digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

ABC Now Removes ALL Posts From Ron Paul Story

abcnews.go.com — As of 4:35PM Eastern ABC has removed ALL of the posts that were made on their article saying Ron Paul's support on the internet was fake. This is on the same article that I said they were removing some posts from yesterday. Now they have gone and removed all of the posts that have been made since a few minutes ago. Only 20 comments there now.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -9/+104When I checked last night there was about 300 comments on their article. Now there are only about 20 articles and they were all made since 4:35PM this afternoon. ABC has some balls.
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -4/+70screenshots from last night and today

      http://pmalloy.blogspot.com/2007/05/abc-news-activly-censoring-users.html (no ads)

      you cannot even leave a comment at the moment
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -162/+15This is why, Ron Paulites are on a crusade against those who don't follow their love affair. If Ron Pauls face isn't on a 1000px wide banner in the middle of a site the Paulites cry foul and spam digg about it with countless articles all pertaining to the same irrelevant crap.
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -10/+99DHS

      what do you recomend? that we do not stand up for who we believe in just because they are not the favorite???

      how about insted of blasting us for trying and offering nothing, GIVE US ideas on what to do to get it the way it should be. FAIR FOR ALL!

      but no you will just spout out the fact that ron paul is spamming DIGG

      DID You ever think that the people here like him??? i never knew who he was a month ago and as of the last week ive written every major newspaper/network who is supressing them.

      The fact is the election is over a year away, NOW is the time for the ron pauls and mike gravels get their time. as it gets closer if they are still low in the polls THAN its time to jump ship but NOW IS the time for this type of behavior
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -186/+17did you ever think abc took it down because YOU GUYS BUG THE ***** OUT OF EVERYONE?

      i respect political activism, but i have no respect for what you guys are doing.

      get off digg now please.
    • reeder, on 10/12/2007, -13/+156@PATSCRU

      Dude, I'm not a giant Ron Paul supporter, but Digg isn't yours. Bury it if you hate it, but allowing corporate interests to shape a campaign has gotten us where we are now: Eating a big ***** sandwich, all of us taking a big bite.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -12/+63@PATSCRU

      I'd be interested to know what political activism entails, according to you.

      If you don't like something on Digg, then digg it down. But, since these stories are getting to the top, there is something more than just savvy users.
    • eangel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+60I am not a big fan of all the ron paul spam on digg, but ABC is ridiculous. We should post comments in every possible place on ABC's site telling them not to censor. If we flood the whole site they will either have to acknowledge or remove the possibility to comment on ANY article.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19another image from may 5th: http://x012.uploaderx.net/x/080507paul2.jpg
    • Polamalu43, on 10/12/2007, -40/+3THE PRICE IS WRONG - BITCH!
    • eangel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12This guy has the right idea:

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?type=story&id=3152277
    • eangel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Just pick any article on ABC's site and post something to the effect of:

      Myself and many other people have been censored for mentioning Ron Paul in their comments. ABC has deleted these comments despite the fact that ABC's terms of service have not been violated. ABC is Another Bully Censor and I will not let this stand.

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_Now_Removes_ALL_Posts_From_Ron_Paul_Story
    • gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43I used to respect ABC as a news agency in favor of the public.

      They can burn in hell now. I don't plan on watching them for news ever again. BBC America is all I'm down to.
    • StupidLiberal, on 10/12/2007, -32/+21Ron Paul Spam?? Have you morons ever seen the 300 stories per day about idiotic wii crap?
    • dave11980, on 10/12/2007, -12/+43Funny, I thought Digg had a democratic way of promoting stories. If more people digg it than bury it then the article goes up. Obviously since these stories get to the front page so often the digg community voted and they like Ron Paul.

    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -42/+5Some of the folk here must realize that threatening to shut down a site by spamming it unless you get your way, is a mild form of terrorism? Yeah, nobody dies, and those that loose money are large faceless corporations, but it's still a threat of loss if you don't get your way. Consider this for a moment, surely it isn't the message you want to put across on Ron Paul's behalf.
      The answer is simple. If you want to get web space for Ron Paul, get your own webpages, and make them interesting enough to draw in visitors. Sure, link interesting articles on Digg and such, but when a site chooses to prune it's self a little, try to make accepting it your first impulse, and make revolt your last resort.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+109Reading many of the comments I get the impression that some people don't understand what is going on here.

      Yesterday afternoon ABC posted this article saying that the support for Ron Paul that was seen in the online polls was fake. ABC allows users to comment on articles and all of the comments to this article were critical of ABC's analysis of "The Ron Paul Effect". When I read through the 100 or so comments that were there at the time I did not see one comment that was spam. Most of the comments were well reasoned and well put reactions to ABC's article, however ALL of the comments were disputing ABC's take on the situation.

      When I came back about 30 minutes later to read new comments I noticed that the number of comments was less than when I read them the first time. I then made my own comments saying that ABC was removing comments. That comment was deleted within about five minutes of posting and so I made a second comment saying that it was disgusting that ABC was censoring us when we were not violating any of their terms of service, but just because we were being critical of their analysis.

      That is when I first posted my submission to Digg that made the front page last night. Then they were only removing some of the comments to the article. However when I checked back today I was surprised to find that ABC had removed EVERY SINGLE comment that had been made to the article. Since this story hit Digg there has been some spam, however most of it has not been. The disturbing thing here is that ABC has removed ALL of the legitimate comments to their article. I have no problem with them removing spam, but I do have a problem with them removing legitimate criticism (which is what most of the comments were) if they are going to call themselves a credible news organization.

      Yes, they have every right to remove whatever they want, but if they want maintain any semblance of credibility as a news organizations they cannot delete legitimate comments just because those comments are critical of them.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61I think the most effective thing to do is go to one of ABC's competitors with this story about how ABC has been censoring Ron Paul and his supporters. I'm sure they'd love to break this story.
    • bobpaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Write a short note about your disgust that ABC removed the articles and is failing to give as much support to him as the other candidates.
      Fill in your full name, address, and phone number so they know you aren't someone "voting multiple times"

      http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html
    • Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -21/+18@dave11980: "Funny, I thought Digg had a democratic way of promoting stories. If more people digg it than bury it then the article goes up. Obviously since these stories get to the front page so often the digg community voted and they like Ron Paul."

