Ten seconds after I wrote a comment to this Guardian story, “Trump self-deals, lies and seems to fall asleep in meetings. The media treats it all as ‘priced in’”, it was gone. Oh well. My comment was no great loss to the world (I forget the exact words, but it was something about how the New York Times and the Guardian didn’t report it when Biden fell asleep in meetings either) and, of course, a newspaper has every right to delete whatever it wants from its comment section.
But the sheer speed of its deletion made it obvious that it was done by A.I. That happens a lot these days, and not just at the Guardian. Some people on Twitter write “unalive” when they mean “kill” to avoid having their post automatically censored. Cens*red. Cenrosed. There are so many other instances of workarounds to avoid the robot censor that I begin to think we may be evolving something like the avoidance speech that is a feature of languages that originate as far apart as Australia and China.
The current state of Artificial Intelligence is particularly likely to result in pervasive stupid censorship; censorship that does not even serve the objectives of the censors. Four or five years ago the programs caught single words. “Unalive” dates from this period. Sometimes the algorithm caught utterly harmless instances of a given word, for example when a mention of a blue tit – the bird – would be deleted for obscenity. But one could work round it. In five years’ time, or maybe sooner given the speed at which this technology is developing, the A.I. will no longer mistake a blue tit for a tit. We’ll still have the political censorship, of course, and the system will be cleverer than we are when it comes to spotting evasive wordplay. Pray for Elon Musk’s health.
For several years the Guardian automatically deleted any reference to Hunter Biden’s laptop. As I said in this post, for some reason they briefly lifted the prohibition in January 2025:
What’s so surprising about that comment? The fact that it has been up for four hours despite including the words “Hunter Biden’s laptop”. My most recent attempt to mention Hunter Biden’s laptop in a Guardian comment was on 6th November 2024. It was instantly deleted, as was any comment – however polite, however on-point – containing any combination of those three words over the four years since the controversy began. I presume this was automatic. Comments that referred to the Laptop from Hell using circumlocution were also inevitably deleted after a slightly longer time, with the phrase, “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”
MJuma2018’s comment is still up, but when I have tried mentioning the laptop on a few occasions since then out of a maternal concern for the imprisoned brains of Guardian readers, my comments did not get through.
However in my experiments during those four, now five, years it was always comments relating to Hunter Biden that got the chop. My comment of today only referred to “Biden”, as dozens of other comments in the thread also did. For such a general comment to be deleted is a new development. Before you ask, no, they do not delete all my comments. Nor do they delete all my comments that refer unfavourably to Joe Biden. It looks like the AI is just sophisticated enough to recognise a criticism of the Guardian’s own coverage.
“Self deals” implies corruption – and President Trump has LOST money by being President (he had not gained – it has cost him), “seems” to fall asleep at meetings is a nice smear – because the Guardian will say “we never actually said he falls asleep at meeting”. as for “lies” – this is from the Guardian which covered up the mass murder committed by the Stalin regime and many other socialist regimes.
I wish the Guardian would stop lying – but, whilst it exists, it will continue to lie.
The covering up the Hunter Biden laptop evidence, was not just the Guardian and other such – many senior American intelligence and security bosses told the media that the “story” was just “Russian disinformation”.
Think about that – they covered up the financial corruption of Hunter and JOSEPH Biden (real “self dealing” in Guardian language), and they covered sexual abuse and human trafficking, and they covered up the service of the Bidens (both of them) to the People’s Republic of China Dictatorship.
If it was just the Guardian and other openly socialist media organs – it was the American intelligence and security agencies, shown to be rotten-to-the-core.
And no one has been punished – not Hunter Biden, not Joseph Biden, not the lying security and intelligence agency people, no one.
Teh Graun……….The beacon of Truth in Leftie World……….Outside of that just another updated version of Pravda
I feel that no discussion of dumb automated censorship systems is complete without mentioning the fact that problems like deleting mentions of blue tits for obscenity is technically called “the Scunthorpe problem”
I’ll be impressed when it can distinguish Ed Milliband as a complete tit from an ordinary tit (feathered or otherwise).
