About five days ago SampleX was dumped from Digg without warning, instantaneously. Upon enquiry, he was advised that a complaint had been made about a thread pertaining to homosexuality and the gay agenda in which a number of colloquialisms and references to homosexuality were made objectively, non-specifically, and addressed at no one in particular, as generalism. The comments in question were: "I thought libertarians were for minimal government involvement... The government is not interfering in fudge packers packing fudge, pillow biters biting pillows or shirt lifters lifting shirts, nor even muff divers diving muff, or furry cup drinkers drinking from the furry cup.
"These comments were interpreted by the complainant and Digg as being a violation of Digg Terms of Service 5.1 which state: "By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services: to abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Digg users;"Digg also cited the following as 'justification': "Also, note that in our Terms of Service, we reserve the right to, “Digg may remove any Content and Digg accounts at any time for any reason (including, but not limited to, upon receipt of claims or allegations from third parties or authorities relating to such Content), or for no reason at all.”Digg advised SampleX that they were willing to 'unban' the account upon receipt of notification from SampleX that SampleX had read and reviewed the TOS for Digg.com and was reaffirming agreement to those terms.SampleX wrote to Digg at length explaining the context, generalism and colloquialism of the comments in question could not possibly be construed as personal attacks, abuse, harrassment, threats, impersonation or intimidation of Digg users.
He explained that he had always been committed to those principles of Digg TOS and had been witness many times to homosexuals, evolutionists, atheists and liberals violating those terms of service specifically in order to make targeted, directed and specific attacks on specific individuals.SampleX confirmed that inasmuch as he was being required to admit that the complaint against him was valid and the action justified, he could not do so since by interpretation he did not consider the comments listed to be remotely violative in respect of the term of use cited (5.1) and that he held the view that the freedom of speech is an involable human right which precludes the invented right for individuals to not have to hear things they don't like to hear. SampleX framed his contentions within the preposition of conformity to the Digg TOS and confirmation thereof.SampleX's initial complaint about his suspension of account was responded to by Digg within one hour approximately. His response was submitted within 20 minutes.
Over four days have now passed since that time, and SampleX continues to be ignored, his account continues to be suspended. To all intents and purposes, he sees that his agreement to the principles of the Digg TOS has been submitted, and Digg has failed to respond in the manner they stated, having made it sound like SampleX was suspended over a pedantic formality which would be easy to rectify.
Another instance of digg's biasedness against conservtives, Christians and those who do not support Obama or the loony left.