hopefully the destractions are over now
lets add some support to forrests suggestion

ps im in agreement
with what squeers posted as well

also feel grayham..
should go public on this style of censorship
its beginning to look like an orchestrated attempt
to silence free speech and worse an attempt to bring down olo

i also agree with what someone else said
why no complaint to descrinmination people
and deliberatly tarketing our advertisers instead

it all sounds rather suss
and now the added destractions etc

ps what was it about an email/mailout mentioned at another topic calling for advertisers/doners..

i never got one of those either..
wondering if this just might be bigger than we may realise possable..
or just the powers that be trying to destract us from some other topics

yeah i know im paranoid
no use posting a post to just say that

anyhow back to topic
i have voiced enough wild opinions [theories]..for now

Sorry, OT

Graham, I emailed you but I haven't had a response in my Inbox or Spam mailbox.

I appear to be getting email from everybody else. Does OLO have a problem with AOL (or vice versa)?

Anyway, should be home Sunday pm, so can sort it then. May be away from 3G coverage.

S

With respect to the timing of the seemingly co-ordinated boycott of advertising placement with The Domain online sites, in association with reference to the private hate speech and advertising code of conduct claimed by ANZ to be a basis for its withdrawal of advertising, the reporting of the resignation, at the end of August 2010, of the head of both the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) and the Circulations Audit board (CAB) is interesting.

It appears both the ABC and CAB have a role in the policing within the advertising industry of this private code of conduct on behalf of the Internet Advertising Sales Houses Australia, to which I have referred in an earlier post to this thread.

That report by Celia Johnson on 6 August 2010 (see: http://www.bandt.com.au/news/audit-body-head-throws-in-the-towel ) said:

"The head of Australia’s two print audit bodies,
the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) and
Circulations Audit Board (CAB), Gordon Towell,
has resigned after two-years to return to private
enterprise."

It is interesting that Gordon Towell's resignation is described as a 'return to private enterprise'.

I'm just wondering whether, in addition to IASH Australia and its agencies' seeming status in some respects as an extension of US government interests, the Australian government also may be content to see a private code of conduct applied within the industry rather than being seen to legislate itself? It is not hard to see Australian governments having an interest in the suppression of public debate in relation to some subjects, although being seen to be doing so would be politically disastrous. So is the use of the expression 'return to private enterprise' a Freudian slip by the reporter revelatory of an unsavoury collusion between the Australian government and the enforcers of this private advertising placement 'code of conduct'?

Or can we expect to see some action taken against IASH Australia by the ACCC for its attempt to impose a private code of conduct that effectively operates in restraint of trade and establishes IASH Australia in monopoly of advertising placement?

Forrest Gumpp

Have other blogsites such as Quadrant, Crikey, Club Troppo, Larvatus Prodeo etc, similarly lost advertising?

There is a plethora of bigotry across the internet: OLO does not hold the monopoly on vilification and hate among its contributors and commentators.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask how those sites are moderated? Do people who raise complaints to the editor receive respect and consideration?

Hi J Parker, would you like to tell me what you mean by your last paragraph, particularly the last sentence?

Veiled threat, Graham?
Perhaps you should halt J Parker's 'advertising'.