Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
-
Blogs & Forums
-
Forums
-
Blogs
-
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
@Moonchilde wrote:
@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:
@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:
@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html
@Moonchilde wrote:
IMO it has nothing to do with ducks or quacking. "Censorship" is first of all in the eye of the beholder, and secondly - even if it IS "censorship" (however thousands of people may differently define it), well, that's okay too. Censorship is allowed and legal. Not to mention that, by posting on these forums, every poster agrees to QVC's terms or has to abide by them regardless of whether they agree with them.
No, not really. Censorship has a very concrete definition. The fact that we agree to it doesn't change what it is. I don't think anyone questioned the legality of the issue.
Not looking very singular or concrete, especially since QVC is a private company and not the Federal govt.
Doesn't matter about being private or gov't. No one has questioned the legality of censoring a private company. The point is the word is easily defined. It is what it is regardless of the eye of the beholder.
That does not make sense. There is no single definition of the word. There is your view of whether something is censorship and there is my view, and there are the individual views of everyone in the world. Your view, or my view, or ahttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.htmlnyone's indivihttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.htmldual view is not "the" view for everyone.
Yes it does make sense. Saying that the word has no single definition is what doesn't make sense.
I can post the definition if that would help but it's easily found online.
No thanks. I have zero problem with my take on it.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication and other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities, groups or institutions.
If you don't think that's what censorship is, or what it is here, I'd be very interested in hearing your take on it.
I already posted a link, in one of my initial responses to you, to a website chock full of definitions and opinions. For some reason I was not able to correct after several tries, the link posted at the TOP of the post. Your definition is one of many I read on at least half a dozen sites including this one. It may be "the" only definition to you - not to most people.
I won't be responding to you regarding this further as there is clearly no point.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.htm
No problem. I totally understand why you don't want to respond with "your take." Censorship has a meaning and there's no getting around it.
That said, we can agree to disagree as we very clearly do. There are other things we probably agree on as well. I hope we can focus on those. 
@Pearlee wrote:
@Greenhouse wrote:I was involved with a thread during the debates which was very civil and interesting but we knew it was against standards. However, it was interesting to hear the views of other QVC shoppers. We were eventually poofed but we can't complain as QVC has standards and rules and we broke the rules. I suspect a poster notified QVC as inappropriate as we managed to keep the convo going until the next day. So if someone reported it as offensive and inappropriate, they had no choice but to remove it. I don't think it is the political thread that is inappropriate but when people discuss politics, discussions become heated and posters often attack each other and make abusive remarks. The political thread was very civil and it was interesting to see opposing viewpoints. Too bad, because it was fun.
@Stray, I agree that that thread was for the most part civil, but there were some snarky posts on it and one political group was starting to get bashed (the party holding the debate). I think you are remembering it as more civil than it was although, given its subject matter, it was -- as I already stated ---for the most part civil.
I knew it wouldn't last as soon as I saw it, though, because it was against the rules here. And I agreed with a poster who commented that the mods must not have been on duty, and figured they deleted it the next morning when they were on duty.
Yes, you are correct...I think when the debate was in process it was civil, then, others joined later who really started to talk about ideology and snarky comments about certain candidates....the same, I guess who probably reported it as inappropriate because their viewpoint was different IMHO. But, initially, it was quite interesting...some politely said, I wouldn't vote for so and so but went on to say something positive about a candadates performance and position. I think that is the problem today, many support an ideology or party and can't give a reason why or listen to another viewpoint.
@eddyandme wrote:
@SydneyH wrote:
@CCC1 wrote:
Since I posted my comment here, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory I was talking about the removal of threads from this board. It seems to be a common complaint here.
They reserve the right to remove threads or content that don't match their standards, shrugs......
IMHO it's their standards that noboy can figure out, including them!!!!! Someone will poof something - no reason given; then, magically, QVC will put it back - again, no explanation given. Guess it depends on who's doing the poofing - like the right hand d/n know what the left hand is doing. Certainly not a question of not following the rules; I think a clarification of the rules is needed for the Community and the poofers!
To me, this shows that they are human, conscientious, and strive to be fair. They may delete something out of hand and when pressed to consider further or investigate further, they do, and sometimes, in fairness, change their initial action.
It doesn't make them unfit or unfair - to me it makes them fairER than previously.
The rules have been posted innumerable times and can easily be found on the website. Also stated is that whether something is deleted, counseled on or moved is up to the discretion of the moderators. The moderators do have the final say. Some decisions are individual and most probably sometimes moderators consult for a second opinion (a good thing, IMO). Being unhappy about it, or crying biased, unfair, unclear, etc. never resulted in any changes on the old forum. Not sure why people (in general, goldenlocks, not you specifically) think that would change on the new forum with increased moderation.
Footer Navigation and Information
*You're signing up to receive QVC promotional email.
Manage Your Account
Find recent orders, do a return or exchange, create a Wish List & more.
Get More with QCard®
Enjoy 12+ VIP Savings Events a year (& more!).
Work with Us
Stay Connected
Download Our QVC Apps
This is Shopping Brought to Life.
Privacy StatementGeneral Terms of Use
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2025 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved. | QVC, Q and the Q logo are registered service marks of ER Marks, Inc. 888-345-5788