What's the right wing to do about progressive blogs?

[Emerson]

Progressive blogs are getting more and more coverage. Even in the MSM. Progressive blogs were responsible for bringing to light the Gannon story, and they serve as an important form of progressive media.

The right does not control progressive blogs as they do the MSM. Think they would like to? Damn right.

So what's the right wing to do? They could buy out progressive blogs as they have newspaper and TV "news". But the internet is a different place that can't be controlled in that manner, as it's incredibly easy for any progressive to start a blog. (or web site) In other words the net can not be limited and controlled by money as print and TV media can.

So I wonder if they've concluded that they need to go about attacking progressive sites in a different manner. How? If I was a right winger that wanted to shut up the progressive blogs I would do it by posing as a "moderate democrat" on multiple progressive sites that thought the "tin foil" was giving us a "bad image". Further, I would propose the "tin foil" people should be banned. Once that was accomplished after a few months I would push further to ban anyone who doesn't repeat what the MSM says under the guise of making the site "mainstream".

I would be very VERY suspicious of those who want to start banning (shutting up) posters on progressive blogs and support such actions.

Right now it may be the ultra "tin foil" getting banned at Kos, but how long until it moves to other progressive sites, and then anyone who doesn't repeat the MSM message?

This is very worrying to me, and I hope that other progressive sites do not start moving in this direction.

[lvx35]

1. This is a very big issue

with the "tinfoil hat" thing. It needs to be addressed. I think I will write an article.

[EuroObserver]

2. Any advice for Brits & others seriously interested

on how to handle this Richard, sometimes Dicky, to be found trolling The Guardian's 'London Bombing' threads, preventing most serious discussion, eg. here: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/07/09/todays_front_pages.html
and most recently here: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/07/10/papers_disagree_about_prime_suspects.html
???

[Pallas180]

34. Dear Brit, sounds like a freeper - ignore him or ask his posts be

removed, not much else you can do.

Meanwhile, the fellow who posted this is quite right, and forgive me, I couldn't help adding my comments. He did quite well until the end:

"The London bombings on edit by me and 9/11 seem to be a inevitable culmination of the botched foreign policies of the Anglo-Saxon governments in the past two centuries."

(couldn't agree with him more...everywhere the US/StateDept/CIA has installed puppet police state governments- thre has been eventual rebellion - so there's hope for America now that they've done it to us)

"The sensationalist media is so naive that it believes it's a religious problem. Seriously, you can't blame/brand one-fifth of mankind as your enemy." (sure you can, just listen to that moron in the wh)

"But, there definitely seems to be a competition brewing between the Anglo-Saxon and Arab races in the global political arena."
"This is about nationalism... yet again!" (ah, it's not race-don't fall back on that old one - It's money and oil.)

"Posted by Sadat, London, UK on July 9, 2005 "

[Tommymac]

3. Great points.

My fairly long experience in posting at many sites has led me to see that one of the most common methods of subterfuge (and one of the most successful)is the 'passive/aggresive' approach.

You can also hear these type people on call in radio shows...you know, the soft spoken, reasonable sounding callers who lead off with "I'm a democrat" or "I'm a moderate", then start spouting off the RW talking point of the day in veiled terms...most good hosts catch them out, and they usually end up leaving the show spouting insults and profanities...

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with CT's or any pov for that matter; but to muzzle them is to act just like the other side...

Dissent is Patriotism, no matter what Karl says.

[NoFederales]

5. Does government interference

fit into this in anyway? I keep hearing about requirements of sites that would allow some type of auditing by the gov. for users accessing sites, eg, the search engine sites, and maybe others? Is this true? Can the internet sites be regulated by the gov?

NoFederales

[Emerson]

6. They can be regulated by the US gov

if the server that hosts them is on US soil.

At the moment such servers are largely unregulated by the gov. Many in the right wing would like to change that.

[NoFederales]

11. Private Blogs

So do private bloggers have their own server set-ups, or pay to use another 's server? If this is so, then government interference is already possible?

NoFederales

[Emerson]

15. Not really

Congress has not passed legislation allowing the gov to do anything to progressive blogs that speak out.

Most progressive blogs that I know of are hosted by someone else. (usually a company that hosts web sites) In fact most web sites are hosted in that way.

Basically you control your site, but it exists on someone elses servers (usually a company that specializes in hosting web sites).

