Abuse of authority

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 weeks ago
  • Solved
Somebody at IMDB has abused their authority and deleted at least two of my reviews solely for political reasons. Unfortunately nothing I say can convince you that I was treated unfairly, because you deleted them without warning. They were two reviews of Family Guy episodes, where I defended Trump. The only guideline I could have possibly violated was the “discussing personal opinions on real life events,” but there’d be no way to respond to the material without doing so. And in any case, they were published without any problem, so please don't give me that nonsense.The latest review was not lengthy, had passed the monitors, was popular, and probably the least frothing response to the anti-Trump crowd, which makes me think it was deleted solely based on its political effectiveness. The main reason I think I was targeted was that it prompted someone to look over my much older reviews and delete another one where I, very briefly, responded to a Trump joke. I won’t be using IMDB anymore.
Photo of David

David

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
  • targeted

Posted 2 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 8479 Posts
  • 9509 Reply Likes
It was not someone at IMDb.
It was a user like you or I or anybody that saw it and reported it.
Thousands of reviews pass by editors every week. They cannot catch all objectionable material.
Some things just slip by.
So, that being said that does not mean that your review was indeed correct to begin with.
Some one read it and it became scrutinized for the second time. These flagged and reported reviews are looked at a little closer than they were the first time.
That's how it works.
You were not picked on or singled out by IMDb.
It may be best to leave out the obvious joke next time. Some take it the wrong way. Take it from me, I have dropped some bad jokes at the wrong time, and have had something I said misinterpreted many times. Fortunately I still have all my teeth! LOL. My nose is another story!!!

All you have to do is check the "Inappropriate" box and it gets reviewed.
(Edited)
Photo of Joel

Joel, Employee

  • 798 Posts
  • 858 Reply Likes
Hi David,

Thanks  for your post.

If you can provide us with the submission references of your reviews, an editor can have a look and let you know why it may have been removed from the website.

Thanks,

Joel
 
Photo of David

David

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I don't have the submission info anymore, but I did do a little experiment where I wrote a new review for a Family Guy episode--Trans-Fat--strictly adhering to the guidelines, to see if it too would be deleted. And, eventually, it was. I'd love for you to explain what I did wrong in this particular case. To my mind, if you can argue it violated the rules and wasn't politically motivated, then you can argue that about any review. It's Contribution #190218-041154-421504. I can paste the review here, if that's ok:

"
    • Text: Preachy and safe. There was no novel take here, no wrinkle, nothing that I couldn't hear anywhere else. Nothing to match the preternatural humor or insight such as when they pointed out that Bruce Jenner is actually a handsome Dutch woman, years before he came out as transgender. I've noticed they're making a point lately at Family Guy to be more woke, or at least sensitive, and so far the results have not been promising. Let's just say my girlfriend liked this episode, and she freaking hates Family Guy.
    • Summary: My gf liked this episode
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 8455 Posts
  • 9485 Reply Likes
years before he came out as transgender.

This is not in the episode, and it is a personal notation by you relating to real life.
It has nothing to do with a review.

Summary: My gf liked this episode

Let's just say my girlfriend liked this episode, and she freaking hates Family Guy.
Also not part of a review.


(Edited)
Photo of David

David

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thanks, Ed.

Such absolute strictness would be fine, if it were applied fairly. But these small transgressions are routinely overlooked at IMDb. So it starts to look a little convenient when the rules are applied selectively.

Now I understand that some user flagged the review. And, yeah, they probably cited one of those guidelines you mentioned. But anyone can see they were using the rules as an excuse to censor a view they didn't like. So I guess I just wish the editors here would err more on the side of caution, of free expression, rather than encourage these people who apparently have nothing better to do than sabotage cartoon internet-user reviews.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 8455 Posts
  • 9485 Reply Likes
The IMDb reviews thousands of reviews in a day. They don't read the whole review sometimes. They gloss over it. Because of that things that squeak by unnoticed, get noticed later on by someone else. They report it. Then it gets read or scrutinized more closely. No glossing! It's not censoring. It is applying the rules evenly to all. Albeit after the fact. If that reported review had been read fully the first time, there would have never been a report and second review. People (Data Editors) are Human. They miss things when they are overwhelmed with backlogs. They also take into account your contribution rejection history and give you the benefit of the doubt when approving your contributions. If your rejection rates climb, then be prepared to see some of your contributions being scrutinized to a greater extent in the future. It is best not to push the limits as you have been doing and stick strictly to the guidelines for reviews.
Cheers
Ed.
Photo of David

David

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Ed, that was an excellent summary of everything I already knew while at the same time missing my main point.

You say it's even-handed to all. But neither of us knows that for sure unless we started flagging left-leaning people for similar violations and see if their reviews are removed as well. Maybe they would be. But I don't want to do that.

My point is these data editors should look to the spirit of the rules, which in practice allow for a much more relaxed discussion, and not let others use the "letter of the law" to, again, censor opposing opinions. I'll wait to see if Joel replies.
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 2915 Posts
  • 2940 Reply Likes
Ed is correct, if you spot any more reviews that contravene our policies then please feel free to use the report this feature to submit a request for our data editors to review.

Regards,
Will
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1015 Posts
  • 1095 Reply Likes
You answered your own question and showed where you violated the guidelines. I'm not sure why you are feeling targeted if you know why your reviews were deleted. IMDb is a place to review visual medians, not to give your personal opinions on politics. There are plenty of other places for that.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.