I think it is interesting. They could acheive their goal by just not allowing comments, but instead what they do is allow comments except ones they don’t like. So they are pretending to have open dialog, pretend to be open to criticism, pretend to protect freedom of speech, while mendatiously undermining all those. Banning comments is at least honest, this is a special kind of dishonesty.
I used to comment on the Graudian website and the debates about the ‘forthcoming’ Brexit Referendum were interesting and informative. But after the Referendum there were suddenly far more comments supporting Remain/Rejoin than others, and some of the comments were scathing and intemperate about those who voted Leave.
I wondered about a policy change that resulted in more of my comments not being published so I renounced my account on the comments section. I now wonder if the change was an early version of automatic gatekeeping.
“Comment is free, but rectified facts are sacred” perhaps?
I think that state sponsored censorship is even more concerning.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/05/22/ofcoms-clampdown-on-free-speech/#more-91636
The climate boondoggle seems at last to be reaching its endgame. Ofcom is looking the other way when parts of the media broadcast blatant lies while at the same time investigating those who tell the truth. There are just mountains of vested interests that need to be protected.
I mean, it’s a bit ironic, though.
I’ve written several posts, re. Covid vaccines, which show that undoubtedly that you’re better off getting the vax than not; I’ve spent many hours checking this, and making sure that I’m correct, because I have very bloody good reason indeed to make sure this is true (vulnerable partner, so a bad vax is indeed very bad)
Without exception, those posts have been deleted – presumably because they don’t fit the Samizdata narrative of “vax bad”
*Shrugs*
Little bit odd, I feel.
Yup, it is pure distilled disinformation and thus, like the Guardian, I exercise my editorial discretion to not host bullshit beyond a certain threshold.
I think there is a difference between AI and algorithms. It seems to me that The Guardian is still using algo rather than AI which is why the results are so unsubtle.
@Perry de Havilland (Prague)
Yup, it is pure distilled disinformation and thus, like the Guardian, I exercise my editorial discretion to not host bullshit beyond a certain threshold.
Which of course you have a perfect right to do, just as the Guardian has with Natalie’s comments. Personally I’d like to see @neosnake’s comments, even if they are “pure distilled disinformation”. There seem to be plenty of people here willing to debunk them. I have disagreed with you a lot here, primarily on matters of war, and you have never banned one of my comments, even though you probably hate what I have to say, or perhaps find me laughably naïve on such matters. You might be right on both criticisms, and your responses have always been insightful, merciless and all the more effective being usually laconic. But you openness to allowing different points of view is one of the things I admire most about you personally, and one of the things that keeps me coming back here over the many years I have participated on your blog.
I do not regard anything you say as disinformation, just… occasionally wrong 😉 and I certainly do not “hate” your opinions just because I sometimes disagree with them. Looking back as my own writings over the years, I am mindful of Cromwell’s admonition and do not always agree with myself.
However I see the COVID years as being the product of the most clear cut and extreme case of mass disinformation in modern history, such as conflating opposition to the COVID ‘vaccine’ with opposition to all vaccines (the mRNA injections were only defined as vaccines because the definition was changed to include them). It was not a conspiracy theory as ‘theory’ suggests there is a reasonable doubt. It was a mixture of a massive confluence of interests amongst modern technocratic states & adjacent institutions and, yes, actual conspiracies to obfuscate harms and liabilities. Not willing to host that shit here and thereby make myself a party to any of it.
The conflating of the Covid jab with well proven vaccinations was a particularly pernicious line of misinformation. In the case of vaccinations there is at least in principle an argument that not getting vaccinated has a negative effect on your neighbours. In the case of the Covid jab the only effect that was claimed was that it would reduce the severity of the symptoms, there was never a claim that it could reduce the spread of the virus and yet dissenters were treated as if it did.
