Expose:
The Consumerist: Being Bitches 24/7
May 17, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: Blocked, Blogs, Censorship, Dumb, The Consumerist, Whining
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
I've emailed them many leads over the last year, none of which have ever been covered, the most recent being my ongoing saga with AT&T. I got the typical blowoff email response, but imagine my surprise when they post a rather pathetic story about a customer trying to signup with AT&T. So they'd prefer to write about this, than how AT&T overcharges me, files claims against my credit history, and doesn't deliver on their service agreement?
Yeah, ok.
I decided I was going to make a comment along those lines, pointing out:
epicOf(mystory) > epicOf(thepostedstory);
Once again, imagine my surprise when I see this:
Interesting, right? It's worth noting that I'm blocked only on The Consumerist, and not anywhere else on Gawker - I comment semi-regularly on io9, for example.
I clicked through to send them a message, and I saw this beneath the comment box:
Oh, so maybe this is the problem? They had a string of posts over the course of maybe a week that were whining about "give donations to us!" and all in all pretty annoying. We're talking one for every few posts. See an example here, and my comment here.
Apparently they say this is a reason to ban me from commenting on their site, despite the fact that I neither violated any TOS nor did anything inflammatory - I didn't even curse.
The larger question that comes to mind is not why they banned me, but why did they feel the need to ban me after I merely criticized their panhandling? Also, why do they refuse to run any of the tips I've given them, regardless of consumer-oriented importance?
I've come to the conclusion that they likely don't write about my tips because I already have. Most of what they cover they claim to receive via email, so it would seem that they only care about having "first dibs" on a story about consumer heartache. Forget that I don't run a major blog. Forget that I don't get epic amounts of traffic. Forget that I post these sorts of stories out of a sense of duty and exposé.
That doesn't matter to them.
Ironic that a blog that claims to care about consumer rights and freedoms would censor a reader for criticisms and only post on stories that would achieve a perceived maximum profit (aka "FIRST!"). I've removed them from my feeds, and have come to the only conclusion possible:
The Consumerist is a bunch of bitches, 24/7/365.
--- --- ---
Update (5/17/2009 4:00pm PST): I decided to take this straight to the source, and so I emailed directly all of the people involved over at The Blog of Hypocrisy:
I just thought I'd let you all know what a smart move you guys made... censoring me from a consumer rights and freedoms blog when I criticized your panhandling, not even violating the TOS or (gasp!) cursing.
http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/05/17/the-consumerist-being-bitches-247/
You've lost a reader, and that same former reader is going to spread the knowledge of your hypocrisy far and wide.
Enjoy the coming aftermath.
Update (5/17/2009 6:00pm PST): It has been pointed out that my email to them may have been a little over the top, and I'll agree to that. The point, though, was to impress upon them the ridiculousness of what they've done.
Update (5/18/2009 11:40am PST): I got an email back from the "comment moderator", Roz:
Kyle,
I can't answer your question about editorial choices -- I only handle
comment issues. However, regarding your comment ban, please refer to
our rules:
"Don't attack people. Assume good faith... Express contrary opinions,
but treat others as you would like to be treated."
Commenting just to slam the site (or its editors, other staff,
tipsters, and users) is simply not allowed and not welcome. You are
welcome to post in civil, substantive criticism. Your post was
neither civil nor substantive. Because of your relative lack of other
comments on our site -- and those that I reviewed added no particular
contributions of interest -- your action warranted a ban.
Roz
And, so I responded as required:
Guess what?
You're wrong. Maybe you should try again, Bob Saget. Let's review:
- I didn't "slam" anyone.
- It was civil and substantive - there was no cursing or attacks, and there was a point.
- I don't typically post on The Consumerist because I usually have nothing to say in relation to the content, so, once again, not a valid criticism.
But I'm glad the person who banned me still feels I should be banned. That's like asking Hitler if he still thinks he should have killed all those Jews.
Update (5/18/2009 11:50am PST): Well, somebody answers their email...
To clarify, I did not ban you, but I've reviewed your situation and
find that your ban is in line with our rules. Calling the donation
drive 'panhandling' is clearly pejorative; lack of civility is not
only noted through use of profanity.
As such, your comments have been reviewed by multiple staffers.
You're not following the spirit of our rules, and thus will not be
allowed to post.
And the response for the win:
Let's review the comment, shall we?
I mentioned it as panhandling only after the fact. The exact wording of my comment was "Stop whining about donations. You're a blog. It's annoying. --Kyle"
Of course I'm going to call it panhandling on my own material after being banned. Why would I call such an activity any different?
I'm glad you chose to take the highroad, though, and use content outside the context of the reason I was banned in the first place as material to explain the ban.
Stay classy and logical, Spock.
Update (5/18/2009 12:15pm PST): This whole email exchange has been highly amusing! Here's the closer email from Roz, in which I will surprisingly let him have the final word. I am posting these on the 'net after all...
My apologies. Classifying the posting as "whining" is nonetheless pejorative.
In any case, you've made it exceptionally clear that you're not
interested in following the spirit of the rules and are interested in
only an argument. As such, I consider this matter closed.
Good riddens, and good day to you, sir!
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
