Skip to content

Disqus Censors Comment Discussion

  • Avatar

    Bless his courageous heart! I hope he doesn’t concede until there has been an honest and objective audit of the voting and voting process. My educated guess is, that if there is an honest and objective audit – Chris McDaniel will be the actual winner.

    Perhaps, this will be the beginning firsts of candidates standing up to the corrupted American voting process!

 Free speech [US First Amendment] expression is a prerequisite for a Constitutional Republic Democracy. Those who are opposed to democratic free speech principles will always find ways and insidious methods to disrupt and subvert the expressed will of the populous. Hence, the censor and propaganda soon fills the vacuum.

Free speech [US First Amendment] expression is a prerequisite for a Constitutional Republic Democracy. Those who are opposed to democratic free speech principles will always find ways and insidious methods to disrupt and subvert the expressed will of the populous. Hence, the censor and propaganda soon fills the vacuum.

Note: Please feel free to offer your comment after this Moralmatters article.

Have any of you [also] been dissed by Disqus?


The above comment was submitted by Nathan M. Bickel. It was immediately posted and subsequently deleted by the Disqus website commenting facility. Note the linked article below:

Mississippi Tea Party alleges runoff votes were cast illegally – State Sen. Chris McDaniel says he isn’t ready to concede!4DIBA

Within a space of between 5 to 10 minutes the Disqus commenting facility on the website dissed this Moralmatters author’s [copied above] comment. I have found this Disqus practice to be [sadly] repetitive. I can only conclude that Nathan M. Bickel has been black listed by this “popular” comment facility that is used by self-identified “Conservative” websites. 

How many other people who comment on websites (using the Disqus facility) have been censored and essentially, black-listed? How many umpteen comments have been deleted by Disqus? Why do websites such as and the new website utilize apparent corrupted comment facilities like Disqus? Reportedly, Disqus has at least 75 employees. Have each of those employees been assigned certain names to censor those peoples’ comments?

Furthermore, it is this author’s contention that dependent use by websites on Disqus to filter submitted comments, is only playing into the hands of Internet (free speech) discrimination and those individuals who are heavy handed, bound and determined, to restrict American freedoms.

Please note: This author regards to be a bold, new and refreshing website, unafraid to report and explore the mainstream media reported news. But as long as it utilizes Disqus, Nathan M. Bickel will not be squeamish to point out to its managing author, editor and the website’s affiliate, that what is being done by Disqus is an apparent unfair discrimination against First Amendment free speech expression. If Disqus claims to promote website viewer discussion – and, it essentially does in the words of its founder and chief CEO (Daniel Ha), then Disqus should be honest and forthright enough to make the needed positive changes and cease the censor of website viewers and people who comment, such as Nathan M. Bickel.

It is this author’s educated opinion and analysis that Disqus is presently a very questionable comment system designed and operated by certain sources to (unfairly) “weed out” First Amendment discussion. Pastor emeritus Nathan M. Bickel has had other comments of his quickly deleted shortly after submitting them. Also, he has found that the “Disqus discriminating and free speech squashing facility” will not allow this author to substantiate [evidence] some of his comments by linking to his own self-authored web articles on given subjects.

My recommendation? I implore those of you using the Disqus comment facility to seriously re-think your dependent use of its facility.

I challenge you who utilize Disqus to discontinue its use and find some fair and honest comment facility, more in keeping with your belief in First Amendment expression. As such, dissing Disqus would be commendable on your behalf to further your Conservative, patriotic free speech First Amendment cause!

Do your own research (and note the informational links below). But, this Moralmatters author is convinced that Disqus is not reputable! It’s not honorable. Using it plays into the hands of those who intend and work toward restricting your American Constitutional freedoms and Amendment freedoms. Why deliberately “shoot yourselves in the feet?” Why play into the hands of the opposition?

Related Informational links to the above:

DISQUS is Censoring Posts –


………Hello ATS, I had mentioned this in comments over the past several months; so here is a thread.

DISQUS is censoring posts. This service is used across a wide variety of sites, and often displays the message “checking post content” or something to that effect. I doubt that they have enough staff to check every single post, but there IS definitely enough staff to go through and double check the things that do get through.

Posters on CNN have begun to realize this and are talking about it; one user mentions how he feels the post will be deleted in a few hours.

Reddit appears to be doing something similar.

What a great way for corporations to gather information and form public opinion eh?

Qua Qua Qua………. –

Disqus Alternatives – Review:

Should You Use DISQUS Comment System? Maybe… –

To Disqus or not to Disqus – The pros and cons of commenting service Disqus –

Disqussing open-source brands – Daniel Ha, Disqus


“Disqus is a global comment system. And what it does is kind of links together blog communities. And ah, with Disqus it pretty much draws the plugs pretty much on any website or blog platform………..” – Daniel Ha, co-founder of Disqus –


Please note the recent comment this author submitted on – It also was “dissed” by Disqus. It immediately appeared and then disappeared as quickly:

18 thoughts on “Disqus Censors Comment Discussion

  1. Douglas says:

    These private websites generally do what they want. We have to avoid them… if at all possible.

