(Never approved, as you can see. Have the screen shot .. ;)
The comment:
It is easy to understand that The New York Times Corporation is naturally
shaken by the People's Press aka blogsphere and wants to get back to the days
when only monied interests could afford the capital intensive infrastructure to
PRINT and DISTRIBUTE. Those days, thank God, are over! Now anyone can
print and distribute their views, and that was (NDAA, folks) Protected
Speech.
Doesn't nytimes have a pay for content model? Does the New York Times
Corporation have to push for SOPA to protect their intellectual property?
This issue is first and foremost political. The New York Times Corporation,
the Murdoch gang, et. al., are insisting on being the only providers of news,
and not being able to compete for the hearts and minds of freedom loving
Americans, naturally they are supporting draconian laws designed to shut the
mouth of the independent analysts and thinkers.Actually, the current state of media is a big reason for my interest in Hubski. Open discussion of news ideas and events is the basis of a civil society. Without it, power is abused and people suffer. The openness takes precedent over the content. If that is pushed to a place that makes us feel uncomfortable, then we are probably doing the right thing. Speaking personally, I don't want to ban anything. I don't want to decide what is valuable, and what is not, what is offensive, and what is not. I am not interested in that. I value Hubski as a tool, and that's where I want to give it attention. At this point, I've used moderation twice. The first time was when /r/beatingwomen started cross posting here. I emailed the poster, and told him that I wasn't keen on hosting that type of content. He was friendly, I removed the bans, and all is good. The second ban was on some sort of hotel advertisement spammer. It was high frequency, and was messing up the all posts page. TBH, eventually I'd like content discovery on Hubski to move away from the all posts page, but we aren't ready for that yet. If and when we do get to the point where there is no common feed, then I can be even more relaxed about content. If /r/beatingwomen wants an account and no one can see it unless they choose to, it's less of an issue. I don't want to judge content. I'm going to do my best to solve contentious content issues by allowing offended people to avoid it, not by policing it. For a for-profit company, I think Twitter has done a fair job of letting it work as a platform, and keeping out of the content that is sent over it. If we get to the point that we need money, I want to do even better. A good media platform should get complaints about the content on it. That means you have content that regards issues that matter to people. As an example related to this nyt piece, if someone posts "Why Hubski Sucks", that is ok with me, even if the reasons they give are not true. I can comment just like anyone else. People can make up their own minds. And, if they are right and Hubski does suck, that's my fault.
There are some users that don't follow people, and seem to find content only through 'all posts'. Also, there seem to be a number of people that don't have accounts at all, but visit 'all posts' frequently. I haven't looked too deep into that, however. You are doing it right. :)
But back to the comment (I hope doesn't filter me because my first statement was off point!). I don't understand why NYT insists on moderating to begin with. If they had a referee that deletes abusive or far off topic content then I wouldn't complain. Their model for comments is ridiculous, and doesn't encourage debate at all. Their process and format are both ugly and restrictive, and for that reason, I never read or submit comments on their content (personal boycott, I suppose). To answer your question plainly, I wouldn't approve or disapprove anything, because I wouldn't exist. There's an irony that seems to be lost on them that they have a blog that covers free speech that then filters comments.