking Mr Andrew Bolt at face value, for what it’s worth, I included these reported Andrew Bolt Blog webtraffic stats in my First Submission to the Independent Media Committee on p.5:
http://www.courtrules.net.au/Portals/0/CourtRules-DotNet-Dot-AU.pdf
“Mr Bolt has disclosed that there have been an average of just under 2 million page impressions a month to the site for the first 11 months of 2010. Just over 3 million page impressions were disclosed for July and August 2011.”
From Table 2 of my First Submission to the Independent Media Committee on p.4:
http://www.courtrules.net.au/Portals/0/CourtRules-DotNet-Dot-AU.pdf
…there have been a phenomenal level of reader comments on the Oz-domained Andrew Bolt Blog:
2006 41,785
2007 173,768
2008 313,978
2009 294,600
2010 436,213
2011 294,500 (to 30 Sep)
That’s a popular blog in my opinion.
Maintaining media commentary, I think the most interesting, fascinating, wonder-what-will-happen news of the week is that Kim Williams is taking over from John Hartigan as CEO of News.
The mind starts to wonder on the possibilities: Will Andrew Bolt soon be hosting special Wagnerian music events? ….
Yes, David, but page impressions are not the same as unique visitors. The large number of page impressions is a factor of the same people refreshing the page again and again to see additional comments.
We don’t use Google Analytics, but my recollection is that when we did, we used to get around 50 000 unique visitors a month – ie about a sixth of Bolt’s traffic.
But a lot of that comes from hits to the front page only, which are an artefact of a high google ranking.
David at 42. A popular blog indeed, but looks like he is down 10% on last year!! Now how could one beat that up into a major significant. “Australia’s most popular political blogster on a slippery slope”.
zomg conspiracy!!1!
Seriously, by this logic, pretty much the whole of LP was on the take during the Howard years. Which is, basically, stupid. (The ALP can get Howard-hating for free).
You see, people who agree with each other will … here comes the shocking part … agree with each other, copying each other’s turns of phrase.
Except, of course, Jacques, because we’re latte sipping elites with four degrees in the LP Hivemind, we copy each other’s complex phrases entailing lots of multi-syllabic words and sophisticated grammatical constructions
Not so. There is actual evidence of lobby groups recruiting for, and paying, people (presumably the kind of student who might otherwise be flipping burgers or on the phones in a market research corral) to comment on blogs. the ad was quite amusing, as I recall.
LOL @ 38 & 39
Bolt’s blog may be popular as far as (high-profile nationally promoted) blogs go, but 250,000 unique visitors a month is only 1% of the population. If that…how many visitors check in from home/work/phone and still count as unique?
His Bolt Report viewership is about 1% of the population, and 3MTR’s listenership as a whole was only 1% of Melbourne’s radio listening population…
Lots of apples and oranges, but we can we kind of conclude something from this? I think he’s a bloke of very limited appeal, and someone whose particular obsessions people easily tire of, if not find downright embarrassing to be associated with in any way. That he is a lot of things he claims to despise can’t do him many favours either. Putting him up on the screen, as I think everyone predicted, made it clear what he is…his eyes, the way he moves…people who don’t trust anybody (thinking of various people’s parents I know) aren’t going to go out of their way to trust him.
Btw, I don’t think ratings work as some kind of population sample. X amount of people might tune in to see what he has to say, but that doesn’t imply there’s any great y amount of other people out there who also side with him. So, yes Kim…in short, a messiah of wingnuts!
Haven’t these proved to be social constructs from a white patriarchal hegemony reinforcing their power relations? Shit is whack yo.
Astroturfing? I can buy it. But it’s a pretty stupid tactic; it’s not as though potted comments on LP are going to lead to Damascene conversions.
Most of the viking raiders you see hereabouts genuinely disagree with you. It doesn’t mean they’re being paid to. They just think you’re wrong and that they and people like them are right.
I don’t see folk at Catallaxy accusing their merry band of lefty regulars of being paid for it. Is it so ridiculous that people can hold a non-left-wing view and mean it?