At one point there was such a claim, and then there was the claim it would protect you from getting infected, and then it won’t protect you but at least spike-proteins will stay in the muscle, ok they won’t but at least you will go to heaven 😉 … a vast fog of obfuscation.
neonsnake – as you very well know, these injections were not “vaccines” (by the traditional definition of that word) – they did not prevent people catching Covid, passing on Covid, or dying from Covid. But they have some effects – they injured some people and they killed some people, and they are still killing people – due to the health problems they promoted.
It should not surprise me that you are on the wrong side on this matter – as you are on the wrong side on most other things. I suspect you are the wrong side – on-purpose.
I repeat, in spite of the establishment now admitting that the Hunter laptop (and other evidence) was quite real – was not “Russian disinformation”, the crimes go unpunished.
The message is clear, taking bribes, sexually trafficking women, and engaging in treason (in this case serving the People’s Republic of China in return for money – which both Hunter and Joseph Biden did for many years) is fine – as long as you are a “Social Reformer” – someone who supports bigger and more controlling government.
If something can not be tied to “Trump” and other “reactionaries” – then neither the media (or the “Justice” system) is interested.
And, to be fair, this is NOT just the Democrats.
For example, Congressman Thomas Massie said, endlessly, that he was very interested in the “Epstein” matter – so people passed on information to Congressman Massie that showed that various Democrats had engaged in terrible actions in relation to this matter.
Congressman Massie was totally disinterested – if something was not connected to “Trump” (or to “the Zionists”) he just did not care.
As far as I know only one Palm Beach resident has ever been banned from the Mar-a-lago club – and the dubious distinction of being the only person in this small (and rather wealthy) community to be banned from the club, went to Mr Epstein – who was banned because he sexually harassed waitresses.
A decision to ban a local resident from the club (which is also a private home – it served both functions, as the building is rather large) would have been made by the owner of the club.
I missed out the Hunter Biden drug and firearm offences (for example his legal declaration, in order to get a firearms license, that he was not using illegal drugs – when he was a Crack Cocaine addict) – but then these were his offences alone, they were NOT also committed by Joseph Biden (who was more into the financial and foreign intelligence agency offenses – including back when he was a Senator). Joseph Biden also seems NOT to have been directly involved in the human trafficking – although his Administration (and the FBI bureaucracy) knew about it, and ignored it (that is in-itself an offense – especially when one considers the scale of sex trafficking that occurred under the Biden Administration – although, I hasten to add, Mr Hunter Biden was a very small player in this trade – compared to the Mexican and Central American gangs).
And Mr Hunter Biden was given a general pardon for “all crimes he may have committed” by his father Joseph Biden – who also gave such general pardons (“for all crimes they may have committed”) to various other close associates – without specifying what the crimes were.
As for Joseph Biden himself – as a Justice Department report made clear some years ago (about another set of crimes committed by Mr Joseph Biden) given his mental state (his senility) he can not be put on trial – it would not be fair.
Mr Biden seems to have lost the ability to read and sign legal documents quite some time ago – an autopen (and an autopen NOT under his control) taking over this function.
Who was in control of the autopen, signing legislation and so on, is unclear – but it was not Joseph Biden.
This may be true of the pardons as well – I do not know.
@Stonyground
The conflating of the Covid jab with well proven vaccinations was a particularly pernicious line of misinformation.
I just want to chime in on this, the important word in your comment is the word “proven”. My concern about this whole thing is that mRNA wrapped in a delivery mechanism has the potential to be a very significant group of medicines that can bring a lot of relief to many people. But of course not all proposed medicines work as expected, and it was the lack of serious testing (I might add under President Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed”) that was the big fault in the Covid vaccination debacle. I pray that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and that sensible heads will prevail, introducing these medications in a measured, managed way including proper and careful AE recording, so that we don’t rob our doctors of a potentially powerful tool.
These medications allow the insertion of carefully engineered proteins into our very cells, and with modern tools, and especially AI, we have the ability to engineer amazing proteins, which could potentially do for viral infections what antibiotics did for bacterial infections. The problem was the rush to market, the poor tracking and the cover up because of political considerations, that tainted these mechanisms with too much of the general public. So, in many ways I think “Operation Warp Speed” made a lot of sense — rushing out a vaccine to a disease that was quite dangerous, and suspending the usual Byzantine FDA, was a sensible call. What was not sensible was the very poor tracking of AEs, and the political cover up that ensued. Good science and good medicine sometimes tries their best and don’t get the result they hoped for, but good scientists admit that and go back to the lab to try again. That did not happen here under the merciless rule of Emperor Fauci who had the audacity to claim that “I am Science”.
But I’d appeal to you all to not think that the problems with the covid jab necessarily taint all therapeutic use of mRNA medications. They could well save your life one day.
I was more referring to the claims that the Covid jab could prevent the contracting and spreading of the virus in the same way that actual vaccines do. These false claims were used to justify coercion and the demonising of those who chose not to take it.
No, Paul. As I’ve mentioned several times in the past, and indeed above, my partner is severely disabled and immuno-compromised. An adverse reaction could be very dangerous to them; obviously contracting a bad case of Covid would also be very, very dangerous to them; quite possibly life-threatening.
I had and have very, very good reason to be as sure as possible that the benefits of taking the vaccine outweighed the potential risk to them.
So no, saying that I’m wrong “on-purpose” would be tantamount to saying that I wish them harm.
For what it’s worth, vaccines don’t prevent you from contracting a disease. They teach your body how to fight the disease most effectively. Ideally, your body would then “kill off” the disease whilst you’re still pre-symptomatic, so you won’t even notice that you had it. In some cases (flu, for example, and yes, Covid), it massively lowers the risks inherent in getting a “full blown” version, but you might still feel unwell, and might still be contagious.
There’s a famous photo of two kids with smallpox – one vaxxed, one not. The unvaxxed lad is obviously covered in pustules, whereas the vaxxed lad only has a few, and they’re almost unnoticeable.
Now, that said, I agree 100% with your point – that the claims to 100% efficacy were false. I don’t recall the exact words, but it was explicitly stated (IIRC) that once you were vaccinated, that’s it, you’re 100% protected – you couldn’t contract it, you couldn’t spread it, you can go back to the office, to brunch, the hairdressers, the footie etc, with zero fear whatsoever. I remember sitting in front of my computer with my head in my hands, because I could predict what would happen – every instance of Covid getting past the vaccine would be taken as “the vaccines don’t work!”.
Far better, in my view, to have been upfront and honest, say that it won’t be 100% effective, and for the love of god be open about adverse reactions (those people who did have adverse reactions damn well deserve to be taken seriously and treated compassionately).
Then people could make informed decisions, carefully weigh up the risks (like I and my partner did), and make their choice based on their own assessments/circumstances (which will differ for everyone).
(there are plenty of other examples of very black-and-white statements, when the reality was much more fuzzy; indeed there were a number of statements that were flat-out lies. I still to this day get very, very angry about the WHO burying the fact that it was airborne, not droplets, when they knew full well it was airborne in…April?…2020. Very early on, anyway)
In my case I was strongly advised to have the Covid jab as I am a T2 diabetic and as such my immune system is supposedly compromised. I asked the specialist nurse about this as I rarely get colds or flu or any of the various bugs that do the rounds. I was told that as long as my diabetes is well under control, which it is, my immune system should be fine. One other factor is that those little bugs just love swimming in a bloodstream that has too much sugar in it.
I’m still agnostic on the benefits\harm of the COVID shots (I also refuse to call them ‘vaccines’, regardless of their benefits or lack thereof). That aside and like neonsnake, I’m still mad about the lies, the censorship, and all the rest of it.
Alisa – the argument for the injections (I agree they should not be called vaccines) was that, in the cases of people with compromised lungs it is possible (possible) that the injections will do more good than harm.
That was the argument made to me – in relation to my COPD (scarred lungs).
I am now very doubtful about this argument.
I am also very doubtful about that Paul, and not just about that: one of the major problems was that, as has been mentioned here, the medical establishment made so many different and often contradictory arguments that it’s just impossible to know when they were honest (if ever and even if mistaken) and when they just made stuff up as they went. But I’m also doubtful about the counterarguments. Maybe if I had the time and the energy to look deeper into that I’d lean more strongly to that side – but since I haven’t, I remain agnostic.
The same for me. Except that, for some arguments and counter-arguments, i am not just skeptical: I am sneering at both sides.
There are issues about COVID about which the positions of both sides can be wrong, and in my arrogant opinion both are wrong.
But, to avoid a flame war irrelevant to the OP, i’ll mention only 3 issues about which i am on the side of counter-argument:
* the lab origin of the virus;
* the benefits of early treatment such as HCQ;
* the risks of vaccines.
But…
* I cannot rule out a non-lab origin of the virus;
* early treatment should be used properly;
* for some people, vaccines *might* do more good than harm, for all what i know.
Among most of the people I know who seem to have more understanding of it all than do I (not a small group) the consensus seems to be that we got caught having sent and financed weaponizing research overseas to many different places where people would eagerly take our grants and do the work we had prohibited on our own land, and we didn’t finance the safety aspects as well as we should have.
Is this not a well-accepted explanation? Am I just listening to conspiracy nuts?
Alisa – yes indeed.
For example, when neonsnake says that no claim was made that the injections would stop the spread of the virus he is lying (he lies about most things) – the claim was repeatedly made in many countries, indeed it was the basis of the “save your grandmother” campaign and of dismissing people from their jobs when they would not accept the injections, a vicious campaign of hatred was whipped up against people who would not accept the injections – the public were told that such people were putting other people at risk.
Bobby: I agree with that consensus. But that does not mean that i can be certain of it.
Paul, I literally, a few posts up, said that it was claimed that the vaccine would stop the spread. The explicit message at the time was (quoting my own post):
“once you were vaccinated, that’s it, you’re 100% protected – you couldn’t contract it, you couldn’t spread it, you can go back to the office, to brunch, the hairdressers, the footie etc, with zero fear whatsoever.”
Not sure how well-accepted it is – I don’t think we “know” this for certain.
I mean, I’m guessing if it is true, than “some people” do know for certain, but that’s not the “official” explanation. To the best of my knowledge, there’s been studies done showing that it’s unlikely, sinceCovid-19 bears many of the hallmarks of previously naturally occurring coronaviruses, apparently – not my words, or necessarily my belief; I’m summarising some of the studies I’ve seen. I’ve little idea how robust and/or biased the studies are – I’m only peripherally interested, tbh, since it’s not actionable information.
But I think there’s now significant enough evidence (of the “lab leak”) that it’s much more plausible than it might have seemed back in 2020/2021.
My guess is that we (the general public) will probably never know for certain, but I personally am not ruling it out. It feels reasonably likely that it could be true, and was covered up; but I personally have no certainty or deep belief one way or the other.
neonsnake I apologize for misunderstanding you.
As for Covid = it came from the lab in Wuhan, whether it was a “leak” or deliberately released – I do not know.
Paul, I’m not bothered by being misunderstood – you could have asked for clarification, obviously, if you didn’t understand what I wrote, so no apology needed on that score.
I’m significantly more bothered by being accused of lying.
I could be wrong (and obviously, I don’t think I am, otherwise I wouldn’t say what I say), but nothing I say is driven by a desire to peddle falsehoods.
On this particular topic, you are utterly ignoring why I believe what I do, and the sheer amount of research that I did before making decisions (ie. my disabled partner’s health), despite me stating it many, many times over several years, including in this thread. You appear to be suggesting that I would play with my partner’s health for the sake of…what? Exactly?