    1. Douglas –

      I don’t go to anymore except to finish reading an Erik Rush commentary which appears on his website as “Read More.” And, even when I do go there, I hate the run-around with their pop-ups. I also shy away from websites such as the Blaze. I cannot stand their use of all Caps in their titles. Do they think all website readers have pop bottle eyeglasses? It galls me that such websites would be so presumptuous and so irritating!

      1. Douglas says:


        I also avoid WND. They are very weak. Their editor is very fearful of offending Obama and the current regime.

        Also, Daily Mail is totally in the bag for Obama as is Huffington Post. Avoid them.

        Drudge runs hot and cold for the regime. At least they have a tiny bit of courage to oppose BHO if they’re in the mood that day or that hour.

        At least Moral Matters dot org is consistent and stands for values and for truth.

        1. Douglas –

          I have to agree with your excellent assessment. Those who refuse to consistently stand for “values and for truth” [your choice words] are, in my opinion, “kiss asses” for political, moral trouble and tyranny!

  2. Steve Roy says:

    Hi. My name is Steve Roy and I work at Disqus.

    To be clear, how you’ve described how Disqus works is not accurate. We do not moderate the comments for the sites that use our service. If your comment was deleted or otherwise moderated, it was at the discretion of the site using our service.


    1. Steve –

      Thank you for your comment. I will lightly consider your comment until I have further information and evidence.

      Furthermore, I have doubts as to your assertion that “how you’ve [I’ve] described how Disqus works is not accurate.”

      You claim that you “do not moderate the comments for the sites that use our service.” That, may be the case; but, if Disqus “blacklists” certain people from commenting, the end result of “censoring” is “completed” – still, the same. That’s maybe why you can strategically [then] say: “…..We do not moderate the comments for the sites that use our service.” And, I’m aware of certain controls I have on the website commenting facility.

      Please, if you will, substantiate your claim to make your assertion more credible. And, if such is truly the case as you say, would be more than willing to post the various sites for its umpteen readers to avoid, boycott and encourage others to do the same.

      1. “Steve:”

        If you are indeed an employee of Disqus, could you explain (in the light of your previous comment) that you, as an employee of Disqus aren’t concerned about dissing certain online comments:

        Here’s a recent Twitter Tweet of yours, that I copied:

        (;-) @SteveRoy44 · Jun 28
        What Vladimir Putin Teaches Us About Handling Internet Trolls … #putrolling #wcsea
        View summary
        ReplyReplied to 0 times RetweetRetweeted 4 times4 FavoriteFavorited 4 times4

      2. Matt Robenolt says:

        Nathan, to follow up with Steve’s comment, I am also an employee of Disqus on the engineering team.

        We don’t even have facilities in our code to blacklist users from commenting as a whole. We can disable accounts entirely if someone was doing something illegal or things like that.

        The account that you used to post that comment is alive and well. That one site may blacklisted you or moderated your comment away. I’m not at liberty to dive into those details of exactly what a site owner did.

        Feel free to comment on any other blog that uses Disqus and you won’t be blocked. Your account has a good number of comments already on other blogs that I can see and is public information. So to say that Disqus has blacklisted you is 100% provably false.

        And lastly, with the volume of comments we get in, at this time, roughly 15 per second all day every day, it’d take much more than 75 employees to keep up with that. In peak, we see around 25-30 comments/s. And as an engineer, if my job was to monitor and delete comments that don’t fit into some hidden agenda, I would not be happy.

        1. Matt –

          Thank you for your comment and the information you offer. You say:

          “……The account that you used to post that comment is alive and well. That one site may blacklisted you or moderated your comment away. I’m not at liberty to dive into those details of exactly what a site owner did…….”

          Believe you me – I’m attempting to find some resolution to this “angst” of mine. As I ponder this Moralmatters posting and the subsequent comments, I am [now] led to believe that certain [supposed] “Conservative” websites could be doing the censoring. And, if such is the case, the reasons (by them) may be personal, petty and selfish. Or, another possibility is, that some outside “source” is precipitating the action of certain censor.

          Furthermore, I witness the reality of what you say. My past comment history with Disqus has comments of mine appearing. However, the most recent attempts of mine have been foiled – those with and

          Finally, I hear what you are saying. Following is what my own website “‘Discussion’ internals” say:

          Comment Moderation

          Hold a comment in the queue if it contains or more links. (A common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.)

