Something that is not necessarily discouraged over there, by the way. I think that's important to point out. I don't want to be unfair to HubPages at all. Several of my conservative posts are what they call, "featured." In other words, a featured post is one that HubPages has determined meets certain quality standards such as good, solid content that is a certain length, that is generally well put together and worthy of being "listed" on their main page, or becomes published on one of their sister sites.
Unfeatured posts are almost invisible.
I say almost because of course, over the years I have a bit of a "built-in" audience. So, it's not like no one will see a post that is not featured. And even though I have my profile settings set to only show featured articles, I can still physically include an unfeatured article in the highlights, and I did that.
When I look over the article in question, "We Must Put Our Country Before Party," there is nothing about it that seems to obviously separate it from anything else I may have written on the site that has been featured before it.
Although in it, I mention (or question) the mental capacity of President Joe Biden. Could that have something to do with it? Is it an article lacking quality? Or is it one they simply don't like what it implies? I don't even do it in a particularly mean way. In fact, it was not accusatory in so much as it was simply suggestive.
The question for me is, am I being shadow banned simply because the editorial team dislikes the context of my content rather than it being an issue of "quality," as was suggested in the form letter that is often provided when an article on HubPages is not featured.
In the letter it says, "It's possible that your article is not featured because it contains spammy elements." The post promotes nothing at all and in fact, contains no links at all. Neither does it make any reference to other articles on their site or elsewhere.
They go on to say, "If you don't see any spammy elements in your article, then it was likely defeatured for failing to meet HubPages' general quality standards." That is a fairly generic statement, especially considering I have been writing for HubPages for 15+ years and am quite aware of their quality standards and how to write and structure an article that meets them.
Over 50 of my articles are featured, and of the ones that aren't, they were featured at one time. The reason they are not now is due to their age and their current relevance, since many of my articles are not evergreen, and became unfeatured over time simply due to a lack of traffic to them.
How many people today are reading about the presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?
Other suggestions regarding quality they suggest is that the article may have been too short or underdeveloped. It far surpassed the 700 minimum word count, and it was not laid out any different than previous similar content. "It may have had formatting issues, broken or unrelated links, and/or significant grammatical errors."
None of those are at issue. Granted, that's based on my own personal assessment. But again, the article follows the same general manner in which I write all of my pieces, regardless of where I happen to write them.
The point of my discontent here is not that my article was not featured. I have been writing long enough to know that not everything is the highest quality, and even I can admit when I may not have put my all into something.
It happens. I get it. It doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is that if it appears to be the case that a form of censorship, outright or simply making something hidden, is what's happening—that's where I take issue. I write opinion. Sometimes it's not a popular one. But it doesn't mean it doesn't belong somewhere.
And that's not to discount the fact that I actually appreciate the high standards by which HubPages determines its content. It makes the site better. It drives more traffic to the site because even though it is a mostly self-publishing platform, there are still eyeballs making decisions in back rooms to determine what they show to readers to find.
Like I said, I have a built-in audience. But that organic traffic which can help to build and grow that audience comes from articles that are featured. So, what happens to an unfeatured article and why does it matter? Why could it be considered a form of shadow banning?
Featured articles enjoy increased visibility is one reason. For example, an unfeatured article lives on HubPages. But it's not on their "Discover" page, which is the main page everyone sees when they go to the site who do not have an account. If something is not featured, only your existing audience will ever see it.
Featured articles are showcased on topic pages and appear as "Related Articles" on other similar featured posts. They are also made available to search engines. In other words, if your article is not featured, it lives on the site, but it is kept from searches. It is internal to HubPages, but is deeply buried and much harder for anyone to find.
As I said before. It is almost invisible.
Just like any media is going to be, there are many within their office walls who tend to be liberals and of course, carry on with a very liberal agenda. Conservative speech is not banned on the site. Not hardly. But it's also not the first time very specific speech has been shadow banned by the site.
To me it is a matter of that slippery slope. Free speech is free speech, and all opinions, even if we strongly disagree with them, deserve to be heard. If you're not careful, eventually only certain selected speech is ever allowed.
I don't think that my comments in the article in question were harsh or mean. I also do not think they were unfair or didn't at least provide some context and explanation behind why I made them. I think they just made an editorial decision to keep the opinion as quiet as possible.
I did send a response asking if they could provide a more detailed explanation. But often times those go unanswered.
The important thing for me is that all voices be heard and that even if the content does not agree with the opinions of the editorial staff, articles should not be hidden from view based only on that alone. At the same time it is their site and I respect what they do, and what their site allows me to do. I will respect their decision regardless.
But of course, I will also publicly share my opinion on what I think about it.
Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.
© 2024 Jim Bauer
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment