Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Censorship

1
 
On Sun 14 Mar at 7:05pm Nevillman wrote:
Bit of a hoohah on the symes site. He has been accused of removing a post and has responded by saying that on this occasion it was Facebook that removed it. No idea what the post was about but symes probably upset he didn't get to it first as he's not averse to a bit of censorship himself and it is his site as he makes very clear.
This site is not too good at the moment but at least we can say what we want.
9
 
On Sun 14 Mar at 7:55pm David Stanley wrote:
The post was a petition to get a new admin for his Lewes Present page. It's been done several times before.
There have been several attempts at alternatives but they have trouble maintaining any momentum.
Mick doesnt appear to me to be the rightwing loon they claim. He's just an old bloke (like me) with normal middle of the road outlook who probably represents a lot of people who used to live here but not so much the new intake. For some reason that is infuriating to people.
3
 
On Sun 14 Mar at 8:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
From what I've heard, Facebook does a lot of censoring. Interesting to hear about the "new intake"; is the population growing or just changing?
Perhaps I ought to join Facebook, but I don't like the idea of being an Openbook to data mining by every snooping agency in the world. I imagine I would get unpersoned or doxxed or whatever the unlightened do these days as well as censored. Might be a lark though.
10
 
On Mon 15 Mar at 9:28am Father Hackett wrote:
Mick explained the censorship and even posted screenshots of Facebook's messages about it. But let's not let facts get in the way eh? What's the plan? Get more brave trolls like yourself to join in and pillory an admin who is an easy target for the morons? Pathetic.
5
 
On Mon 15 Mar at 10:57am Nick wrote:
I think the post that was removed was by a female (I had better name her not name her otherwise this will be removed) who stated that a week ago a man masturbated in front of her in Lewes WHS and nobody did anything.
8
 
On Mon 15 Mar at 11:46am Nevillman wrote:
You are of course entitled to your views on symes and me father Hackett but I have a different view on him. He has on numerous occasions removed posts and threads that he objects to for no better reason than he doesn't want them on his site. If his site was called symes present that would be okay but it is projected as ostensibly the Lewes Facebook site. At the last general election, he decided he didn't want posts that advocated tactical voting. When I challenged him over his blatant political censorship I was barred from the site and no longer even able to read it in my own name. You categorise me as a troll, moron and pathetic. I see myself as a passionate believer in free speech who thinks that censors should be exposed.
In this particular case, I was pointing out Facebook as the censors. Symes may or may not be censoring on this occasion but I do regard him personally as someone who is against free speech.
You may well be right about him David but he is woefully unsuited to the role of admin on a community site.
The actual post and whether or not it should be censored is irrelevant in this discussion.
1
 
On Tue 16 Mar at 8:49am dave wrote:
I think Lewes Present would benefit enormously by having a woman moderator
Symes seems quite knowledgeable but possibly a bit opinionated and out of touch now. Someone who actually lives in Lewes perhaps.
I donít envy him though it must have totally taken over his life.
Whatís the other Lewes Facebook site like?
9
 
On Tue 16 Mar at 12:29pm David Stanley wrote:
He created it....all these complaints are entreyism....if enough people could be bothered they would create a functional rival but they never take off because it's a lot of work and most people take things far to personally. I don't know Mick but I don't expect him to take me any more seriously than anyone else . There is probably a vacant slot for a Lewes Left group but we all know they would soon all fall out while telling us how kind they are.
7
 
On Tue 16 Mar at 2:18pm Nevillman wrote:
I may have a naive view but it seems to me that all the moderator has to do is remove offensive posts and leave the subject matter up to the members. It doesn't matter whether the moderator agrees or not. Symes seems to think that he must personally approve every comment and so makes it particularly hard for himself. I think the latest problem was caused because he didn't remove a word in a post that he should have. This meant that Facebook stepped in.
His site is the established Lewes Facebook site so it is very hard for another to get a foothold. I'm sure it is still hard work to moderate a site and I don't want to do it but there is no reason for the moderator to take anything personally David if you see yourself as just providing a platform for people to discuss the issues important to them. Symes clearly does not think that way unlike webbo. He should rename his site to make it clear it is not a forum for local people to discuss the issues that matter to them but it is to discuss the issues that matter to him and the opinions on them that he approves.
2
 
On Tue 16 Mar at 4:02pm Nick wrote:
if this man was genuinely masturbating in WHS, why werenít the Police called?
3
 
On Tue 16 Mar at 8:14pm Tom Pain wrote:
Perhaps if he had virtually masturbated on line it would have been a hate crime and he'd be banged up for life by now.
4
 
On Wed 17 Mar at 7:32am webbo wrote:
@Nick I donít understand why you are so sceptical of this.
A man masturbated in front of young woman I know and her friend In the railway land a few days ago.
They called the police while they could still see him walking away.
By the time the police arrived (not at the entrance he was walking towards btw.) he had gone.
I suspect it was the same man in WH Smithís
3
 
On Wed 17 Mar at 12:51pm Tom Pain wrote:
You can't blame Nick for being skeptical, who,wrongly it appears, would expect Facebook to censor the description and reporting of a crime. One can only presume that the criminal was wearing a mask, otherwise there'd have been vanloads of police with dogs searching out the reprobate. Why did the police go to the wrong entrance? Either they didn't know the area, or they weren't that bothered, whichever way they were useless. Who are the police responsible to? Their corporate owners- the Crown, or the public, who even knows or cares?
3
 
On Wed 17 Mar at 12:52pm Nick wrote:
@webbo a couple of significant differences. WHS had a lot of other customers in the shop at the time. WHS has CCTV which are likely to have images of the person, if not the alleged event. So again, why werenít the police called? That is why I am sceptical.


23 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Cliffe Tableau 2019 25:132
Cliffe Tableau 2019

It can't have been very strong then. more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine