I used to send a lot of letters to the editors of papers like the Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto Sun. One out of ten might get published. The mainstream press had a solid choke hold on the kinds of opinions they would allow their subscribers to see.
Along came the internet. I couldn't wait to get on. Google tells me the Hamilton-Wentworth Freenet came online on April 28, 1995. I jumped right on it with my XT compatible clone computer and its 2400 baud modem. It was a fascinating experience. I remember downloading a bitmap of Confederate general Robert E. Lee from the Library of Congress. It must have taken two hours to download. I printed it on my dot matrix printer and framed it. From a distance it looks just like an ordinary black and white photograph. I still have it. A visitor once asked me if that was a picture of my grandfather.
(Note: Click on the images if they appear blurry. A clearer view will pop up.)
The browser was called "Lynx." It was all text-based. I had a monochrome monitor with green text.
While exploring the Lynx browser I tripped across a menu item labelled [View Source.] When I clicked(?) on it, I got my first view of HTML markup language. It looked easy enough so I proceeded to learn it. At the same time, I realized I had discovered a way to circumvent the Junk News oligopoly and publish my "Letters to the Editor" online. What I did not realize at the time was that I was seeing the genesis of Alternative News. And I was participating in it.
It was obvious from the start that the Junk News industry was seriously threatened by this new technology. Then they spent the next thirty years trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Without much success. Fast forward to today and we see the Junk News industry in Canada cannot survive without government subsidies.
I call it Junk News because it is analogous to Junk Food. Junk food for the mind.
At around the same time, the Spectator operated a community Bulletin Board Service. (BBS) They called it "Compuspec," later "Speclink." There were several forums on there and the political debates between the wokerattie and the truly conscious were fierce. In those days, free speech seemed sacred and I was never once censored by the administrators.
My, how things have changed.
My Hamilton Spectator subscription autorenews on September 30, 2026. I have set a reminder on my calendar to cancel my subscription well before they charge my credit card. Why should I pay for such a purveyor of woke propaganda, and an abusive one at that, when I can find the same crud elsewhere for free?
Especially irksome is the Spectator's abusive treatment of its subscribers via its practice of censoring any subscriber comments their man behind the curtain doesn't like.
In today's (Sept 12, 2026) edition they published a report about a guy from Stoney Creek who has been arrested for alleged wilful promotion of hatred, advocating genocide and wilful promotion of antisemitism on X. As is all too typical of government-funded media these days, they almost always omit any description of the offending content. Given that so-called "Hate speech," etc. these days can be just about anything anyone claims to be offended by, it is more important than ever that the reading public be informed of the offending content in order to decide for themselves whether said content qualifies as "Hate speech."
Knowing it's a coin toss, I nevertheless opted to post the first comment to the report.
As usual, there is no description of the offensive tweet. Why are these essential details always kept from public view?
That comment was graciously accepted by the Spec commissars behind the curtain. It sparked some debate. There was the expected contingent of subscribers who defended the decision to keep the offensive tweet hidden from view. Of course, I engaged with some of them. This is when the Spectator's censorship abuse shifted into high gear.
There was more,
And this one:
The message the Hamilton Spectator is sending me is, "Don't bother commenting. Your opinions are not wanted here." Either that, or get used to self-censoring. "Oskee Wee Wee" and Auntie Annie's bake sale is acceptable. Elbows Up! too.
Note that my comments did not attempt to incite hatred of any identity group, did not contain any incitement to genocide, nor even the mildest profanity, yet it still ran afoul of the Spectator's so-called "Community Guidelines."
Now the Spectator is a private company, leaving aside the implications of any bribes it receives from the federal government. It can censor anyone it wants to censor for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. However, given the sleazy practices I have described here, the reliablity of a platform that purports adhere to the following claim,
Conversations within the Spectator’s news and information platforms offer an opportunity for readers to engage in healthy dialogue, share their thoughts on specific topics and help us foster engagement and transparency with our readership. Conversations, added to select Spectator articles, allow our community of registered users to share thoughtful ideas with other readers and our newsroom.Conversations are a space to converse about news and information, and the issues they highlight, as well as discuss questions highlighted by the Spectator newsroom. We ask that readers stay on topic with the intended purpose of the Conversations. Feel free to discuss ideas but avoid personal attacks. Universal human rights are not up for debate on our sites.
appears highly disingenous.
Subscribers who find their comments routinely censored by the Spectator commissars will find The Spectator's claim that "the Spectator’s news and information platforms offer an opportunity for readers to engage in healthy dialogue, share their thoughts on specific topics and help us foster engagement and transparency with our readership" laughable.
Of course, any chicken dancers browsing the same comment sections will remain blissfully ignorant of the degree of manipulation being foisted upon them in the background. I doubt chicken dancer opinions are ever censored.
Knowing they conduct themselves in a manner that is not perceptible by the average reader, and thus, deceptive, do you really think it's worth paying for a Spec subscription?
I don't.
They can block me out on their own platform, but they can't hide their nefarious activities as long alternative platforms exist.
Other examples of Spectator censorship.
On Hamilton's proposal to mandate air conditioning in rental units.
On Hamilton Dive Bars.
On Hamilton's woke transportation fantasies.
On the LRT
I love searching AI to have AI reiterate to me something originally written and published by ME in Taxi News/RWN. This is a hoot! I will be stealing it for Taxi News/RWN, of course. I have been thinking lately it is time to revisit your "Confessions." Thank you for the laugh!
ReplyDeleteYou are most welcome, Rita.
DeleteSummary:
ReplyDeleteIn this September 12, 2026 blog post, the author recounts how mainstream newspapers like the Hamilton Spectator once tightly controlled published opinions. The early internet (via Freenet in 1995) and tools like the Lynx browser let him publish freely and join early alternative news efforts.
He contrasts that era’s open debates on the Spectator’s old BBS (Compuspec/Speclink) with today’s practices. He plans to cancel his subscription, calling the paper a government-subsidized source of “woke propaganda” that routinely censors subscriber comments it dislikes.
After a Spectator article about a Stoney Creek man arrested over alleged hate speech and antisemitism on X omitted the actual content, the author posted a comment asking why those details were withheld. His follow-up replies were censored despite containing no hate, genocide advocacy, or profanity. He argues this makes the paper’s claims of fostering open dialogue disingenuous and manipulative.
He includes further examples of censored comments on local topics and concludes that alternative platforms still expose such practices.