National HQ deleting YouTube comments?

42 comments on “National HQ deleting YouTube comments? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tane 1

   28 November 2007 at 10:32 am

   I had two comments up there, so they’ve deleted at least one of mine too.
2. Benodic 2

   28 November 2007 at 10:35 am

   The dead giveaway is they’ve left up a comment that responds to Redbus but Redbus’ comments are nowhere to be found.

   I see they chose to leave up “You’ll make a great Prime Minister, John” and “GOT MY VOTE”.

   Free speech under attack, aye?
3. Robinsod 3

   28 November 2007 at 10:40 am

   Ben – free speech is for those who can pay for it. Lefties shouldn’t be posting to a Nat youtube because that’s just bludging off their (very expensive) efforts. I say no dollar, no say. It’s only fair.
4. The Double Standard 4

   28 November 2007 at 10:45 am

   Free speech doesn’t mean that anyone is required to provide you a platform. I wonder how far I’d get shouting abuse at a Labour event? (oh, right, until I get a megaphone to the head)

   I don’t understand why they don’t just block all comments though.
5. r0b 5

   28 November 2007 at 10:46 am

   “I don’t understand why they don’t just block all comments though.”

   Think about it. It’ll come to you.

   (capthca: especially unjust)
6. Sam Dixon 6

   28 November 2007 at 10:47 am

   National motto: Free speech, for the rich
7. Susan Deare 7

   28 November 2007 at 10:50 am

   You’ll need at least $120,000 at your disposal for political advertising to post. Because as we all know based on National’s opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill; it’s all about giving their wealthy mates the microphone.
8. Robinsod 8

   28 November 2007 at 10:55 am

   Come to think of it that means DPFDblStdClaws is bludging of the efforts of the Standard’s crew. Jeez DPFDblStdClaws why don’t you get your own site if you’re so concerned about what’s getting posted. Oh, that’s right you have…

   And agin – why use my witticism for your handle bro? Are you trying to make people think I’m your mate? (for the record I really really am so not).

   http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

   I feel like I’m your dad. Eweugh!
9. The Double Standard 9

   28 November 2007 at 10:55 am

   I tried to find any official Labour video content on youtube but nothing much showed up. Is there any? I’d like to leave some comments about Helen Clark rorting the taxpayer.

   Sambo – sad to see that your intelligent commenting ideals are slipping.

   How about these

   Labour Motto: John Key Sucks

   Labour Motto: Power at all costs

   Labour Motto: Blame the officials

   Labour Motto: EB Suck
10. Tane 10

    28 November 2007 at 11:00 am

    TDS, there’s not a lot: http://youtube.com/user/nzlp

    Labour don’t appear to be too web-savvy, but I’m sure they’ll get their act together closer to the election. At least, I hope they do.
11. Thomas 11

    28 November 2007 at 11:10 am

    Double standard/santaclaws/bigbruv/david
    There are others but you get the point
    You have complete freedom to post here
    Idon’t think anyone has been banned not like
    The bog eh David

    captacha: heckling difficlt
12. The Double Standard 12

    28 November 2007 at 11:16 am

    “You have complete freedom to post here”

    Well, obviously. But I don’t regard it as a “right” that I should be able to post anything I want on anyones own blog or youtube or wherever. That is a decision for the site or content owner. Newspaper’d don’t have to print anything you send them. TVNZ doesn’t publish comments etc etc etc.

    If you want to conflate “free speech” with “I have the right to write comments on any public forum and you must publish them” then thats your choice. The two are not the same.

    And I seem to recall that KBB takes please in modifying comments to change the meaning. I guess that’s free speech for the blog owner, but a bit tough on the commenter aye?

    Does Jordan allow comments on all posts – I know he stopped that for a while. No comments on NRT – where’s your faux outrage in those cases?

    Kiwiblog is DPF’s baby. If you don’t like it, starting your own blog is fairly easy.
13. Matthew Pilott 13

    28 November 2007 at 11:23 am

    Teh Duoble Satndard: got some National ones

    national for better healthcare: Tax Cuts
    national for strong international relations: Tax Cuts
    national for better education: tax cuts
    national for robust infrastructure: tax cuts
    national for The Policy That You Find Important (it doesn’t matter which): tax cuts

    I don’t suppose you read the comments at just left or NRT before they were stopped (LF’s got them back up, mostly), TDS? Last I heard, free speech didn’t cover outright abuse, don’t tell me they changed that? So there’s your ‘faux outrage’
14. Debbie 14

    28 November 2007 at 12:54 pm

    The National party are showing their true colours again by deleting comments made by voters about Keys promotional material, the very same people they are asking to invite them to govern in 2008. In a real democracy people should be able to participate in the political process without the need for a hefty bank balance. National on one hand stifles debate on their Key video but on the other hand crows about free speech in relation to the EFB. The Bill simply attempts to introduce a more even playing field for all New Zealanders where elections cant be bought by those with vast resources and wealth.
15. Robinsod 15

    28 November 2007 at 12:54 pm

    DPFDblStdClaws – Once more – why use my witticism for your handle bro?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

    I’ve been asking you this for three weeks now and you still won’t answer. Surely it’s a simple question. What’s wrong boy?
16. Thomas 16

    28 November 2007 at 2:17 pm

    NRT took the decision to ban ALL comments rather then face the criticism that the Nats are facing
    by selectively banning people
    Interestingly Davis agrees
    I don’t understand why they don’t just block all comments though.
    David on the other hand does selectively ban people
    And nearly always adds comments to Tane post

    Tane has the hypocrite rattled
17. Thomas 17

    28 November 2007 at 2:18 pm

    Interestingly David agrees
    whoops
18. the sprout 18

    28 November 2007 at 3:27 pm

    National’s theirtube behaviour is in keeping with this Slane cartoon though

    http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/free-speech-for-the-rich/
19. r0b 19

    28 November 2007 at 3:36 pm

    It’s starting to look like a well established pattern. Ban lefties on KB (National party blog). Ban comments on youtube (National party account). Shout down and harass a single speaker addressing a rally (National party supporters).

    Is this a model of free speech National style? You can have all the free speech you like as long as you don’t try to use it?
20. Gruela 20

    28 November 2007 at 3:41 pm

    There’s one place you can’t ban any counter-argument, and that’s on TV debates. Don’t tell me I’m the only one looking forward to seeing JK nestled in amongst HC, WP, JF, RH and TT next year, looking like a startled possum in the glare of the cameras. Spontaneous and effective argument and John Key just don’t go together in my head.

    Seriously, I can’t wait. It’s going to be hilarious.
21. the sprout 21

    28 November 2007 at 3:46 pm

    that’s right Rob, a bit like their views on Maori rights under the Treaty.
22. The Double Standard 22

    28 November 2007 at 3:46 pm

    “In a real democracy people should be able to participate in the political process without the need for a hefty bank balance.”

    You seem to be participating fine Debs, but, once again, free speech doesn’t give you a ‘right’ to a platform. How is deleting comments related to $$$? I guess you are just promoting Teh Party line once again – its OK for Labour to suppress dissent through legislation, but lets the Nats delete a few comments on Youtube and its the end of democracy? Wot a larf.
23. Thomas 23

    28 November 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Gruela
    National haven’t got anything to say so they attack / ban people who do or point it out

    Helen will make mincemeat of him
    I agree
24. Camryn 24

    28 November 2007 at 3:49 pm

    rOb – The guy at the Wellington protest did get heckled by some, but he was given a chance at the microphone.

    All – This whole comment deletion thing is just poor ‘handling’ of internet PR. As TDS said, you EITHER allow comments on a forum you’re willing to monitor and argue back OR you ban them in any situations where you aren’t. Selective removal of comments is poor form. You all know it’s just bad etiquette from someone at National who’s not very net savvy. Stop trying to beat it up into some kind of overall stance or style re: free speech.

    If you have to jump on this kind of trivial nonsense and try to make it a big deal then you mustn’t be too flush with ideas of what to post on, or you just like being childish.
25. The Double Standard 25

    28 November 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Spout

    Here’s a link to more Slane ‘toons.

    http://slaneseditorialcartoons.blogspot.com/

    I particularly like the one where Helen has shot poor Mickey
26. Lampie 26

    28 November 2007 at 3:54 pm

    its OK for Labour to suppress dissent through legislation, but lets the Nats delete a few comments on Youtube and its the end of democracy? Wot a larf.

    If the Nats are doing that, then they ARE living up to your name!
27. r0b 27

    28 November 2007 at 4:09 pm

    “rOb – The guy at the Wellington protest did get heckled by some, but he was given a chance at the microphone”

    Call me cynical, but there are two interpretations of the organisers calling for a speaker from the counter protest. (1) The really wanted to hear what the counter protesters had to say. That doesn’t really fit well with the fact that they then shouted him down and made no attempt to listen. (2) The hoped to show up and ridicule the counter protest if no one was brave enough to speak, they had their bluff called when a speaker appeared. Which fits rather nicely with the fact that they then shouted him down, so as not to let him actually be heard.

    “Selective removal of comments is poor form.”

    Well we agree on that. Please head on over to KB and inform DPF.

    “If you have to jump on this kind of trivial nonsense”

    It’s, you know, the topic of the thread. And if you think free speech is trivial nonsense, well, apparently you have found your home on the Right.
28. The Double Standard 28

    28 November 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Once again for the morons – free speech does not mean you have a right to use some elses platform to make that speech. Sheesh, what about the “free speech” of the idiot that posted the comment here than Tane deleted a couple of weeks ago?

    http://bp2.blogger.com/_RgmZt4svm00/RvmwoxlMV8I/AAAAAAAAAGM/_JxJZ29EE1k/s1600-h/dirt_lo.jpg
29. Tane 29

    28 November 2007 at 4:14 pm

    When was that TDS? You mean the guy who posted under his partner’s handle and asked to have his comment deleted? That’s a pretty low smear mate, even for you.
30. r0b 30

    28 November 2007 at 4:19 pm

    “Once again for the morons – free speech does not mean you have a right to use some elses platform to make that speech”

    So free speech is decided by the owners of the media is it then TDS? Free speech for the rich it is. You masses with no platform – tough luck.
31. The Double Standard 31

    28 November 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Well, actually, I was thinking of the one related to possible defamation action. Maybe you just edited that one instead of deleting it? Anyway, the point is not so much that you took action, but that even this place doesn’t provide a wide-open say-anything location – there is no free speech obligation operating.

    Those who are posting comments on youtube are perfectly able to stand outside the beehive and say whatever they like. After 1 Jan they will not be completely free to do even that.
32. Gruela 32

    28 November 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Double Standard

    “After 1 Jan they will not be completely free to do even that.”

    How so? What happens on Jan. 1? Am I missing something?
33. Tane 33

    28 November 2007 at 4:36 pm

    TDS, you’ve raised an interesting point. Free speech is not absolute. It’s about allowing free debate and expression within acceptable democratic bounds. One of those bounds is defamation. On that count, we’ve done nothing wrong.

    Selectively deleting comments that you don’t agree with is not an acceptable democratic limit on free speech – it’s a sign of someone who can’t handle dissent.
34. Thomas 34

    28 November 2007 at 5:24 pm

    Once again for the morons – free speech does not mean you have a right to use some elses platform to make that speech.

    But if one know that “someone else’s platform”
    Is being economical with the truth and displaying rank hypocrisy and then portrays them self as a
    “independant political commentator.
    Then I think we have a moral obligation to keep them in check
35. The Double Standard 35

    28 November 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Thomas

    Are you talking about Chris Trotter? Don’t be shy man, tell us what you really think!
36. Camryn 36

    28 November 2007 at 5:53 pm

    r0b –

    “It’s, you know, the topic of the thread.”

    I was commenting on the topic of the thread.

    “And if you think free speech is trivial nonsense, well, apparently you have found your home on the Right.”

    No, I think this thread is trivial nonsense. I didn’t say free speech is trivial nonsense. There’s no relation because removing YouTube comments from your own video is not a violation of free speech. It’s just dumb.

    Since you think it’s OK to read false meaning into other people’s comments and then ‘defeat’ the words that you put into their mouth, well, apparently you have found your home on the Left.
37. r0b 37

    28 November 2007 at 6:24 pm

    “Since you think it’s OK to read false meaning into other people’s comments and then ‘defeat’ the words that you put into their mouth, well, apparently you have found your home on the Left.”

    Tee hee! Fair cop. I try to be good, but I don’t always succeed.

    I still think the topic of this thread is perfectly fair enough though.
38. Lampie 38

    28 November 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Once again for the morons – free speech does not mean you have a right to use some elses platform to make that speech

    So Youtube is a National party platform? So the National party has the right to bar public comment in a public domain???? Their website yes, someone eles website, no.

    Sounds like double standards.
39. thomas 39

    28 November 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Thomas

    Are you talking about Chris Trotter? Don’t be shy man, tell us what you really think

    You know I’m talking about you Farrar
40. illuminatedtiger 40

    28 November 2007 at 10:48 pm

    A vote for National is a vote for censorship.
41. Lee C 41

    29 November 2007 at 8:38 am

    “Selectively deleting comments that you don’t agree with is not an acceptable democratic limit on free speech – it’s a sign of someone who can’t handle dissent.”

    So you’ve come over to the anti-EFB camp at last, Tane? Well done!

    Othersise it’s a Very Double Standard?

    Heard about the rumours about Government instructions to TV3 on what they can and can’t report? Next year it will be all legal and above board, though. God I love transparency.
42. Colaca 42

    29 November 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Gruela

    “”After 1 Jan they will not be completely free to do even that.”

    How so? What happens on Jan. 1? Am I missing something?”

    You really have been asleep, haven’t you.

    Kill The Bill.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS