I got summarily banned from TOP for posting a diary saying Obama had lost me when he decided to not prosecute the banks/CEO's and for saying I'd work for someone else in the election (Jill Stein).

No warning. No timeouts. Just the boot.

TOP can still have good info and be a force for good sometimes, but is also has become a pro-establishment Dem site where real debate is punished and criticism of the dem establishment, or the idea we could/should vote for someone else is heresy. And those who utter it are treated as such. It helps form a tribal type of politics where anything and everything is viewed through the lens of my tribe vs. their tribe. My tribe can do no wrong, theirs can do no right. Anything my tribe has done cannot be criticized.

I used to laugh at the GOP. So obvious they couldn't face simple truths: Bush didn't keep us safe; Reaganomics was a failure; Bush/Cheney lied to get us into the war; tax cuts for the rich don't help much economically and balloon the deficit; the list goes on and on. Now, it appears establishment Dems are now suffering the same disease and anyone who utters the truth is banned: neoliberal economics have crippled the middle class; welfare reform and the crime bill devastated communities of color; the Clinton tend lie a lot; Obama/Dems sold out the banks & the health care insurance industry; one cannot be serious about global warming and embrace fracking and offshore drilling; the list goes on.

But we need to be wary the some type of thing doesn't creep in here in terms of candidate-centric stuff. Bernie can make mistakes, and does (the qualification comments were a prime example, position on guns another). But he's not wrong on climate change, $$ in politics, health care, breaking up the banks, free college w/ speculation tax, and the list goes on.

First post, yikes, turning into a diary. I'll stop, hope all goes well in WY.

but it could also be that he wants the attention. I'm in my 12th year at TOP. I joined not long after the 2004 election. I've read ken's diaries over the years. But he seems to crave the attention. About 6 or 7 years ago he started trolling other people's diaries with links to his and a comment like "I respectfully invite you to read this important diary".

More recently I've seen him question posters who would make a positive comment in one of his diaries, yet not tip and recommend. How dare! I'm just guessing, but I think it's all about the attention with him. Braying for Hillary on a pro-Hillary site is a pretty good way to rustle up some attention and praise. My $.02 (Of course, if he's getting paid to do it, it's a twofer!)

When it came to light that the hate filled RWNJ, Bibi, actually paid people to spread his propaganda online, I was flabbergasted, but then recalled that so many people defending atrocities used almost identical language. That sent me back in time to 2006, and recalled the same unrelenting dito head behavior regarding atrocities committed then.

Same thing happens when GMOs are mentioned online.

Same thing happens when The Face of Wall Street is mentioned. Front pagers do it OT (Armondo is one I noticed do it, for sure), Kos does it, and so do so many of those new users.

Not all are paid shills. Some just take the talking points posted by the shills and run with them.

Ironically, RW talking points are supposed to be flag worthy, which pretty much makes anything "positive" about or in defense of her record, should get flagged into oblivion. She is, after all, a Republican, and 90% of her record proves it.

Thanks!
made a diary out of this, with Chomsky photo.

For several years I have been a reader of Daily Kos articles and I considered the site the best US source of critical and thought-provoking articles on climate change, science, education, politics and much more.

In the last two month, I observed a radical change, which is connected to Kos’ March15th edict. Basically, the edict put everyone who criticizes H. Clinton under a general suspicion of being right-wing. If the interpretation is that the diary is ‘malicious’, then the diarist can be banned. Because ‘malicious’ is a highly flexible category (it gives me no joy to say that authoritarian governments such as Erdogan’s government in Turkey use such categories to suppress free press and free speech), essentially everyone who criticizes Clinton can be excluded from the DailyKos community. As a consequence, an increasing number of long-term diarists, is banned from DailyKos. Many of those diarists wrote great, thought-provoking articles.

Instead of this older diarists, an increasing number of new diarists have emerged, who write marketing-style pro-Clinton and kitchen-sink-style anti-Sanders diaries. An eye-opening example for me was a diarist who joined Daily-Kos two days ago and published today a “Hillary-is-so-nice-diary” that has a Clinton-campaign marketing flavor. (My critical comment to this diary was flagged and is now invisible). Noam Chomsky would call the evolution of Daily Kos to Daily HRC a nice example of “manufacturing consent”.

I miss the earlier critical and thought-provoking articles and I find the new marketing-style and kitchen-sink-style diaries simply boring.

I have two questions question: (1) What do you think about this development? Am I too critical? (2) Is this irreversible? Has DKOS changed into DHRC for good, or is there a chance to get the old DKOS back?