[pretzel4gore]

16. surprisingly, it may be the right wingers stopping the gov

the right is full of hate, but there are a few who see regulation as the enemy, whether it's of the market or the news/internet; the nazipoos are trying to figger a away around this problem, but it's like Sisyphus pushing his boulder to top of hill- he must get it all the way, and if tiny slip it rolls all the way back down. the nazipoos are first off cowards, and this is too much for them...thus the 'net remains unregulated, but they slowly doing so in places like china

[Emerson]

19. A faction exists in the right

that is against gov regulation. (mostly the corporate entities that want cable, utilities, etc to be unregulated)

At the same time the republican spin masters want regulation so they can control the message.

It would seem the side that does not want regulation (corporations and republican pawns in the masses) is winning out.

[snot]

4. I agree nt

[geek tragedy]

7. Talk about proving the opposing argument.

There is disagreement amongst liberals and progressives about the role of CT's in the movement.

What's your response? You invent a silly conspiracy theory. With not a shred of evidence.

Those other liberals don't really disagree with you--they're just part of a rightwing conspiracy!

Again, if you believe this load of CRAP, then you must also believe that Kos is a rightwing agent. Because he actually did purge the tinfoilers.

[Emerson]

8. No evidence of right wing plants on progressive sites?

Can someone who has been at DU for a few years tell me if there have ever been right wingers here posing as progressives? I am sure they are not in short supply.

Harris came up in another thread. Claimed to be a progressive interested in voting reform. Most of the progressive net knows how that turned out along with her affiliation with right wingers. Is that not evidence enough of right wing plants? Only difference is some are good enough to stay around years while some last a day before being detected.

Right wing plants are not a conspiracy theory I have invented. It even goes back to the right having agents mix in with Vietnam war protestors and starting trouble while posing as protestors. This is a fact with loads of evidence to back it up. Plants are not new to right wingers.

Of course it all must just be a conspiracy. The right wing has no plants. They are angels and would never do something like that.

"Again, if you believe this load of CRAP, then you must also believe that Kos is a rightwing agent."

What an excellent leap of logic and some very nice spin as well.

[geek tragedy]

10. No, the idiotic theory is that you can spot a RW plant

because they think that CT'ers are an embarassment to the movement.

Of course there are rightwing plants. And guess what they do? They post incredibly stupid shit like Tsunami conspiracy theories in order to make us look like a bunch of paranoid idiots.

[Emerson]

13. Links?

How many posts were started here on a Tsunami conspiracy? One? Two maybe?

I've seen you on *every* thread thus far on this topic defending the idea of banning progressives who make any suggestion outside of the "mainstream".

You are certainly making the rounds.

[geek tragedy]

18. I don't support banning progressives who make "any suggestion

outside of the mainstream." For activist-blogs like Kos, it makes perfect sense to keep fringe discussions out. For other places like DU, there should be some forum for dicussing such things.

At the same time, people who claim that no plane hit the Pentagon (and boy do we have 'em here) are a complete embarassment.

[Emerson]

23. How do you define what is mainstream?

What do you consider mainstream GT?

If someone posted a message suggesting a journalist was a plant in the WH press room with out any evidence would you consider that out of the mainstream?

If so it's too bad that tin foil idea later would prove to be real.

What about those who point out the inconsistencies in the 2000 election and 2004 election? Is that tin foil?

Seems to be what is mainstream is in the eye of the beholder.

"At the same time, people who claim that no plane hit the Pentagon (and boy do we have 'em here) are a complete embarassment. "

Really? Have you taken a poll? Start one. You have a star. Start a poll that says "Did a plane hit the pentagon?" Let's see if your "boy do we have em here" line is justified.

You do a good job GT. You want to justify banning progressives using the very far extreme stuff as an example. Yet, I wonder how long it would be before posts that point out flaws in the elections become outside the mainstream. Or maybe some post that is so tin foil it suggests the POTUS lied us in to a war.

[geek tragedy]

26. It doesn't matter whether something is mainstream. What matters

is if there's valid evidence and logic supporting a claim.

Go check out the 911 forum regarding Flight 77.

[Vincardog]

27. Right and the engines just disappeared as well as the entire

airframe but it left a body. Go ahead be embarrassed. If you do not like somebody's POV Choose to ignore them.

VIVA LA RESISTANCE

[truth2power]

42. What s/he said. Thanks.

[Old and In the Way]

36. You are correct....one or two naive posts on the Tsunami.

That got amped on the Conservative websites. Looks like liberals here are picking up on it, too. :-0

BTW, I agree with your conspiracy theory. There are people here who post on conservative boards...some play the role of really far right extremists so as to push their positions to their logical ridiculous conclusions, hoping to embarass the posting community. Others play moderates in hopes of gently pushing the consensus towards their position. So, obviously, they are here doing the same thing.