I don’t know exactly why you continue to do this, but…I personally don’t do that.
The apology you owe me is not for misunderstanding me – it’s for accusing me of lying.
I have to agree with neonsnake here. The “vaccines” (I’m using quotes because that term covers a multitude of things) did give protection. No they weren’t a magic bullet and neither were lockdowns but… OK, I don’t understand viral biology beyond A-Level and my subsequent mathematical education on how diseaes spreads (note the modelling of such things – not the biology) but I do know that vaccination in general is one of the greatest public health goods of all time (next to clean water and Joseph Bazelgette) and the various fiascos wrt Covid driving down all vac rates are a terrible thing. and that nutter RFK Jr. is not helping. Vaccines eradicated smallpox – totally. If enough people take the HPV vaccine then it’s basically goodbye cervical cancer.
Yes, the government made it up as it went along because very few of them know science at all. PPE is, afterall, just a qualification for becoming a C21st Sir Humphrey (although I think he’d read Classics). And, yes, there was a lot of drivel and opportunities taken to screw the ratchet up a couple of notches to no end other than that of control by people who regard any crisis as an opportunity. This is true but it doesn’t mean the vaccines weren’t (aren’t) useful.
Appreciated.
I have to say, I find the “Ackshually, is it a vaccine or not, in the most technically correct terms?” discussion to be particularly wanky.
Like, who gives an actual flying fuck, you weirdos? On a Tuesday afternoon, when we were trying to work out whether having it or not will be better or worse in terms of whether we should or shouldn’t take it, do you think that me and my other half were going “is it actually a vaccine in the traditionally accepted sense? Hmmm?”
It was a roll of the dice – we understood that; it’s always the case. On the basis of every piece of evidence we’d found, we’d have been very, very silly not to take it. The dice roll was hugely in our favour for taking it.
neonsnake – as you often lie, I own you know general apology, although you have stopped lying about a particular matter – you will, no doubt, soon be back to lying about various other matters.
As you have repeatedly made clear – you are very much an enemy of all that is good, you are here to provoke – and for no other purpose.
NickM:
(It is difficult to keep track of the Nicks here.)
YOU are the nutter if you think that RFK Jr is opposed to vaccines.
RFK Jr will potentially be the most consequential member of the Trump admin IN THE LONG TERM, in my arrogant opinion.
That is because he will potentially heal American brains, and therefore purge insanity from American politics.
And that healing will potentially spread around the world.
That qualifier: potentially, is there because there are actors in American politics who are objectively opposed to the healing of American brains. They might yet succeed in sabotaging the RFK Jr agenda.
“Heal American Brains”? What does that even mean?
(oof, your typos! I can guess why)
My stance on this particular matter has remained constant; I’ve updated my stance as more information came to light, for sure – as an example, I was initially of the impression that Covid was droplet-borne. Once it was clear that this was false, and it was airborne, I changed my stance and the precautions that I felt were sensible. That’s not “lying”, that’s updating based on new information.
But, I don’t *lie*.
By all means tell me, precisely, when you think, in the past, I have said something that I’ve known to be false at the time (as opposed to something that you disagree with)
If caught early Covid was a straight forward disease to treat.
I believe this fact was well known to the establishment – but, for the sake of charity (which I am accused of lacking – of being too harsh) let as assume that the establishment really did NOT know how to treat Covid – they were TOLD how to cure people by medical doctors who were successfully treating people.
How did the establishment react? Did they thank the doctors and rush to treat patients early? NO – they viciously smeared and attacked the medical doctors and medical scientists, and tried all they could to PREVENT the effective early treatment of Covid.
Whether or not Covid 19 was deliberately released I do not know (perhaps it really was an accident at the lab in Wuhan) – but what is clear is that turning into a pandemic that would kill a lot of people (people who could have been saved) was international policy – policy followed in many (although not all) nations.
Those who underestimate the power of evil in this world, should think about this.