??? [Just filling body-copy space, as this SP insists…]
don’t think I can throw anything there; can’t log-in (my hunch is I’m banned)
Thomas N. and Willem have been asking the question, R - but I’ve yet to see anything categorical from Dan the Zapfingerman - plenty of saliva from the usual suspects though…but then that’s to be expected.
If he has banned me then, actually, I completely agree with him.
He is paying to host a site which he wants to see convey a certain type of perspective and analysis of the world. I too would ban someone who undermines the ethos of my site.
It’s not a free-speech issue because TLN is not public-service broadcaster.
I disagree with him about covid, but I don’t disagree with his decisions about managing his site.
I think that’s a really generous way of viewing it.
When TLN emerged from MLMB Dan took a lead in seeing to it that there was a continuation of that old site - many others were involved in setting-up of the site - I coined the name. Periodically there were discussions about ownership, payment of the bills etc, and again a number of people offered to chip in some coin - but it was always refused. I don’t think that the overall intention was to have an individual calling the shots, and I think Mr ‘Zapfinger’ (his term) has latterly abused his position. IMO!
1 Like
MediaLens is an interesting case.
They too warned people or censored posts (as I recall) - particularly ‘9/11 Conspiracy’.
Now, I myself do not at all dismiss alternative narratives about 9/11. But ML did dismiss them and, moreover, I think this is crucial: ML wish to maintain a certain position, and credibility, in the arena of debate and media-scrutiny. They can’t do that if they have many hangers-on who spout ‘crazy’ stuff, especially when they themselves also genuinely regard ‘9/11 Conspiracy’ as crazy.
I agree with that summing up. At first, Dan was pretty relaxed about who said what on TLN but more lately, and especially since the Covid crisis started, he has taken the view that a ceratin narrative must prevail. What I find so odd about other contributors there is how so many avoid talking about the massive changes that are taking place across the world, all in the name of saving lives.
Yes, that’s a good case in point - but whereas ML put the kibosh on certain topics, it was determined early doors that there would be no such censorship at TLN - hence, discussion about 911 was allowed. TLN was supposed to be a democratic site on which everybody had a say in that which was to be tolerated. I will hold that latterly, the site has turned to shite because too many people accepted Dan’s as the last word on CI9 etc - Barrington folk and the growing number of dissenters are simply dismissed out of hand as loons and peddlers of ‘conspiracy theories’ - the clamorous regulars on TLN all eager to cite Dan as THE authority and duly appeal to him in that erroneous capacity has seen an awful diminishment of TLN’s utility. IMO!
Yep, they allowed themselves to be stampeded into the losers’ choice! Shame…
I do think, though, that dan’s testimony of what he went through - as a result of taking a profoundly-mistaken approach to the covid thing - is nevertheless one of the very few data points which I can mark down as completely reliable. He did - authentically - go through a very bed time. For some reason…