I don’t find it hard to believe, Jacques.
I do think there is a lack of right wing commenters who can make an intelligent case. “JuLIAR”, “You R A Commie”, etc, “climate change is a plot”, etc, etc.
Jacques of the Chester variety, I’ve seen a number of left-wing commenters at Catallaxy referred to as Crikey writers/journalists (Stephen Mayne/Pure Poison writers supposedly in disguise) because of course the Left are incapable of holding the views they do.
The number of conspiracy theorists you get on there are unintentionally quite humorous given the links between that blog and the IPA.
Bolt’s blog is popular because it acts as a kind of pub toilet wall where the incoherent can scrawl their slogans. I’m not sure it’s astro-turfed, because no-one else of any sane persuasion, right or left, would lower themselves to visit such a fetid hole. Astro-turfing is much more noticeable on the ABC’s comment pages on The Drum – particularly in relation to mentions of climate change. You see the same phrasing come up over and over. There’s an awful lot of “I have been a committed Labor voter all my life, but Gillard has sold out the working man…”.
While its online strategy has been an ongoing train wreck, the AFR did get right from early on its policy on online commenting – that is not allowing it. It’s just too open to manipulation and too time consuming for resource poor media companies to moderate successfully. The Herald Sun, however, has just decided to leave the dunny door open after Bolt has empted his bowels and stuck crayons on the cistern for the illiterate and rageful masses to purge themselves.
You realise that I personally pay to host Catallaxy and Larvatus Prodeo, right? I haven’t seen a cheque from the IPA or the CPD or any other think tank or political organisation as yet (some personal donations though).
And I don’t expect one. I pay for and manage the hosting out of a mix of masochism, pride and admiration.
Jacques,
I wasn’t suggesting you do, is it not Sinclair Davidson’s blog?
I find the idea of blogs on a newspaper kind of laughable. In the Grauniad for example, many opinion writers have comments enabled, but only two that I can recall have ever bothered to turn up in comments to defend themselves: an anti-sex work campaigner whose name I forget, and George Monbiot. That Jenkins chap, the ex-HIV denialist, writes an enormous amount of crap about public health and risk, and every time, within about 3 comments, someone pops up to point out where he is factually in error. He never, ever, ever stoops to answer these points.
I also remember recently Sheehan in the SMH admitted he never reads “below the line” on his own articles and sneeringly revealed that he recently lowered himself to this practice for the first time.
I think newspapers want to pretend they are all for new media but their journalists don’t want to admit that there might be something in this blogging business. So they just act like opinion writers, only now their readers can fling poo at each other “below the line.”
The Herald Sun, however, has just decided to leave the dunny door open after Bolt has empted his bowels and stuck crayons on the cistern for the illiterate and rageful masses to purge themselves.
What horrible imagery – apt, but horrible.
Ditto for the Telegraph and Piers Ackerman. His blog is actually – only just but yes, it’s possible – worse than Bolt’s.
Yes, the prevalence of right-wing opinion is becoming rather dangerous in my view. As Mark said: “I think it would be a lot better to stop risible filth and abuse being published in the first place.”
It may well be that the current media enquiry may see the way clear for laws to silence these invalid opinions that go against intelligent consensus. It’s not only News Corp and their appalling blogs, but the internet is awash with what should be illegal opinionating. Catallaxy and Bunyipitude come to mind as local blogs and Mark Steyn , James Delingpole and Melanie Phillips in overseas blogs. The sooner we can restrict opinion to those promoting decency the better.
Even the sometimes reasonable blogs like Club Troppo should sharpen up their acts, and moderate the comments to prevent rubbish like some that go through now. Legislation will help enormously here.
Jacques @53: “Is it so ridiculous that people can hold a non-left-wing view and mean it?”
These days, objectively, taking “non-left-wing” in context, yes.
