Blogger Put Warning On 2009 Post Here

I got this message Wednesday morning: 

Your post titled "Sullivan's Unity Speaker Swann Paid Enough for One Muni Job" has been put behind a warning for readers

Inbox

Blogger <no-reply@google.com>

     Hello,

     As you may know, our Community Guidelines  

(https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we  

allow-- and don't allow-- on Blogger. Your post titled "Sullivan's Unity  

Speaker Swann Paid Enough for One Muni Job" was flagged to us for review.  

This post was put behind a warning for readers because it contains  

sensitive content; the post is visible at  

http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2009/09/sullivans-unity-speaker-swan-paid.html.  

Your blog readers must acknowledge the warning before being able to read  

the post/blog.

     We apply warning messages to posts that contain sensitive content. If  

you are interested in having the status reviewed, please update the content  

to adhere to Blogger's Community Guidelines. Once the content is updated,  

you may republish it at  

https://www.blogger.com/go/appeal-post?blogId=30897652&postId=4712449764177590722.  

This will trigger a review of the post.

     For more information, please review the following resources:

     Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/terms

     Blogger Community Guidelines: https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy

     Sincerely,

     The Blogger Team

I've been blogging here since 2006. That's 16 years.  I have never gotten such a warning before.  

My posts are by internet standards high in accuracy, with lots of clarification and qualification and understatement.  

I can think of three possibilities here:

1. Blogger has changed its policies and now is monitoring content more than before
2. They've been doing this all along but the low key and carefully couched way I write has never been a problem
3. There's a new vigilance and strategy by the Right to go after what they perceive as enemies.

If I had to guess, I'd pick numbers 2 and 3.  

Why?  The coiners of the term 'cancel culture' have been particularly unhappy about clampdowns on racist, sexist, and other discriminatory posts as well as the spreading of outright lies.

 (I object to indiscriminate use of the term 'conspiracy theory' because conspiracies do exist - when people work together behind the scenes to commit crimes.  Using the term 'conspiracy theory' to mean crazy makes people exposing actually conspiracies seem crazy too.)

This has become more of an issue since Trump was banned from Twitter.  And as Twitter's new owner is releasing bans on racist language and outright lies and intentional misinformation, I've also been seeing Tweets by reasonable, truth seeking progressive Tweeters who are being cancelled by Twitter.  Going back and looking for those examples is too time consuming, but here's a thread from progressive blogger Seth Abramson on how progressive bloggers are seeing huge drops in followers while misleading COVID and racist and Nazi accounts are being reinstated.

I've generally flown under the radar here.  The one time I was told to take down a post, it was from an attorney for the so called Alaska International Film Festival (mimicking the legit Anchorage International Film Festival) saying I was slandering his client.  My attorney's reply quickly ended that threat.  That was in 2010.  

Recently I - not the blog - got noticed by Right wing hyperbolizers when I sent an email to the Anchorage Assembly and it was pretty much posted verbatim on Must Read Alaska.

I went to the post and now it had a door, so to speak, that warned readers and required them to click the box that said they wanted to proceed.  

I'm guessing this could be part of the Right's cancelling efforts which flagged the 2009 post questioning how much Lynn Swann was paid by Anchorage Mayor (then) Dan Sullivan to speak here. Or it could Lynn Swann's booking company finding it on Google and protesting.  Or it could be someone who just found this old post and thought the title was misleading.

When I got the notice I carefully reread the post and couldn't figure out how Blogger could consider it a violation of their standards.  OK, the title of the post is misleading, but the body of the post explains why I titled it that and the first paragraph updates things to explain that a commenter added new information which made the title moot.  Did they really want me to change the title?  In this day when people post totally false stories that endanger the public and our democracy?  

Maybe someone flagged it and no one at Blogger actually read it.  So I reread the email to figure out how to communicate with them.  My only option seemed to be to click on an appeal link, which I did.  No way to actually add my thoughts.

Then later yesterday I got a new email saying the post had been reinstated.

Your post titled "Sullivan's Unity Speaker Swann Paid Enough for One Muni Job" has been reinstated

Hello,

     We have re-evaluated the post titled "Sullivan's Unity Speaker Swann  

Paid Enough for One Muni Job" against Community Guidelines  

https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy. Upon review, the post has been  

reinstated. You may access the post at  

http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2009/09/sullivans-unity-speaker-swan-paid.html.

     Sincerely,

     The Blogger Team

I guess someone at Blogger actually read it and realized it was as offensive as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, which, if it falls open face down on the rug could be a problem. 

This was a 2009 post that really has no great relevance at all today, except maybe that it refers to a Black ex-football player and failed Republican political candidate.

In any case I want to note it here now.  The GOP has taught us well that we should not ignore the early warning signs.  I hope this is a one time exception to things.