          When a comment contains any of these words in its content, name, URL, e-mail, or IP, it will be held in the moderation queue. One word or IP per line. It will match inside words, so “press” will match “WordPress”.

          Comment Blacklist

          When a comment contains any of these words in its content, name, URL, e-mail, or IP, it will be marked as spam. One word or IP per line. It will match inside words, so “press” will match “WordPress”.

          One other thing – if the websites in question are knowingly blocking [dissing my comments] then this Moralmatters author will have to consider that they are “saboteurs” to First Amendment free speech expression – or, at the very least, plain just rather not desire this Moralmatters author to “muck up” their website presence. In that case I can just as well remove any reference to those sites as a credible site and publicaly call “blacklist attention” to them on Moralmatters. My reasoning:

          Why (then) should Moralmatters promote that which is apparently found to be, personally discriminatory, hypocritical and sanctimonious?

          1. Matt Robenolt says:

            I can tell you that out of your most recent 20 comments, 10 of them have been moderated, and they were all on sites that have pre-moderation enabled.

          2. Matt –

            Thank you for the further information.

            So, I “take it” that these sites which have their “pre-moderation enabled,” that they are consciously blocking my comments? That, is what I “hear” you saying………

            Incidentally, I [now] recall not being able (for a very long time) to be able to comment on the mainstream Yahoo news [aka propaganda aka Obama] pieces……

          3. Matt Robenolt says:

            Yeah, I mean, I can’t tell you exactly the reason for every comment being moderated, but it’s something along those lines.

            Just to reiterate, we don’t care what you post. It is not at all in our interest to invest the time into moderating comments unless they are something illegal. It has nothing to do with us agreeing or disagreeing on the content that our users post. Trust me, there are plenty of controversial topics that people talk about, and we don’t ever get in the middle of any of them.

            Each publisher makes up their own rules and runs their own communities. We provide the tools for them to do what they want. If they want to blacklist you or prevent you from commenting on their blog, that’s their choice. We just empower the choices.

            I neither agree nor disagree with those decisions or opinions. 🙂 Just don’t think we’re out to block people on our own time. We have way more exciting things to work on and way bigger challenges as a product to tackle. Moderating 20 new comments every second is not one of those.

  3. Anniem says:

    This censorship is real, pervasive and ongoing. I recently came across an argument on a “conservative” site between two people. I told them they were actually both right. One jumped in real quick demanding that I provide FACTS to back up my claim. I gave book titles, author, page number and paragraph to prove my point. It just disappeared. Blip! Truth is the new crime.

    1. Anniem –

      Thank you for your comment! I’m sorry I didn’t respond until now, as I must have been in a big hurry to approve it. Yes! I agree, “Truth is the new crime.” [Your excellent description]

  4. George says:

    They’ve got some database where they log your actions and if you’re too conservative you’re bad of course. I first noticed this on yahoo they weren’t using Discus but they were ranking users and allowing others to “report” your comments if they did’t like them. Well guess who did the reporting, liberals of course. Once blackmailed on yahoo (they even removed my account without saying anything) I found myself shut out of many sites including many conservative sites but definitely all the “biggies.” It’s definiately upsetting especially considering who’s running the database, liberals.

  5. George says:

    Sorry, blacklisted.

  6. George says:

    Oh one other thing, they track you by your IP address.

    1. George –

      Thank you for your 3 informational comments! You mention Yahoo. I can identify. blocked me for quite some time from even attempting to comment. There was no need for them to delete because I couldn’t even comment.

      What I’ve done is remove from my home page. I decided not to promote a website on which deleted my comments; even though I like, respect and admire the one who basically runs the website. I even out (of angst and frustration) removed another website featured on this Moralmatters [home page] with which he is directly associated [with]. However, today, I repented of that hasty decision, and consequently put the FULL CONTACT pic link, back. My hurried decision to lump FULL CONTACT with the comment deleting, site, was not proper or wise. I apologize to Erik Rush for doing so, even though, to this day I still don’t have any detail “skinny” why my comments were apparently sanctioned and deleted.

      Having stated the above, this commentary article and title will stand. I know that some self-identified Disqus “employees” commented their “take.” But, I’m not completely satisfied with their “communicated understanding.” Their explanation reminded me of the same “type of” argumentation [contention] that is often used by some criminal White House ID fraud, aka Obama supporters – that such an such could not at all be the case because “it” is out of the realm of possibility – [i.e – Disqus would never be part of such censor. Do, trust Disqus]. In other words, “the incapable argument” – denying the “depravity of human nature” – another fallacy of logic.

      Finally, this author has been battered and bruised enough on the web to not believe that there are opposition forces out there who will do by “hook and crook” what they feel they must to forge ahead with their nefarious and malevolent agendas……….

Comments are closed.