Hammygar #62
Without disagreeing with you, I keep in mind that:
My grandfathers, their brothers, & my grand-granfathers & their brothers, they used a .303 to kill people (and I would suggest some of those they killed were very good people) to prevent the outcome you appear to be touting for.
Just sayin’.
Wow, Steve, your great-grandfather fought to keep Catallaxy online?!
I hope they appreciate it.
I knew they were a long-established blog, but…
Don’t feed the trolls, fellas.
I think that’s very much the case, Kim. My late brother read on precisely that basis. Sport was his abiding interest, but occasionally he’d drift to other parts of the paper out of boredom.
He became a Bolt admirer, especially on things like climate change denialism. I got into a surprisingly heated argument with him once on this subject. My other brother laughed when I told him about this, and volunteered that he thought Bolt was a s–t-head, but he knew our late brother followed him.
Not that it would have changed his politics. Said brother was an intense loyalist Labor man and would have stuck with the family ‘team’.
The astroturfing phenomenon is quite real.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3319003.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3316825.htm
I only first took it seriously when an advocate for prisoners made the point that the calls for harsher sentencing only started to become shrill when private prisons started up. The radio interviewer asked him directly “do you mean that people are paid to ring up for talk back on this topic” he emphatically answered “yes”.
If there are so many shrill right wingers out there why do they fixate on so few topics? Why does independent monitoring, such as ratings for TV and radio, consistently show low audience numbers for Bolt and his mates? A lot of this does not add up unless you factor cash for comment into it or Bolt and co have a fantastically loyal but minuscule following. How can he get 250k plus hits on his site but yet have about the same number of people watching him on the tube?
Like SATP I have various ancestors fought for the right of people to speak their mind. I would cheer if Bolt had the grace to retire but I am uncomfortable with the idea that he should be forced to shut down.
I would be quite happy for the brutal arm of the lawe to explain to Bolt very clearly, using small words, that inciting violence is not allowed, due to Bolt not being a duly appointed arm of the state. And if he wants to discuss it the boys will be happy to come round for a chat.
If it’s good enough for the peasants outside our Lord Mayor’s Office* it’s good enough for Mr Bolt.
(* you have no idea how hard it was to spell various words the way I have)
And why is everything I post being held for moderation? Is it some sin I have comitted, or merely that I’m not selling enough privacy to cover your costs?
You were being auto-moderated because your IP number has changed (as they sometimes do), thus the blog software was treating you as if you were a first-time commentor.
If that privacy crack was meant as a joke, it’s not very funny. If it’s a serious concern to you, I’m hornswoggled.
Curious situation with Delays in Publication of Submissions to the Media Inquiry.
I have documented the situation at this link:
http://www.courtrules.net.au/News/PubDelays.aspx
And there is now an Admin Appeals Tribunal (AAT) application for its jurisdiction to review the decision on the merits of Senator Stephen Conroy’s Department of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy not publishing Submissions.
tigtog:
The reason for moderation is opaque, and I’m using a different set of tools to obscure various things. That makes DisQusting unhappy but I’m told that is being worked on. I suspected you might have similar problems. You overtly track users so it wouldn’t surprise me if you were selling that information directly as well as letting Gravatar sell it on your behalf.
@Moz, we moderate first-time commentors because not doing it eventually led to being flooded with sockpuppets.
As for overtly tracking users, LP doesn’t have anything in place beyond what WordPress includes by default, and I assure you that the hivemind only pays attention to it for discussion-wrangling i.e. when we need to add someone to the permanent-moderation or banhammer lists. We don’t even have Google Analytics any more.
re Gravatar, the information they can share about folks who haven’t created a profile with them is limited, and if folks have created a profile with them then presumably they’re not bothered.
I have been in moderation for three months now. Does this mean I am in permanent moderation? How does one get taken out of permanent moderation, or is it permanent?
@silkworm, questions about moderation in general and auto-moderation defaults are on topic for this post, obviously. Questions about individual cases will not be discussed on the blog, as is clearly stated in the Comments Policy.
P.S. “Permanent” moderation