It has been several months since I accessed Deaf Echo's website which is a holdover from their old DeafDC site. It has been over a year since Oct 9, 2011 when I realized that I was really persona non grata on participating in their discussion when I discovered I could no longer post comments in the "The YouTube Video You Don't See" article piece written by Chris Heuer, (an associate professor at Gallaudet University who teaches some great courses, btw). His article was about Sarah Churman's video that went viral when her implantable hearing aid was turned on for the first time. The comments are no longer there ever since Deaf Echo upgraded/renovated their website. However, comments can still be seen archived through the Wayback Machine.
My comment did go through at first as you can see in my screen capture
Well, the video went viral with no fault of Sarah. No one expected it to go viral. She never expected to go on the Today Show and Ellen DeGeneres show, and get featured in CNN with Anderson Cooper. Never expected to get her money reimbursed. Yet, she's taking the brunt only because the video went viral and been interviewed by some of the major networks. Had it been only 200 or 2000 views, this would've been a non-story.My post came approximately 14 minutes after Dianrez's posted comment. Approximately 83 minutes later I checked again only to see that my comment disappeared. That's when I realized and assumed on Oct 9, 2011 that I was persona non grata from participating in any of their discussions on their Deaf Echo website. I first got the boot in February 21, 2011 (see Mod's issuing a ban against me) but I had no idea my ban was permanent until my comment go removed did I suspect the permanency of my ban on Oct 9, 2011. That was the second time my comment was removed. The first time my comment was summarily removed was on April 12, 2011 after only several minutes as you can see in the screen capture. Nice cover-up and no attempt to answer a simple question.
Here's where I made an interesting discovery almost a year later just this week.
I found out I was unable to view/access Deaf Echo's website at home and instead got a DNS error message (i.e. "This page can't be displayed") on my browser. The same thing on my wife's laptop. But I can still view it at home on my laptop through a different channel and noticed that Deaf Echo's website is functioning fine and not simply down. I asked my friends if they could access it and they all said yes. I asked if they could view D.E. through my links on my blog pieces. Not a problem. All that led me to believe in their own pettiness (again, it IS their website, you can be petty all you want) Deaf Echo decided to block my IP address in the effort to prevent me from viewing their public website.
Excuse me?
Prevent me from viewing it? Really go that low?
Deaf Echo is not a private website but certainly a public website open for viewing.
I expected more professionalism from Deaf Echo but I suppose they do have the right to throw essentially a tantrum by putting up a wall because they didn't like what I wrote in my blogs, if that really was the case. I sincerely hope not and I hope I'm quite wrong but it's looking more like the other way.
I believe the owner of Deaf Echo eventually discovered my blog piece I did on March 12, 2011 essentially challenging Deaf Echo on the whole Wisconsin union protest and Gov. Scott Walker. Or maybe it was this blog piece where I noted them for censoring me in a piece called "AGBell are now officially Deaf people" on Sept 8, 2012 as a reason for the blocking? I am pretty sure I was able to access their website a few more times after Sept 8, 2012 but it was just this week I discovered I was unable to access their website through normal channels on my laptop via my internet provider. Something happened between Sept 8, 2012 and this week.
I'm fine with the ban on participating in their forum discussion. They have their own justification for doing so, however petty it may seem. But what I find incredulous is their attempt to block me further from viewing their Deaf Echo website. And the reason is....what? This? This?
This? This? Or this?
Dunno. Whatever the reason it's a petty thing to witness.
ADDENDUM: Joeseph Pietro Riolo made a good comment on a piece I did on April 12, 2011 about the removal of my comment by a moderator and the sadness of seeing such attitudes.
I saw your comment over there at Deaf Echo and later on, much to my surprise, your comment was gone. I questioned myself whether you removed your comment on your own or the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo deleted your comment.
Now, I know you did not.
This whole thing saddens me. I had high respect for Deaf Echo and I am trying to stay positive about it. But, this is the second time that your comment was removed. But then, as you wrote, the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo has the complete prerogative in controlling the comments and I could not argue against it. Is Deaf Echo becoming another yet platform for bashing cochlear implantation and by extension, people who have cochlear implant? I hope not.
(It seems that there is no end in attempting to make an analogy between cochlear implantation and everything else. I came across an analogy between cochlear implantation and circumcision(!) somewhere many moons or ages ago. I dread to see what will be the next analogy.)