I have no doubts that both sides have people who post obnoxious comments in hopes of getting screen shots to show how silly the other side is.

Thing is, you never know on the internet. You have to look at the poster's entire posting history on a variety of subjects to size up their veracity.

I don't post much in the 9/11 forums anymore, mainly because there's not a lot of new information presented. But it's interesting and important, nonetheless. There are some people who only post on that forum, for and against 9/11 CT.....that makes me wonder.

Wanna read a great conspiracy theory? Check thisout:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x66773

[BrightKnight]

28. Pull the weeds and mow the grass.

KOS is and should be a respectable place. If the MSM is going to mention a progressive blog is most likely going to be KOS. There needs to be a place like that.

It is reasonable to expect them to pull the weeds and perhaps even mow the grass occasionally.

I'm not convinced that DU needs to follow their example. Most people don't pay attention to what the roots do.

[Old and In the Way]

37. I agree....do we really need or want 10,000 sites that offer the

same fare?

Don't think so. I starting going to dKos for the lrgal/political analysis on elections, he seems to cover that real well. I go to Jesus's General for some great political humor. I read Rude Pundit because I like his in-your-face crude, but insightful posts, I like Eschaton's take on things.

But I consider this home. I like the variety of opinions. It's like a smorgasboard for un-Republican politics. I don't like the sushi, so I don't eat it.

[Pallas180]

35. Bev Harris was a right winger? hun? duh? Well if so

she certainly defeated the right wing purpose because it did
come out that the machines are defintely fixable and fixed.

[burythehatchet]

21. So. Let's get this straight

Without solid evidence you do not believe that there are people who would sow seeds of confusion on liberal web sites. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand?

[geek tragedy]

30. I'm saying there is no proof that there are rightwingers who are posing

as liberals who are trying to subvert liberal blogs by denouncing outlandish CT's.

Of course there are rightwing disruptors. Skinner identified them--as people who post stupid-ass CT's like "Bush caused the tsunami."

[starroute]

33. The best strategy for the right would be to do both

Start by having your infiltratorrs post the most nutcase scenarios you can come up with.

Then pick those posts up at RW sites to make fun of.

Then have your other brand of infiltrators suggest that the site needs to maintain its credibility by banning nutcase scanarios.

Then use that to shut down open discussion and drive out long-time posters.

It would work far better than doing either thing alone.

[Old and In the Way]

38. C'mon Geek....no RW disruptors would pose as "sensible" liberals?

Hey, I think we have yet another conspiracy theory in the making. Why not start a new thread and make that statement?

But thanks for the tip-off. Next time someone posts a theory on Bush starting tsunami's (or even hurricanes) I'll be sure to alert on them!

[junkiebrewster]

43. self -delete :see next post

[junkiebrewster]

44. Subject: Yes, alert the mods to these nuts...

We ALL know Rove started the tsunami.


"cannonball!" :evilgrin:

[brentspeak]

9. I think you got it backwards:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2907807&mesg_id=2907807&page=

I don't think Democratic Underground is a threat. But I do think that some people have figured out that they can use extreme posts from Democratic Underground to paint all Democrats as extremists.

This is nothing new. Right-wing websites and radio programs have been doing it to us for years: Pick out something extreme from an anonymous message board, and then post it on your own site as "proof" that liberals are nuts. In fact, if you can't find something extreme enough, then all you have to do is create an anonymous login and post some extreme stuff yourself. (To be clear, I'm not accusing the Times or Fox News of doing this. But it does happen.)

That's Skinner who wrote the above (I added the bold type), the guy who owns this site. He even wrote a rebuttal to the NYTimes where he reiterated that point.

But you're saying it's people posing as "moderate Democrats" who are doing the undermining; that doesn't jive with the record.

You may not be aware of this, but the people who might be considered "moderate Democrats" have been steadily disappearing from this site. They don't relate to the politics of DU any longer. This is especially true of red staters, who've received shoddy treatment at the hands of other DUers. So, we're seeing an exodus of traditional rank-and-file Democrats. I think that's something Kos is trying to remedy over at his site.

From my end - I don't want people's posts to be censored (except in the cases where DUers call our troops "war criminals" in general, or ridicule the red state DUers, or suggest that people don't vote for the Democrats, but instead, the Greens, or for rule violations).

[Emerson]

12. Brentspeak please read my post

I did not claim to know of any doing this here at DU.

I was referring to the recent action at Kos and concern it may be a catalyst and reasoning for the right wing to use as a way to silence those on other progressive sites.

Obviously DU has NOT taken such a position, nor do I claim it has.

[geek tragedy]

14. Are you suggesting this is happening or not?

Again, not even I am saying that CT'ers should be banned from DU. And there's no chance that there won't be progressive blogs for CT'ers--if the demand exists, sites will either welcome progressive CT'ers or new blogs will be formed to welcome them.

[Emerson]

17. GT

"Again, not even I am saying that CT'ers should be banned from DU."

My post that started this thread did not mention you. Yet this line suggests in my post that started this thread you think I am talking about you? Interesting.

I do not know if this is happening at the moment, but I certainly see the possibility that the actions of Kos could serve as a catalyst and reason that the right will use to get progressive sites to censor themselves if they are not toeing the MSM line sufficiently.

[geek tragedy]

22. I can read between the lines. Especially considering your posts

to me in other threads. Accusing other DU'ers of being Freepers is a long-time tradition for some.

In any event, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Thousands of progressive blogs out there that would love to get the traffic . . .

[Emerson]

24. GT

I can see I'm just feeding you. I think I'll stop doing so.

[Old and In the Way]

39. But you've already stated that there are Freeper's posing as DUer's.

It gets so darn confusing, sometimes.

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

46. I've never heard of Freepers posing as moderate or liberal Democrats

who, at their most extreme, are about as rightwing as John Kerry.

[Old and In the Way]

49. Now you have, Geek.

So you can never again say you've never heard that.

[geek tragedy]

50. No, I've just heard baseless speculation. eom

[Old and In the Way]

51. So you believe what you want to believe.

And you'll be a liar the next time you say "I've never heard Freeper's pose as moderate/liberal Democrats".

It's your credibility, Geek.

[brentspeak]

20. I know you didn't say that

I was just making an argument that it's highly doubtful that an agent provocateur would disguise him/herself as a moderate here on these boards, because the goal of the provocateur is to drive mainstream people out of the political process, make them feel alienated. That happens enough - the provocateur's party wins the election.

[dalaigh lllama]

41. POV of a moderate democrat

For what it's worth, I'm a moderate in a red state, and only discovered this site early last fall -- finally registered not too long ago. One of the things I enjoy here are all the disparate points of view -- at least it shows that the folks here are actually engaging their brains. The right wing sites seem to revel in promoting one mindset and point of view. For a group so deadset against cloning, they've certainly managed to embrace brain cloning.

To me, this site is a drink of water in the desert.

[Jose Diablo]

25. Either buy the blog with big donations or

send an of 'army' counter-blogger posing as progressives or 'moderate' Democrats to cause disruption.

That's what will/is happening.

[smoogatz]

29. So, you're accusing Kos of being a rightwing operative

because he banned (mostly temporarily) posters who were going off about the London bombings being a Bush/Blair plot? What a load of bullshit. He obviously thought those particular posts were insensitive and crazy and over-the-top. It's his site, he has every right (and in fact a responsibility) to use his judgment about what kinds of posts he'll tolerate and what kind he won't.

[Emerson]

31. No I am not making that accusation

If you actually read the posts on this thread you would be aware of that.

I am concerned his action will be used by the right as jutification to ban progressives on other sites. Not that kos is a right winger.

[smoogatz]

32. What you said:

"I would be very VERY suspicious of those who want to start banning (shutting up) posters on progressive blogs and support such actions."

Funny, I could have sworn this was a not-so-very veiled reference to the situation at daily Kos, and specifically to Kos himself. Bullshit again. I happen to think he's perfectly within his rights in this case. I suppose that makes me a Republican operative, as well.

[Old and In the Way]

40. I didn't read it that way at all.

I beieve by "those" he's refering to individual posters who are using that decision as a way of driving the wedge in other progressive boards. To wit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1915949

[jjstopes]

45. Problem is..

Problem is the majority of America thinks the MSM is left wing. Most americans do not go to Rawstory and KOS to get there daily news. This also goes for the Rightwing Blogs too. Most people put on the news to get there information.

[rman]

47. phase 1:

create fear of the internet by means of exadurating (and possibly contribute to spreading)
spam, viruses, security leaks, id theft, its use as a medium of communication for terrorists, and whetever else you can come up with.

phase 2:
lock down (the US part of) the internet - for security reasons of course.

[rinsd]

48. Or they could attempt to create dissension on the blog/forum...

...beyond the usual policy disagreements. The best way to do so is to claim that those one disagrees with are likely on the other side and pretending to be Democrats.

It works even better when you use a recent sore spot.

:eyes:

[Moderator]

52. Locking, Please see Skinner's post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4081298&mesg_id=4081298