Comments from feedback form - "This article is clearly biased..."

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments from feedback form - "This article is clearly biased..."

This article is clearly biased and does not accurately report the facts of the situation. There was no purge, the stories removed were in violation of the ToS for FanFiction.Net and any that were removed in error or via misunderstanding were able to be completely reposted. The Change.Org petition is full of misstatements of facts and outright fabrication which harms the footing of any attempt to use it as a legitimate argument. At the end of the day FFN is a private site and is free to declare whatever hosting rules it chooses to for the works on it and also has the right to remove any story which violates those rules as is agreed upon by the users of the site whenever the chose to post a new story. Anyone complaining about the enforcement of a contract they agreed to has no standing at all.

192.28.0.14 (talk)14:34, 9 November 2012

I am in total agreement with you.

It did seem to me that the article came across as biased.

FFN certainly has every right to do what they want on their website, and those who gripe about free speech do not seem to realize just what it really means, or that there is more to the bill of rights and the constitution than just 'free speech'. Free speech does not apply to a private website that has TOS that they expect users to follow.

Censorship and everyone's idea of what's TMI is all different.

It is the owner of the website that has the final decree about who is violating the TOS and who to boot off the wbesite, and whose work to dump off the website. To finally get the kick to the curb shouldn't have been that big of a surprise. Just because the owner of the site took too long getting it cleaned up...oh well.. all the griping about 'losing hard work'? That's silly and a joke. There is NO WAY anyone did not keep a backup of all their 'hard work' no matter what any site is used for, everyone backs up their stuff elsewhere.

It just seems silly to see the cry-baby antics from supposedly grown up people who are wah-wahing to the Huffington Post and anywhere they can online about this. It isn't their website, they agreed to the TOS, and if the website wants to change the ratings and ages onto the website, it is their perogative to cleanit up whenever they want to...in 2002 or 2012.

24.127.178.92 (talk)04:17, 15 November 2012