Joseph Pietro Riolo
I, too, had high hopes for DeafDC which has morphed into Deaf Echo because many of their articles written by many different deaf authors (any hh or non-Deaf authors?) were very good, insightful and the kind that make you think. Other articles have allowed us a peak into the author's window of their "extremist" thinking. Not that it's bad but it is an interesting realization. Regardless, DeafDC is still worthy of a read but then again only if some of the people over their learn to take their pettiness out of the way and allow diverse views and thinking be a part of the discussion. I think all of this was precipitated by their own hands when I had my own views about the Wisconsin union/Gov Walker debate that were opposite of theirs did they find or at least they thought they did reason and justification to ban me since I was the only one their with an opposing viewpoint when they really wanted was total and uncompromising support instead. All of this this ended with the total IP block to their Deaf Echo website which was the manifestation of their continuing disagreement over my political stance, my way of questioning things and linking to their articles or people who commented over their since I could not do so because I was PNG. I had an opinion and blogged about. Nothing bad or extraordinary about that.
6 comments:
They aren't worth bothering with. I had a similar ban in 2005, and they STILL operate it, and the rhetoric there is 10 times worse than anything I ever posted.... and offered personal abuse on a major scale, the real face of ugly deaf unity.
Then they sacked their own moderators, abused them, they even took the trouble to erase every single comment I ever made, and those who supported the view, even ones that were links to support and encouragements to campaign, it was a total wipe out/erase of my presence online with them.
You would have to go to China or Korea to see similar responses. Where are THEY now ! (Who cares).
Abusive? You? No? You're just too hardcore for those folks.
The reality is that people read into comments in different ways based on their perception, especially of the individual making the comments.
People's bias can get in the way of constructive dialogue, which is unfortunate since I always try to find something in common with those who challenge my views.
Petty indeed.
MM,
See what I wrote in my blog. I included an addendum piece today. i think this whole thing, now looking more like a sad farce, had to do with the moderator/owner who had a disagreement with me because I did not have this uncompromising support for their protest against Gov Walker in 2011. The thing is, Deaf Echo is something worth keeping. Just that someone over their whether it's one or more people need to chuck whatever attitude they have and move on.
their = there
Aaron,
Hardcore? I don't really consider myself "hardcore' but perhaps highly opinionated. Petty indeed. The thing is I can still access their website and read their articles. I can even participate if I wanted to but I don't because I am PNG. But that does not prevent me from forming my own opinions in my own blog based on what they wrote or the people commenting in that forum. But I basically laughed when the moderator said that my comments were "abusive." It's time somebody need to get out of the Bay area. Besides, I think Deaf Echo is really a good place to go and read because they have many different deaf authors and many of them have good article pieces to read. But to put up a wall, an IP block, is a dinosaur response.
This is in reference to JPR's comment that you quoted above.
JPR may be referring to Michael Sidansky's comment under an AB2072 article I wrote in my blog, ann_c's i. reflections:
"Oralism is a teaching that, more often than not, associated with CI.
I remember a Seinfeld episode where Seinfeld went to a Bris. There were much cringing and hilarity that went on, but the point is: notion of bris makes even the most hardened of us a bit uncomfortable.
Imagine how we'd feel if CI is institutionalized the same way Bris is."
Therefore, Oralism=CI and CI=circumcision. Beware those equation analogies...Is there such a thing for a sensational analogy law, similar to Godwin's Law of Hitler analogies?
Back to your article. I, too, have read DeafDC and its successor Deaf Echo, and have enjoyed reading its articles, some of which don't reflect my views. The website claims to be open to all members of the deaf community. There isn't gonna be much of a dialogue if there aren't different views allowed.
Makes me wonder what Deaf Echo's mods define as "deaf community" and what is "abusive" in their articles' commentary. Is trying to stay focused on a burning question when everyone else is circling around it regarded as "abusive"?
Candy and I were trying to direct focus on the question of how to inform parents of deaf children about ALL options, which the proposed California AB2072 legislation was trying to resolve. The majority of commenters circled around the direct question and some were downright "abusive". Yet we allowed the comments, because we wanted to create a dialogue about the issue.
Deaf Echo can be a much better forum for dialogue, if it weren't for its arbitrariness about what defines "abusive" and what defines "deaf community".
Ann_C
Post a Comment