Local Control or Centralized Corporate Control In Local Conversations?

MAGA Moderator employed by Disqus asserts policies that are inconsistent with the local publisher

We live in interesting times, with a lot going on on the local front.

A short few minutes ago, I was once again targeted by the Discus moderator of The Boothbay Register for the offense of using the first name of another poster when I responded to what he said:

I responded:

My comment was a response to specific words posted by the user who calls himself Jack Bauer. The Disqus moderator is accusing me of personally attacking the user by addressing him by his name and saying he said what he said. The user who calls himself Jack Bauer is the most toxic poster on The Boothbay Register. Outside of his own MAGA cult, no one interacts with him, except me. Perhaps others understand that Mr Bauer is under the protection of the Disqus moderator, or maybe he is so toxic and repetitive that they keep him blocked.

Ironically, the Disqus moderators’ new rules were personally adressed to me in the comments section of a Letter to the Editor, titled 'You don’t treat people like this,' which refers to the way ICE treats the population in general. It is not just about how ICE treats the undocumented, the immigrant, or the person of color. The victims of ICE’s public executions were American citizens. The rhetorical response of the far right is that it is the victim’s fault that they were executed for exercising their First and Second Amendment constitutional rights. If you don’t want to be murdered, then don’t protest ICE is the argument that MAGA stands on.

Disqus is playing the role of the private centralized authority, censoring free speech, countering the policies of the local sponsoring publication. It is another instance of the overreach of central management over local policy, which is the subject of my grant proposal:

Grant Proposal:

The United States Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 established federal central management of the economy down to the municipal level. The law explicitly stated it would draft state legislation and work with state officials to enact federal proposals. One year later, Maine voters approved the Home Rule Amendment, establishing local constitutional authority over matters municipal in character. This correlation suggests a direct response, but needs factual confirmation.

This preliminary reporting will establish whether Maine’s Home Rule movement was a grassroots response to this federal centralization. The 1963 Constitutional Commission proceedings will reveal whether Home Rule was already under consideration before 1968, or emerged afterward as a defense against federal overreach. Newspaper archives will show whether public debate referenced the federal law, and identify the individuals and organizations who led the campaign for Home Rule.

Currently, my research analyzes statutory language and constitutional principles - work that appeals to analytical readers but has limited reach. This phase will flesh out the institutional analysis with human stories: Who organized for Home Rule? What motivated them? How did different Maine communities frame the debate? These narratives will make the constitutional conflict accessible to wider audiences by engaging readers emotionally as well as intellectually.

This story resonates today as Americans again confront tensions between federal and local control. Understanding how and why Maine constitutionally protected local authority provides historical context for current debates. This reporting will establish the factual foundation and identify the compelling characters to tell this story to a broad public audience.

Does central management control us from the top down, or are we self-governed from the roots? Do our local communities have individualized character, or are we, as in recent Maine housing laws enactments, just ubiquitous cells in a state-controlled grid? No individual distinctions anywhere.

After the moderator drama was over, Jack Bauer went back to posting, a bit more subdued but feeling emboldened to disregard the rules that the moderator claimed applied to all, as Mr Bauer personally attacked the author of the Letter in this comment

Bartles writes, “...absolutely implicated in the Epstein Files and is also a well-documented sexual assailant.”

And he continues, “It is the cruelty that conservatives love so much.”

Of course, both of Bartle’s assertions are grossly libelous I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt by calling them “assertions” instead of smears. Regardless, both are devoid of fact but loaded with hostile innuendo. With respect to assertion no. 1 --- that’s a case of wishful thinking by Bartles. And with respect to assertion 2 ---- that is likely projection which Bartles will have to handle himself

The facts is President Trump and MAGA are focused on reducing crime and reasserting the rule of law. Secretary Kristin Noem, Director Patel, Czar Homan and others have reason to be delighted with the crime 2025 crime stats. For those who don’t know, here they are…….

The moderator let this personal attack on Bartles slide. The worth of the moderator’s word is evidenced by his response when I confronted him about removing my post below (posted in my previous post)

The moderator claimed that the post was auto-pended because Ashli had been misspelled as Asshli and was automatically interpreted as a “bad word”

But it is clearly shown in the screenshot that I posted before having the conversation with the moderator that Ashli is spelled Ashli. The moderator approved the above post after that, even though I did not edit it, and Ashli is not misspelled. (OK, I see it now- it’s the second reiteration- butmany words have an “ass” sequence- in example “grass, assembly, amass, ambassador)

You might be wondering (or not) who the redcoats are. The identifier came about when the anonymous prolific poster, who calls himself Jack Bauer, expressed outrage that I called the 3000 ICE agents that descended on Minneapolis “invaders,” so I said, How about if we call them ‘redcoats’ instead, since they are being sent into blue cities across America. “Redcoats” is also appropriately analogous to the colonial days when the British army occupied the colonies and tried to disarm the colonists, which is why we have the “right to bear arms” in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Today, the right is blaming the victim of the latest public execution by ICE because he carried a legal firearm, which he never drew. They are even advocating that the way to avoid conflict with the redcoats is to stay home, but certainly don’t carry a firearm to an event where ICE agents are walking around with their guns. You deserve to be executed if you do that, even if your weapon is not in visible sight.

And now an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo authorizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement(“ICE”) Agents to enter homes and residences without consent, to conduct arrests and removals without a warrant issued by a federal judge, an order from an administration that acts as if it is the rule of law, and there is no law that governs it. The United States is a balance of powers. A legal warrant to enter your home must have a judge’s signature, as recently explained by a lawyer on the Joy Reid Show on Substack.

I have decided to refrain from commenting in the comments section of the Boothbay Register for the time being, as I do not want to support Disqus, incorporated. I will make an exception for critical local issues. I have not forgotten that when I first started commenting in the Boothbay Register comments and the Town leadership (what Joe Scorcia calls the Communist Elite) stepped in and announced that it was innappropriate to comment on any local public issue anywhere except in the meetings that Town leadershipped managed, then it was Disqus who intervened to say “Wait a minute this is good for our numbers”

In other words, my comments were increasing the number of views, which is attributable to being the only consistent voice at that time that countered the views put forth by a group of self-affirming MAGA cultists. There are others now, but none as consistently present as I have been. So what happens to Disqus numbers if I drop out, and other voices countering MAGA do not replace my participation?

This transition coincides with submitting my grant application. I need to invest my time in seeking ways to provide content for which I am paid at a value reasonable to the many years I have invested in independent research into Maine’s history and statutes. I submitted my grant application yesterday. A copy of it is HERE, but the earliest I will hear about that is mid-March, and in the meantime,e I explore other means that produce an income.

Click to see!

Meanwhile, I am watching the conversation. The author of the letter where the it is taking place is Mike Bartles. Bartles is new to the conversation and very intelligent. He answered Dumb Boy Derick Cola’s question, “ How is it that removing criminal aliens is a humanitarian crisis?” in the most comprehensive way that I have ever seen.

I call Cola Dumb Boy here because he behaved so toxicly towards me when I tried to engage with him that he was soon blocked, but the moderator did not interfere/ The cult frequently insults others, and the moderator does nothing.

The newest comment is by Creepy Cove (Xmas Cove). He transgresses the rules that the Moderator announced, claiming as he did so that the rules applied equally to all.

Creepy Cove addresses Barrtles by his name as he personally attacks him. I predict that the Moderater will once again do nothing, which is fine by me, but that is the rule the Moderater should be applying evenly.

Creepy Cove: “Alex Pretti was disarmed, forced to the ground, pepper sprayed and then shot several times. That is an execution.”

By repeating this lie that has been force-fed to you by the Radical America-hating Left, you have started a string of comments that are largely false and misleading, Mr. Bartles

The comment moderator lets that slide

I am not commenting in the Disqus forum on Creepy Cove’s post, but I have freedom of speech here. It is typically and consistently true that MAGA accusations are confessions. Creepy Cove’s comment is no exception. What he calls ”lies are the multitude of videos that recorded what went down, and the lack of testimony (outside of ICE) supporting the state narrative. There is nothing to support Creepy Coves “truth”, other than the state narrative.

This is followed by a string of lies that begin with “Pretti came to the protest with a sidearm. Legal, but not smart, considering what he was planning to do. Also not known to the officers.”

Pretti didn’t come to the protest planning to help a woman that a gang of agents had pepper-sprayed and shoved to the ground, beyond very generalized plans to support the protest, exercising his First Amendment rights. over which ICE has no authority and cannot use in any real court as justification for execution, on the spot, without due process.

I read a couple more lines, each loaded with similar lies, and I decide not to bother reading any more of Creepy Cove’s post.

Toxic Jack and Creepy Cove are now holding court over the conversation just as MAGA Moderater wants it to be.

There was one point at which it temporarily appeared that Joe Scorcia had broken ranks with the embedded dogma when he posted this:

However, it turned out to be about one of Scorcia’s comments in a conversation with me in which I asked, “Why is Joe Scorcia asking, ‘Why is it suddenly unconstitutional ?" There is no mention of constitutionality in this letter. Discussions of constitutionality in the larger world are focused on the methods being used by ICE that have nothing in common with the way ICE was directed under the Obama administration.”

To show that he was justified in asking the question, Joe Scorcia posted the following explanation: Thanks Joe, but the fact that you posted arguments for why ICE’s operations are unconstitutional probably explains why MAGA moderator kept deleting your comment until you publicly protested:

Quote from Joe Scorcia’s deleted (and now published) post:

Question to AI. what political leaders have said or implied that the actions of ice illegal or unconstitutional?
Answer from AI. In recent political discourse, several prominent leaders have characterized the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as illegal, unconstitutional, or a violation of core American values.

Keith Ellison (Minnesota Attorney General): Stated that the saturation of Minnesota with thousands of ICE agents to force state compliance is “unconstitutional and illegal”. He specifically cited the 10th Amendment, arguing the federal government lacks the authority to “deputize” state officials against their will.

Pramila Jayapal (U.S. Representative): Has described ICE as a “rogue force” that conducts “unlawful mass detention”. She has frequently stated that ICE’s practice of detaining and deporting U.S. citizens is illegal.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (U.S. Representative): Regularly refers to ICE as a “rogue agency” and has accused its agents of violating constitutional rights. She has specifically called out tactics like entering homes without judicial warrants as unlawful.

Bob Ferguson (Washington Governor): Described recent ICE enforcement actions as “un-American” and “outrageous in the extreme”. He sent a letter to the DHS asserting that ICE policies allowing agents to enter homes without warrants are unconstitutional.

Chris Murphy (U.S. Senator): Explicitly called ICE’s recent operations in Connecticut “inhumane and illegal” during interviews, citing cases of individuals in the country legally being detained for months.

Chuck Schumer (Senate Democratic Leader): Stated that Democrats would block funding to “rein in the abuses of ICE,” declaring that people must be “safe from abuse by their own government”.

Hakeem Jeffries (House Democratic Leader): Expressed that the country is “disgusted” by the actions of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, particularly following fatal shooting incidents involving federal agents in Minnesota.

Former Presidents (Biden, Obama, Clinton): While they focused on moral and value-based critiques, they implied that the crackdown “betrays our most basic values” and puts American freedoms at risk.

I was jesting when I told Scorcia that the reason his post was censored was that he referred to me by my first name, qualifiable as a personal insult by the moderators’ standards. The real reason is that Scorcias post can be viewed as supporting the argument that ICE’s actions are unconstitutional. The moderator does not care one iota if anyone insults me, in any manner that he spins an insult. The Disqus moderator is biased on the wrong side of history.

Update: it appears that Jack Bauer has deleted a series of his own posts in the conversation where the push backocurred, but I remain appalled and disgusted by the moderator of the Boothbay Register comments forum by Disqus.Inc, leading to the question, how widespread is this style of moderation? Is there an even deeper story?