No, I just edited your affiliate link, I did engage in the conversation about it being better or not, and did leave your comments intact. The only thing I changed was a hyperlink.

Which is censorship. You may feel it justifiable and that is your prerogative. But that doesn't change what the action is.

Well then the entire thread is pointless, as everybody censors spam.

I think it's pretty obvious that it excludes spam?

Well then- did I censor? I just took out a spam hyperlink. I left all comments and conversations intact.

That is not a spam link. Spam is unsolicited bulk messaging. The commenter would be pushing his/her links, but I don't think that would qualify as a spam hyperlink. There is a clear reason for why that link was inserted in the comment.

Is this all the blogger is censoring? It sounds like the post was left, but altered. It seems if the blogger is only altering posts to removed links there should be an * given on the wiki to state what the blogger is censoring. If a blogger were to go and change a curse word to **** and leave the post up... I think it should be stated in the wiki.

I think I would call a post that sought the opportunity to push an external hyperlink as spam.

I too believe there was a clear reason for the link being inserted, it was to draw attention to his affiliate program.

He either was unable to read the post and saw an opportunity to hawk his program (most likely) or could read the post and deliberately ignored the information so he could hawk his program (least likely).

Seth also suggested that I should delete his post if I thought it was Spam, but I decided to let it stand, minus the link, so he could discuss it. I thought he was done with that but it seems to drag on.

Regardless. Here is my position:

1. I will not censor information that is better for the consumer, but I will censor other bloggers that act like parasites. Every post in my blog has a link to Affiliate links talking about how to get your own best deal (using evreward etc).
   
2. I will censor spam
   
3. I will censor abusive language that adds no value

So, if that makes me a censor, in the essence of this thread then so be it.

Can we start another category too - bloggers that spam other comments with the sole intention of hawking their own links?

I think that would be very fair, I'm adding it. with the notation. Because there is a difference, and I feel that because Seth is upset I called him out he is trying to put me in with these other bloggers to make me guilty by association.

Delta Points is a big time about censoring. Sadly, he removes comments pointing out the inaccuracies of his posts (things DL execs told me were wrong). What a disservice to his readers and only cements the bemused view many staff at DAL have about the Delta Points 'blog'.

It should be noted that on MMS Lufthansa series, he has started censoring comments that (correctly) call him out for having hired someone else to produce the content (affiliate laden of cours) and then misleading readers into thinking he produced it

To clarify - I warned commentators with a history of mean and viscous comments directed at others to NOT keep changing usernames when they post comments; otherwise they would be added to the comments.


There are hundreds of critical comments on the blog, and they still remain. But I *will* add comments which are spammy (different user names and with characteristics of spam) to the spam list.

Call that censoring if you will.

But how do you respond to the assertion that you are censoring comments that question the authorship of the LH series?

Because other comments on the same subject are still up.

I am a bit confused about what the uproar there is over people posting with different usernames. What's wrong with that?