      I don't in the slightest agree with what ABC did, but I don't want you let your myth stand. Digg, despite efforts to combat it, can be easily gamed by controlling multiple accounts either by individuals or scripts. There are companies that specialize in it -- and not just Digg, various social networking sites and blogs -- and they get paid a pretty penny to create an artificial groundswell. There's ample, ample, ample evidence that Digg is being gamed by a small number of RP flacks, perhaps even a professional consulting firm.

      I really find it ironic that so many genuine people who have gravitated to Ron Paul do so because they seem to value their independence, want a new way of doing things, and have a justifiable suspicion of authority. Yet the instant they have the opportunity they let themselves become the dupes of what are, although in the digital sphere, old-fashioned political dirty tricks that are what made you hate government as usual to begin with.

      It seems like suspicion can be pretty selective when it wants to be, even turning a blind eye. You are being tricked, duped by political hired guns who have dressed themselves up to try to talk like you, act like you, and smell like you so they mix in, and in response you just put down your judgment and follow them wide-eyed like a good little mob.

      Some ***** independents you turned out to be.

    • spenderaka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I just posted this censoring problem to www.Drudge.com. Maybe he'll take some interest. You've got to get the word out one way or another.
    • jchanc04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29I just sent this into the BBC. They gave coverage to the HD-DVD so maybe international is the way to go:

      After running the story about the HD-DVD Key (which I applaud) I was hoping that you might take interest in another story developing over here in the United States.

      I am very concerned about the media blackout concerning Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul in American News. Ron Paul received the most votes on an MSNBC poll after the Republican Debate.

      While most stations simply ignore him by leaving him off of polls, ABC News has recently engaged in blatant censorship of commentary on an article found here. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?&id=3147940

      Over 300 comments expressing support of Paul or criticizing the censorship have been deleted despite no violations in the Terms of Service. The news organizations are trying to brush this off as fanatical supporters voting in polls multiple times when these polls have provisions in place to prevent double voting.

      Articles about this incident are posted on Digg.com

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_Now_Removes_ALL_Posts_From_Ron_Paul_Story

      This is not limited to ABC. Its happened at Yahoo http://digg.com/politics/Yahoo_Answers_Why_is_Ron_Paul_being_excluded_from_Yahoo_s_Full_Coverage

      Please look into why these major news outlets are neglecting a very influential candidate.

      Thank you for your time.
      James Chancellor
      **Email Removed****
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6The very Libertarians who want to banish corporate laws cry "oh it's unfair" and cry and whine when a corporation does what it wants . Libertarians make no sense. You either think that they have every single right to do whatever they want on THEIR website or they don't. Quit whining.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're right, they do have a right to do what they want. And we have a right to do what we want: which is tell others of their censorship. There is no hypocrisy here. No one is trying to get a law passed or calling the police to shut down ABC.
    • craigyjack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@bigdavediode
      Ah, but you don't get it at all. The point is to not have the government interfere, and let the people and market take care of it, and that is what is happening. The corporation can do whatever they want, but guess who the costomers are, us, and we can respond to their actions. Your so-called "whining" is an essential part of the free market, it is the response of the consumers. And in this case, we did not like how ABC censored this, so we, as the audience of this corporation, acted in response (without government sanction/interference (woah, no way, people can do things without government? /sarcasm)). Take another look at your philosophy mate.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4craig:

      >Ah, but you don't get it at all. The point is to not have the government interfere, and let the people and market take care of it, and that is what is happening. The corporation can do whatever they want, but guess who the costomers are, us, and we can respond to their actions.

      No, you have the right to not purchase their product. Or in this case, not watch their shows. You have ZERO right to harass them. Do you believe that people who disagree with you should be able to phone you up at home against your will and harass you? Phoning people isn't the "free market" it's being a dick. Or, if you stretch the definition, "protesting" which is also not part of the free market.

      So if you guys just said "We're never watching ABC again" that would be fine, I might even respect you. As it is, there's no danger of you guys ever getting anyone's respect. Expect a lot more post deletion in the future. You deserve it.

      Well, whereever you post, I won't read them.
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6they caved in

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_CAVES_Comments_are_still_up_screenshots_2
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5man i'm PISSED. to hell with these fascists.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1oGIffyVVk
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3"Myself and many other people have been censored for mentioning Ron Paul in their comments. ABC has deleted these comments despite the fact that ABC's terms of service have not been violated. ABC is Another Bully Censor and I will not let this stand."

      Actually, Diggers did violate the ToS. The ToS said no spam, and ABC recieved hundreds upon hundreds of messages saying the same thing -- that ABC was censoring people unnecessarily, or that Ron Paul was the best, or even a simple link to Digg. You guys were all saying the same thing, so they just deleted all the comments. Big ***** deal, seriously. Diggers acted in a mob mentality trying to get another HD-DVD revolt going and got shut down. ABC has the legal right to do whatever they want with comments on their site. That includes deleting spam.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't understand what spam is. Spam is a massive quantity of low quality and/or the *same* message. Lots of people, each sending a single instance of an individually tailored e-mail is not spam. That is called a strong response.
    • manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This image presents the ironic situation of people talking about why being censored is imoral and against our basic rights, and them censoring us: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/The%20Worst%20Part%20of%20Censorship.jpg
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"they caved in"

      After ganjadude4391 posted that, it seems they were removed again. (see comments in the linked Digg story)
    • jquixote, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The way to fix all this is to create a a distributed p2p message system that looks just like digg on the front end, but is run by no corporate interest. Make it a streamlined plug-in for firefox and IE so that lots of people can install it easily. True decentralized news that is impervious to censorship.
    • LeeJunFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What would get ABC better would be if we wrote their advertisers about this, tell their advertisers how they made up their own biased news, how they silenced the people who spoke up about it, and how the advertisers should spend their money more wisely because we are all going to block ABC from our televisions with our V-Chips and receivers.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Please read my explanation of what this story is about and what ABC is doing. I want to clear up some of the misconceptions that people have.

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_and_their_removal_of_comments
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1maybe if all the comments left on the ABC site didn't have links back to articles back on digg.com they wouldn't be taken down as spam? isn't that one of the number one complaints--digging down as spam any comment that contains a http: link to any other site? seems like ABC moderators are doing the same thing
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"This is why, Ron Paulites are on a crusade against those who don't follow their love affair. If Ron Pauls face isn't on a 1000px wide banner in the middle of a site the Paulites cry foul and spam digg about it with countless articles all pertaining to the same irrelevant crap."

      Really, I don't want Ron Paul's face any larger than the other candidates. I'd like it to be acknowledged when he wins a poll however, without the biased accusations of cheating. Saying he has a large internet presence compared to his 'real life' polling is fine, accusing his supporters of cheating because Paul's ideology isn't compatable with the stations bias however, is not.


    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They've done it again! There's only one comment on the story now and I can't post at all: http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_Removes_All_Comments_on_Ron_Paul_Story_AGAIN
    • chadism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Holy Hiatus! There is now (count'em!!!) ONE comment. I tried to leave a comment on that story:

      "Ron Paul is neat. This is a test. Why is there only one comment on this story?"

      And I got a message that said "there was an error."

      I tried four times.

      Well said, Blapierre: ABC has some balls. They're really screwing themselves on this one, but they've got guts. I'll give them that. How are they gonna get out of this without some kind of an official explanation?

      At least they could claim that it went burzurko from TOO MUCH ACTIVITY!! That would work for me.

      -Chad
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2heck ya! Keep up the fight! Big media. ABC just proved that dont have what it takes on the national news level.
    • Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@langford - "Some of the folk here must realize that threatening to shut down a site by spamming it unless you get your way, is a mild form of terrorism? Yeah, nobody dies, and those that loose money are large faceless corporations, but it's still a threat of loss if you don't get your way." Nobody said anything about shutting anything down. ABC isn't going to lose any money from off topic posts. If you seriously think that off topic posts are any kind of terrorism then you are the worst kind of fool. ABC has access to the PUBLIC airwaves. Those are a PRIVILEGE, not a right. One that is TIED EXPLICITLY to a concept of public service that includes ACCURATELY INFORMING THE PUBLIC.
  • Chetan7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+68boycott ABC!!!
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53untill we get some answers i agree

      yahoo is working on updating their stuff let ABC do the same

      ABC
      ABC News Headquarters
      Address 147 Columbus Ave New York, NY 10023
      Tel 212-456-1000 (DC Bureau 202-222-7777)
      Fax 212-456-5962
      Letters comments@abcnews.go.com
      ABC News Washington Bureau
      Address 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington DC 20036
      Tel 202-222-7300
      Fax 202-222-7684
      DC Bureau Chief Robin Sproul robin.sproul@abc.com 202-222-7200
      World News Tonight with Peter Jennings
      Tel 212-456-4040
      Fax 212-456-2795
      Letters netaudr@abc.com
      Anchor Peter Jennings peter.jennings@abc.com 212-456-4025
      Executive Producer Paul Friedman paul.friedman@abc.com

      Nightline
      Address 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington DC 20036
      Tel 202-222-7000
      Fax 202-222-7976
      Letters niteline@abc.com
      Anchor Ted Koppel ted.koppel@abc.com 202-222-7364
      Executive Producer Tom Bettag tom.bettag@abc.com

      20/20
      Address 147 Columbus Ave, New York NY 10023
      Tel 212-456-2020
      Fax 212-456-0533/1470
      Letters 2020@abc.com
      Anchors Barbara Walters barbara.walters@abc.com
      212-456-7050 , Sam Donaldson sam.donaldson@abc.com ,

      Good Morning America
      Address 147 Columbus Ave, New York NY 10023
      Tel 212-456-5900
      Fax 212-456-7257/7290
      Letters netaudr@abc.com
      Anchors Charles Gibson charles.gibson@abc.com ,
      Diane Sawyer diane.sawyer@abc.com
    • NOgiuliani, on 10/12/2007, -5/+70ABC is not trying to update anything. They need to be boycotted, send them letters, call them let them know Censorship is not for America, If they want to sensor news, there is room for them to move to China.
    • bracersofint, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46viva la digg revolution!
    • dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Peter Jennings?

      O_o
    • Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -40/+5I find it hillarious that the supporters for a libertarian candidate are crying out about censorship...in the dark future you guys want, companies are utterly free to do whatever they want. As Ron Paul supporters you're just a minority splintergroup in a world monopolized by bigger entities. Don't you see the irony here? This is practically a parable.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@witchboy

      In a free society we are free to not listen to corporations and we are even free to set up our own competing corporations and to debate issues. Corporations do not have the power to forcibly censor individuals. There is only one type of organization that can become strong enough to force it's will on individuals. Unfortunately these types of organizations have frequently had lots of power in human history and many many people have died at the hands of those organizations who have a monopoly on the use of force. Those types of organizations are called governments. Thankfully our country has not yet come to the point that other countries did (USSR, Cambodia, Germany) and we still have the ability to fight back.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@Witch
      Oh yeah, I see the irony in the fact that are libertarians upset about censorship. After all, as we all know, libertarians are the top supporters of censorship.
      /sarcasm

      @bla
      They can censor individuals on their own site, of course, but nowhere else. It will be great if the US ever becomes a real free market, without a medling government.
    • AgentAce, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@GanjaDude

      Thanks for the information, but Peter Jennings died almost 2 years ago.
    • aboyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ tech42er

      "They can censor individuals on their own site, of course, but nowhere else."

      Yeah, but then it's not censorship, it's whitewashing. Although there are various definitions of censorship, I think the most accurate is "forcibly preventing speech in any form." A business cannot usually do that, unless they get a court order or something. However, governments CAN do that, and do it all the time (see China). So blapierre was technically correct.

      Of course, we're being nitpicky about a word. The idea is conveyed whether censorship is the correct word to use or not. The end result is that a corporation is attempting to portray their journalism as beyond reproach, when it apparently is rather flawed. Their ethics as journalists is on the line.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4aboyd:

      >Of course, we're being nitpicky about a word. The idea is conveyed whether censorship is the correct word to use or not. The end result is that a corporation is attempting to portray their journalism as beyond reproach, when it apparently is rather flawed.

      It's not flawed at all, you guys stacked them like you stacked Digg and ruined it. So do you believe that ABC should have "freedom" or not?

      'Cause you guys can't seem to make up your mind. Like the above poster said, this is practically a parable.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You keep saying the same thing. How about responding to people that respond to you? ok? We believe that have the freedom to do what they want. We have freedom to do what we want. There is no inconsistency here. 1) How is this inconsistent? 2) In your worldview, how is "fairness" resolved? By petitioning the government to declare things fair?
  • JWav3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36There were 360 today.. including these that I coppied.


    Stop deleting my posts you censoring cowards. I am calling these numbers... everyone should do the same ABC ABC News Headquarters Address 147 Columbus Ave New York, NY 10023 Tel 212-456-1000 (DC Bureau 202-222-7777) Fax 212-456-5962 Letters comments@abcnews.go.com ABC News Washington Bureau Address 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington DC 20036 Tel 202-222-7300 Fax 202-222-7684 DC Bureau Chief Robin Sproul robin.sproul@abc.com 202-222-7200 World News Tonight with Peter Jennings Tel 212-456-4040 Fax 212-456-2795 Letters netaudr@abc.com Anchor Peter Jennings peter.jennings@abc.com 212-456-4025 Executive Producer Paul Friedman paul.friedman@abc.com
    Posted by:
    sensmiiia 1:06 PM

    This video message has got censored 9 times straight people. ABC is freaked out. Please copy the link immediately and spread it around. It is a MSM style massive public consumption video of Ron Paul that will grab attention, yet it does not sacrifice any substance of Ron Paul's message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgjI_WROg6w Message to the ABC staff who are delting my post over and over again? What are you scared of? Truth? Also, dozens of other messages are disappearing as I write this message.
    Posted by:
    think_vote_win 1:06 PM

    ABC deleted my comment about ABC shareholders Chase Manhattan Bank and their ties with WWII Nazi/Trading with the Enemy crimes committed by American Corporate war profiteers with regards to ABC's disingenuity regarding their patently false and wholly insulting reporting of Ron Paul's supporter(s). The idea that there is only one of us who keeps voting in these post-debate polls just demonstrates the mainstream media's censorship is a product of corrupt corporate fascism to keep the American people from discovering just how dirty and evil they really are. This Democrat fully intends to re-register to vote as a Republican so that I can cast my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Take THAT, ABC corporate shills.
    Posted by:
    ednasilem 1:13 PM
  • strOphe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47The upsetting thing is that many of the comments were legitimate criticisms of the article or insightful questions into the discussions of Ron Paul's policy and campaigning.

    I can understand them deleting posts tying them to the Nazi party (what does that have to do with the article?) but deleting genuine discussion is frankly censorship of their website. If they are going to delete people raising their voices about the article, they shouldn't call themselves a news site. Period.

    I posted two different comments on there, neither of them bashing ABC but simply raising questions about the article and all of those have been removed with this whitewashing. ABC is disgraceful.
  • chryslerny, on 10/12/2007, -8/+66WTF are they thinking? This only makes us stronger!
  • Racerx52, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50More censorship battles, onward toward the good fight!
  • grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -32/+45Maybe ABC News is as bored and annoyed by all the Ron Paul spam as we are on Digg.

    I agree that censorship is bad, but you guys are so relentless with these stories, that it's becoming a joke.

    I think fewer and higher quality posts on Ron Paul might be of better service to his campaign.

    This is solely my opinion.
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -38/+10@grendel,

      100% with you, censorship sucks, but spam is just censorship by flooding.

      please stop with the ronpaul spam.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40I respect your opinion. And, respectfully, I disagree.

      Thank you for being civil, though, unlike others who have been immature and demeaning.
    • afeitarse, on 10/12/2007, -24/+7Agreed. Deleting comments that spam a site, whether that site is a media site or not, is not 'censorship'. ABC news is not Digg and it has the right to moderate its forums for spam. I doubt that ABC is deleting the comments because of the viewpoints they have (since they deleted ALL of the comments, not just the ones supporting Ron Paul), they're just trying to prevent overactive spammers from flooding their site with garbage.

      If you guys are out to build support for Ron Paul, acting like people who peddle Viagra and scams involving Nigerian princes is not the way to do it. Come on.
    • Traedortious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22To some degree, Digg should be relentless. The behavior by ABC is ridiculous. If this censorship happens on their website, what happens in their news? I agree, they have the right to censor their website, but they are a news company. A news company should be unbiased. If a candidate has alot of support, they shouldn't be working to hide that. What is really going to hold back Digg's efforts in ending this behavior is the behavior of some of the posters. Please post respectable statements/arguments. I see alot of ridiculous posts on ABC. We could push an argument if it was well articulated. Quit with the mickey mouse crap.
    • mavere, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Yup.

      However much I would have liked Ron Paul, my perception of him will forever be tarnished by my mental association of him with this relentless, rabid Ron Paul love.

      A few classy, dignified nudges toward his direction would have worked better and would have prevented the automatic revulsion created from witnessing such fanaticism.

      Of course, this concerns me and no one else, but I doubt my thought process is unique.
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22As I said in another thread, this is NOT about Ron Paul. This is about the big media hijacking our democratic process!

      How is it that we've allowed the media to dictate to the people who can and can't be president? Who are they to tell us who can and can't win? Who are they to leave out a 10 term congressman from their polls and delete comments by the supporters?

      We can't let our process continue to be hijacked by the media. We can't let it stand. They are supposed to REPORT the news, not shape the news.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3iTorrey:

      >How is it that we've allowed the media to dictate

      So Libertarians throw out their idea that people and corporations have the freedom to do whatever they want when it's them on the losing end.

      What a bunch of whiners.
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm not suggesting legislation to fix this now am I? As a libertarian I'm suggesting that we, the consumers guide the 'free market' and do something about this.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If comments are relentless about something, it is probably because it is a widely shared opinion. Then I think that's the moment to *not* start censoring for that reason. Censorship to enforce readers to write about other things? wtf
  • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52Asking the mainstream media not to push an elitist agenda is like asking a garbageman not to move garbage.

    It's what they do......... It's all they do.
  • Sundownvf111, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8here we go again....
  • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48LOL.

    Digg community no longer busy with "the code."

    ABC - You're in deep *****.

    News at 11.

    (btw, I'm a Ron Paul supporter... I'm just laughing at how completely ***** crazy this might get.)
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Look at the corporate boys scrambling to do damage control on their ***** up coverage.
  • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Here's the REAL ABC Number for the comments page:
    212-456-2700

    Raise hell and nothing less!
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5This number DOES NOT WORK it gets you hung up on not even a transfer
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Keep calling; They're filtering.
    • metrodextrous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I called the number just now and got a person. She suggested I post my complaint on ABC.com and I told her I couldn't because they'd blocked my account from posting comments because I posted a comment saying I support Ron Paul. I told her "we're not going to stand for it" and hung up.
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@metrodextrous

      Marvelous! :D
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14dont get me wrong ive called each number that i posted at the top of this thread and i got through to a few people, some of them were annoyed a few were nice and 1 even told me he was very upset with his boss because now he has to deal with this

      its a start but do not let up!
    • mmpd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I called and got transferred a few times, but as I gathered from various people it apparently "must be a bug". But however one did say he had heard about it from other people and was passing it on to the morning editor. A start?
  • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8Many of the phone numbers posted on Digg for MSNBC contacts are wrong and no longer work. I managed to get a hold of a dumb blonde who spilled the beans to me. Here is the real person you want to contact: Gina Stykes 212-664-4444 who's directly in charge of what goes up on the website and what doesn't. Her office handles all media with the website.
    ^
    http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/MSNBC_Spills_the_Contact_Beans_Call_for_Ron_Paul
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Digging you down for continuing to be an ass. Supporters of Ron Paul don't need you insulting people each time you make a comment. You seem to be passionate and helpful, but stop adding in useless *****.
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2'My assness' is what got me 3 Ron Paul articles to popular ;) THanks!
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4No, your "helpfulness and passion" is what did that. Your "assness" isn't helping. I'm not sure why you can't see that. Your posts are getting postive diggs so people can get behind it, not negative diggs so people can get others to come in and disagree with your "assness." That's why the "assness" isn't helping. It's distracting. (I'm writing, you're responding... see it?)
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2@WilliamDavis

      lol. Funny stuff. "helpfulness and passion" "assness": whatever it may be, I'm sticking with it. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am the Ass Man. :D
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Sure, Kramer. :)
  • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22for the last time THIS IS NOT MSNBC this is ABC!!!

    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16All the same. Mainstream media = mainstream media. Can you honestly tell me a primary difference between ABC and MSNBC besides who owns them? It's the same biased corporate ***** machine. I could cares less if the names are different. Same ***** to me.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22msnbc is just as bad

      Ron Paul wins MSNBC's own poll, yet they dont even have a profile page for him and then they declare Romney the Conservative winner on their internet site where all their internet readers just voted Dr. Paul the most positive...

      http://www.stateofbrain.com/images/rpmsnbc1.gif
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2yes i understand that but my point is make posts that have some relivence to the article not whatever you feel like spewing being that we saw it already in every other article that you keep posting in

      dont get me wrong support is awesome and all but you are the annoying guy, stop being so annoying and people will take you seriously
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Being taken seriously is not my objective. My objective is to raise hell. How can you raise hell seriously? ;)
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6raising hell makes us all look bad thats the problem have real talking points and educated answers for them will get us alot further than just raising hell
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@ganjadude4391

      How 'bout you stick with "real talking points and educated answers for them" and I'll just raise hell? It's what I do best anyway. ;)
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Lowry:

      >Ron Paul wins MSNBC's own poll

      Actually Ron Paul won nothing -- only stacked online polls, just like you guys stack Digg. He was the winner of nothing.
  • VinBea, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4So what's the big deal? I mean, we all know the 'establishment' dictates successfully so, what the 'truth' is - whether the truth of what it is they say has anything to do with what's the 'truth' anyway; right?

    So who's worse, or conveys the most in the way of deception, the 'establishment' who censures the Ron Pauls of our day, or the Ron Pauls of our day who'll run as something they clearly are not - Conservative Constitutional Republicans? Wasn't George W. Bush projected onto the American people as being a Conservative Constitutional Republican; and we all know where that got us - total and complete confusion as a nation.

    Rather than masquerading around as something he's clearly not, Ron Paul would be better served (and the American people) to denounce the Republican Party as a hoax, along with the Faux Neus Channel, right up there with the whole bogus Contract with America of the Newt Gingrich variety thing, and throw his full weight and support behind the Constitution Party.
    • VinBea, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1'below viewing threshold' what the heck does that mean? Censorship going on right here insofar as I can tell...

      Just a bunch of emotion driven bs
    • Nefelia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've been reading Ron Paul's opinion pieces at LewRockwell.com for the last several years. I agree with you that the Republican Party is 99% corrupt cronyism, but Ron Paul is a genuine article.

      But don't take my word for it. Go to LewRockwell.com and dig up some of Ron Paul's previous pieces.
  • eksai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30why are you guys contacting ABC? Contact OTHER news stations, don't you think some of the other news stations would LOVE to discredit ABC news as biased? FOX, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN etc. Hell even contact newspapers.

    Because it'll do two things: 1) Get those reporters to actually see what the guy is for when they research the topic and 2) Get free coverage for Ron Paul.

    And to make it even more helpful, WRITE the actual article on the topic. That way the guys in the newsroom, only have to check your facts, instead of just researching the whole thing
    • Franey97, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I just informed the Toronto Star of the story. And you know what, they might even put something out considering its Canadian coverage.

      I hope they and others do for those of you being censored in the US.

      Heres hoping guys!
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Good job Franey! :D
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Yeah. We go to the media with the story of ABC censoring us. They'd love to make ABC look bad.
    • metrodextrous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Great idea! Let's contact international newspapers, too like the person who contacted the Toronto Star. It can't hurt to have coverage internationally because those papers also post their stories online and are read by Americans. And we know Europeans will want to write about censorship in America.
    • eksai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6International, American, doesn't matter, as many as possible. Not all will run with the story, but some might. + it doesn't take that much effort to send to many
  • motbob, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10This is going to be a long comment about misconceptions.

    It's funny... the mainstream media has been giving minimal coverage to minor candidates for years. Now that they're marginalizing a Ron Paul, who has the support of Digg, some diggers are calling the non coverage "censorship." Many say that the media is not supporting Ron Paul because "they don't want him to win." Why? What has driven the Digg community to hold such an extreme, cynical view of the main stream media?

    I believe that the hostility towards the media sprang most from the whole ABC online poll fiasco. To refresh your memory, ABC left Ron Paul off of their post-debate poll that asked who has won the debate that had occurred that night. Then, when diggers posted comments calling ABC out on leaving Ron Paul out of the poll, (when Paul had, indeed, debated well,) those comments were deleted. Many diggers took this to mean that the powers that be at ABC were actively hostile towards Ron Paul. It was a clear-cut case of censorship.

    Or was it? The truth is that there was a very good reason for the censorship of those Ron Paul comments. If you are a webmaster, and you see a comment like,

    "HEY ABC WHY ARE YOU LEAVING RON PAUL OUT OF THE POLL YOU TRUTH HATERS"

    or something like that, your first instinct is to delete that comment. Soon the message spread to digg that pro-Ron Paul comments were being deleted. There were now dozens of comments like

    "HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC! HEIL ABC!" etc. etc.

    all over the comments page. Of course, this led to mass deleting of this kind of spam.

    So, to conclude, ABC is not out to get Ron Paul. The MSM is not undemocratic for not covering a candidate with unpopular views and no chance of winning. "But wait!" you say, "Ron Paul has no chance of winning because the MSM won't give him coverage!" You who say that are wrong, and I'll tell you why.

    Ron Paul's objectives are tantamount to a revolution in the way government is run. Anyone who wants to change the system that drastically is not going to win the election, period. A quarter of the nation, which benefits greatly from the welfare state of today, would lose much of their livelihood if Dr. Paul were elected. The only way to get a leader elected who will abolish the IRS is through armed revolution. Of course, that is the worst solution possible.

    So, I hope that, in my post, I at least made you question whether ABC is totally at fault, whether the MSM truly takes away the chances of a little-known candidate to become popular, and whether Dr. Paul could indeed win this election even with full coverage from the MSM.

    Thank you for reading.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I specifically remember reading all comments up to about the third page (on which my comment was originally posted, before the mass deletion), and there were absolutely no "spam-like" comments. None. The majority that I had read were legitimate. They did not contradict the terms of use provided by ABC.

      Perhaps after a point, comments appeared as you described them.

      Besides, this is not exclusive to Digg. I know and have been to other groups on the internet that are reporting the same thing.

      Ron Paul's views are NOT revolutionary! Maybe they were back in 1776, but unfortunately, the current status-quo were revolutionary ideas ten years ago (read about neo-conservatism)! The public is being forced to accept views and view them as normalcy as a result of the corrupt administration in power now.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12http://www.stateofbrain.com/ronpaul.php

      Either these three news corporations are all incompetent or something fraudulent really is going on. Either way it is completely inexcusable.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23""HEY ABC WHY ARE YOU LEAVING RON PAUL OUT OF THE POLL YOU TRUTH HATERS"

      or something like that, your first instinct is to delete that comment."

      Actually, my first instinct would be to see if I left Ron Paul out of the poll, and then fix it.

      No, they aren't out to get him. They're actually out to get us.

      Yes, candidates have been marginalized forever. Candidates have been propped up forever. People never had the ability to communicate like we do now. Instead, we were victims of communication instead of participants.

      Things are changing... and the establishment isn't prepared for the change. They'll deal with it in time, but they aren't really sure how to do it right now.
    • motbob, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Ron Paul's views have been revolutionary since the New Deal, and especially since the Great Society. Drastically reducing the amount of revenue that the government takes in will inevitably lead to drastic cuts in, or the elimination of, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, Welfare, and perhaps even Social Security. Veteran's benefits and education would also suffer.

      Do you see why Paul's chance of being elected is slim-to-none? Almost every person I know has a crucial service provided to them by the government and would vote against Dr. Paul in every circumstance.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Motbob, when I see "Medicare/Medicaid/unemployment benefits/Welfare/Social Security" do you know what I think? I think of the "ragbag" of benefits that Milton Friedman describes. In lieu of the "ragbag", how about we just write a check? Basically, a negative income tax. That way, poor people can buy what they need rather than what they are given. In the process you remove the huge bureaucracy of handling and planning across government organizations. The only possible argument I ever get to this from collectivists is "But they'll spend it on drugs." Which is a fine answer. It's just an honest indication of how you view the capacity of mankind and how the "civilly free" Left is no different than the "finanically free" Right. They both seek to protect man from himself because he doesn't know any better.

      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Motbob, when I see "Medicare/Medicaid/unemployment benefits/Welfare/Social Security" do you know what I think? I think of the "ragbag" of benefits that Milton Friedman describes. In lieu of the "ragbag", how about we just write a check? Basically, a negative income tax. That way, poor people can buy what they need rather than what they are given. In the process you remove the huge bureaucracy of handling and planning across government organizations. The only possible argument I ever get to this from collectivists is "But they'll spend it on drugs." Which is a fine answer. It's just an honest indication of how you view the capacity of mankind and how the "civilly free" Left is no different than the "finanically free" Right. They both seek to protect man from himself because he doesn't know any better.

    • grazie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30"Ron Paul's objectives are tantamount to a revolution in the way government is run. Anyone who wants to change the system that drastically is not going to win the election, period."

      That is one of the most undemocratic things I've ever heard in my life.

      Who are the media to decide who has a chance of winning or not? Who are the media to decide who's views are credible or worthwhile?

      I live in Australia. I'm disgusted with the way the media dictates our elections. But I'm even more disgusted with the fact that the US system has candidates who are deliberately marginalised and sometimes left out entirely at the discretion of the mainstream media. That is undemocratic and should be stopped. You guys have debates that are held by mainstream media who run advertisements on them and seek to stop the free and widespread dissemination of them to the public under creative commons licenses. Wake the ***** up!!! Democracy is an agent of the people. All efforts should be made to ensure all candidates receive equal media time and that anything that contributes to informing the public and creating a stronger democracy should be freely available for everyone to view, download, cut up, analyse etc etc as they see fit. Democracy is for the people, not to line the coffers of media conglomerates. If they want to make money they can stick to stories on Anna Nicole smith and Britney Spears.

      I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. But how DARE the ABC seek to silence his voice and minimise his ability to reach the public. As American citizens you should be close to revolting at the sheer audacity and blatant arrogance of the ABC in its attempts to subvert democracy.

      The spam is another issue. They obviously had valid reasons for removing most of that.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Interesting points. FYI: I am libertarian and so naturally I enjoy any time Ron Paul gets exposure, but not at the expense of annoying people and essentially gaming sites like digg. Here is my thoughts on just the issue of digg articles. I see plenty of articles that I don't care for so if what I demanded that they should be taken down because I didn't like them? In the end, there wouldn't be any articles because very few articles would be appreciated by everyone. I think the democratic voting is sensible and if that means having some articles show up that I absolutely despise, then so be it.

      Spam is a different issue. Legitimate spam, unless it provides information unavailable elsewhere, makes sense to block. However, again it is up to the democratic process to bury these articles. So, if an article makes it to the 500 - 1000 digg range then I see no reason cry foul. The process is democratic, so unless there is some kind of manipulation occuring, it seems like it was the will of the people that the article made it to the front page. The majority of the people wanted it and so there you go. I don't like it and I might think some mean thoughts about the intelligence of the diggers raising up some blogspam crap, but the majority is the majority. I myself find the frequency of Ron Paul articles to be overwhelming lately. Particularly when new ones have little new information. This isn't always the case, but lately 1/3 articles had no new news at all. Still, if more people like it than don't, then so be it.

      One last point about the comment spam on ABC. I believe most of it was retaliatory. From what I've seen(and I admit it is just my own limited viewpoint), there was censorship before the flood of comments began. Not lack of coverage mind you, but outright censorship. This is, I believe, what sparked all the comments. ABC is most definitely to blame for this. Then, only a minor portion of the retaliatory censored comments deserved to be(IE: they were abusive). ABC took measures to block legitimate comments from well intentioned posters that had very valid and politely written points.
    • kluikart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Many of us supported and hoped that Ron Paul would run for President long before we even knew that Digg existed. This is not just a Digg thing.
  • LolaC2006, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4These huge institutions which distribute propaganda are worthless now to everyone but the politicians, and the mindless sheep who need them to think for them. NBC, ABC, Jon Stewart, etc.. Fuçk em.
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12i dugg you down for throwing stewart in there

      but ***** the rest
  • Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -30/+10Honestly guys, can't Libertarians do anything without making a jackass out of themselves? The story is accurate and you know it, doing EXACTLY what the story accuses you of to spam their comments is making their point for them.

    Recent History of Libertarian *****:
    1) You don't have to pay income tax!
    2) You can make your own legal currency!
    3) The blogger from the future that said the US would devovle to civil war in 2005 with WW3 by 2006.
    4) The LibertyPost's gushing ***** about an 11 year old girl and Trap Shoot Champ killing undocumented immigrants.
    5) Jacking with polls and then getting uppity when ABC calls you on it.
    • heynow21, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8Ron Paul isn't a libertarian, he is a conservative Christian pretending to be a libertarian hiring Internet spammers to game web sites. I am going to Email all of these sites I am supposed to be emailing in support of Ron Paul and letting them know this is a big scam and I would invite everybody else who is sick of this clown to do the same.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Yep. I was hired by the Ron Paul campaign. Got me.

      Now I'll be out of a job. Shame on you for exposing the truth about me!
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5heynow, i've been emailing those news organizations telling them what the ron paul fanatics have turned digg into, and telling them i support their decisions to fight spam, and i've even got a few responses!!!

      i would have never done this if the ron paul camp hadn't been so annoying.
    • blitzman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"2) You can make your own legal currency!"

      Actually, you can, and people use private currency all the time. Some examples:

      1) checks
      2) money orders
      3) bearer bonds
      4) credit cards
      5) coupons
      6) store credit receipts
      7) tokens
      8) debit cards
      9) traveller's checks
      10) cashier's checks
      11) IOU's

      What a check is not is "legal tender", but it certainly is private money, and is quite legal to write, print, and pass. I'd even venture to say our economy and banking system would collapse overnight if private money was outlawed.
    • kluikart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Detritus
      So smart guy, when was the Federal Reserve Established and why? Do you really know the history of this private entity and what it's policies are doing to this country? Do you know what USC Title 26 is? Also, I am suspicious that you are a paid propagandist because you are using "grouping" tactics in your post. It's a common method used to discredit by claimed association.
  • Bluntman4000, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0edited and delted
  • dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6ABC News revolt next? What has Digg started???
  • osfn8, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5I don't see what is so wrong with this story to make people complain in the first place. Ron Paul's only support is at Digg and part of the blogosphere, not anywhere else and that is exactly what ABC said in the article. You can't deny scientific polls and say that he has more than about 1% support. I bet he only has the support of at most 10% of Digg users.

    Any letter writing to ABC will only make Diggers look like annoying assholes that bother anybody that may offend us. Just stop over-reacting to everything.
    • eksai, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9its the cycle of politics: you have no air time = you have little recognition. You have no recognition? you get no airtime
    • bardamuclichy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You are speculating here. I don't think it's unusual for anyone(who is voting republican) that has heard of Ron Paul and to know his stances on things to think very favorably of him. He was a topic of discussion with my neighbors who are very conservative. That's all I have to say.
    • simmonsdd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6and an unknown governor of vermont started *where* last election cycle?
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14You know what? Ron Paul is fairly popular, particularly on the web. And if ABC purports to do a poll of all the possible presidential candidates, they should probably include him, considering he was at the Republican debate. They're free to not, but then well raise a fuss. They're free to censor us (being a private entity and all) but we're free to shout about that censorship. That's how a free society works.
    • healthydose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13 To Osfn8: Until 3 weeks ago I didn't even know that Ron Paul even existed. You know what I did first? I went to Google and typed ron paul haters, critics, misconceptions, idiocy, lies, stupidity. I read everything about him I could find. Googled his congressional record and local district 14 newspapers. I was quite surprised at the dearth of meaty material against him. Then I started to read his congressional record speeches. It was then that it hit me. I know now WHY I have never heard about him. He is a true Patriot, votes YES only on what the Constitution permits Congress to do and NO for those things which it does not permit. So obviously I like him. And you know what OSFN8, you are SOOOOOOOOOO totally WRONG that people won't like him. I've been talking to people when I stand in line at the grocery store, Wal-Mart, pump gas, my neighbors and coworkers and you know what OSFN8 everybody I talk to and explain about Ron Paul like him to. So you see IF Ron Paul could get some real coverage the vast majority of Americans would like his message too. But, most likely that won't happen so that is why we have to do it here. By the way that's how I found Digg!
  • Nismobeach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16***** ABC and the rest of the establishment. This just proves that our political system is as real as WWE wrestling.
  • bacchus101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Here is a screen shot after all the posts have been deleted except the latest one at 6:59 PM ET.

    http://yousurp.com/images/censor.png

    I could care less if Ron Paul goes anywhere in the Primaries. My concern is that ABC thinks that they can brush this under the rug and no one will be the wiser...
  • shreky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Ron Paul for President!
  • Kelgann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The Yahoo! Answers question got deleted, by the way: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq37nEXBydmSpeh9rQhtl4XS7BR.?qid=20070508101117AAgfaoy
  • luther70, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I cant believe they would do this to Mr Pickles supporters. I'm going to call them and tell them my thanks.
  • lhnz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15This is great and I wholly support it, however if you really wish to elect Ron Paul as president in 2008 you will need to make your efforts much more visible.
    Posting on the internet will not get you anywhere as you need control of the airwaves. You need to phone local radio stations, and put ads in the paper, posters up etc....

    You need to push this right into the public eye, as otherwise the majority of people will just vote for whoever is shoved down their throat by ABC etc...
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe fire up skype and start calling into some radio talkshows?
  • chicofaraby, on 10/12/2007, -34/+4Maybe Ron Paul just isn't very popular because he's a freaking nut case?

    • bluesage999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Its not about Ron Paul being popular or not you ***** moron. It's about ABC blatantly censoring him.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Oh that's right, it's about deleting posts from his nut case fanboyz.

      My bad.
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2chico, exactly.

      ABC isn't censoring, they're taking a stand against spam.
    • healthydose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8 To chicofaraby: If you read my post above you'll see that I invested quite a bit of time investigating who Ron Paul was. I'd come home and spend a couple of hours reading up about him from his critics. I would really like to know what is it about him that disgusts you so. I found much to like and nothing to hate. Please do respond, or any other Diggers that take issue with Ron Paul; please be substantive. And about all the Ron Paul supporters, I haven't been interested in voting since Regeans first term. Since then to now it's been a desert, but there is hope, and that's why I'm involved again.
  • bluesage999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14ABC shows their blatant censorship
  • viviwanu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I tried again to leave a comment but wasn't allowed to do so. I think ABC intentionally blocked me for my last negative comment. So I'll just leave it here.
    ABC, how dare you to assume that the support for Ron Paul on the Internet was fake! Did you think all the comments that made your head spin fake too? Were you so scared by the power of the people who can actually think for themselves that you had to pull their comments? Shame on you and your FAKE news!
  • JohnnyWrath, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3george stephanopoulos, the author, is a former Bill Clinton communications director....
  • AAjax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12So what I get from this is....

    If your a corporate supported candidate, online polls correctly reflect the opinion of America. If your not backed by the corporate media, they say...hey its viral marketing (the corporations would never do that) and the poll docent reflect anything.

    They just choose to show you the side of the coin that suits their agenda.

    my 2c's
  • HamsterOfDeath, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Comments on a website represent the lowest effort, least effective possible means of political activism and Ron Paul supporters would be much better served worrying about something that is actually important.
    • ManFading, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@hamsterofdeath

      You mean like your freedom?
  • luther70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Wouldn't Ron Paul support ABC right censor considering they are a private company?
    • HamsterOfDeath, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Of course. Not to mention that using a website like Digg to flood the comments section of an external article totally subverts the purpose of their comments section to begin with. It's no surprise that they put a lid on it.
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's true; they are owned by Walt Disney but they are being ostensible in their news. They claim they are unbiased and objective. But they're obviously not. If they came right out and said they are Walt Disney's ABC News, then I'd have no problem - Because no one would give a ***** what Walt Disney thinks. But the problem is that Walt Disney is being ostensible and acting under color of law. They are private yet they make their viewers think they are public. That's a big no no in my book. and in my book, the consequences are to raise hell and nothing less!
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There is a difference between a legal right, and a moral obligation. What they are doing is not illegal. Nonetheless it is wrong.

      Behavior like this does not need to be regulated legislatively. It can be regulated exactly the way we are doing it right now; embarrass the hell out of them.
  • Ncrypt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8ABC board just got wiped clean. Post there again.
  • kevin1987, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Anyone else not able to post? I haven't been able to all afternoon, just get "There was a problem with this page. Please try again." over and over...
    • metrodextrous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4that's the message you get when they've blocked your username from posting. you have to register under a different name to post again.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5that's cause you are banned like my email address
  • fearcomplicatio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I just donated to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, not because I think he can win, but because this election gives him an outlet to explain to the American people the ideas of freedom and liberty. Of course I want him to win, but donating to keep him in the debates, keep him in the media, and keep his message in the public eye is worth every penny.
  • sayitaintjonas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Looks like they have disabled all comments on all of their stories...
  • hackiavelli, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3I'm guessing the usual Ron Paul sycophants made jackasses out of themselves and ABC just blanket deleted all the comments rather than waste time sorting through the mess.

    As someone who's voted libertarian before I find all the Ron Paul spamming hugely distasteful.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15With all due respect, you're wrong. I actually saw the comments last night, and they were completely acceptable, if a bit critical of ABC's biased article.
    • healthydose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 Okay, but, it's the only way we can be heard. The people I talk to don't know who Ron Paul is but, after I explain him to them they leave liking him and somewhat upset that the media won't run him. Ron Paul supporters don't just Digg, get out and talk to the unreached masses, It's the only way it'll happen.
  • Nismobeach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Those ***** deleted all of the posts again! I'm shocked at how stupid they are!
  • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4just comment on this one:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?type=story&id=3152277

    There's a ***** of Ron Paul comments. haha.
  • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3This thread is hugely entertaining. It's not as if Ron Paul will be elected as President after all.

    He has two chances - one is none and the other ***** all.
    • lhnz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Lysdexia (#6586574)
      Do not say that. Even if you don't get him elected you will change the future. Grassroots activism leads on to greater things.
  • sabotage10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Keep up the work. Let them have it!! ASK THEM TO REMOVE THAT PICTURE OF Ron Paul!
  • Jammer, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2When are you Ron Paul ***** going to realize that your boy barely registers on reputable, national polls? Get a clue, people.
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I got the clue: you're impotent.
    • healthydose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 That's ONLY because the people don't know who he is. When I talk to people they leave liking him!!! THAT is why the media WON'T run him
  • kevin1987, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wow, looks like they banned me. I've made like 3 comments over the last 24 hours and I was unable to post anything from my old account (I couldn't even see the responses) but I made a new one and it works perfect. ABC, you rock!
  • ThomasPaine23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Here's a couple of nice pictures regarding ABC, Yahoo and Paul:

    http://msmsmackdown.blogspot.com/
  • jbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6ABC does not care about Internet people

  • stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This calls for tactics identical to the HD-DVD hex campaign.

    Fill their articles, ALL OF THEM, with comments that, while hopefully related to the news story, MENTION RON PAUL.

    Force them to go all the way with this censorship campaign. Force them to expose themselves as elitist pigs.

    It's what Gandhi would do.

    But like hamsterofdeath says, comments on a website are nothing. There are bigger and better things we can be busy doing right now.
  • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6So should we stop because they tell us to? I say hell no. We need to make it known that their little games are exactly that: little games. All we want is fairness; if they can't oblige, screw them. I'll fair the ***** out of them. Who wants to join my Ron Paul Black Panther club? haha :D
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.