4 ms·

> We're not talking about people's houses. I'm talking about private property and the right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the

> We're not talking about people's houses. I'm talking about private property and the right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. When a group of people create a business this doesn't magically go away. > In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views. Certain protected classes are legally protected from discrimination, yes. To my knowledge "advocating violence" is not a political view; this is what the r/The_Donald is being quarantined for.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 7y ago
Here's the original story accusing TD of advocating violence: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump-subreddit-is-full-of-calls-for-violence-in-support-of-Oregon-Republicans/224018 https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump... Featuring comments with as few as 1 point. Those are just an excuse to further restrict a community they've restricted several times in the past, without admitting it's for political reasons.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Okay, you've signalled that they do do it, but now there are not enough points of data. How many points of data is your burden of proof, before you agree?
  - leereeves 7y ago
    "They"? Those are comments from a few fringe users, buried so deep that most people never saw them. Is that a reason to punish a community of hundreds of thousands of people? That's like quarantining an entire city because a few people there are violent. That's not a good solution in the real world or online.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      So is the burden of proof that the people commenting about inciting violence have to be "main" users before it's a problem? What's your criteria for that? You're being pretty slippery right now by dodging questions.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        I'd say handle it like we handle crime in the real world. Punish the offender, not the community. Now will you answer a similar question? I spent a couple minutes looking through a single post on r/politics and found a couple of violent comments: > Just do a 180 turn on gun reforms. They’ll take an armed population more seriously. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es387hw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... > It's because protests don't achieve anything. ... Riots on the other hand... https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es397lg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... Do you think r/politics should be quarantined because of those two posts? Unless that was an extremely unusual post, there are undoubtedly many more. How many more would make you want a quarantine?
        bduerst 7y ago
        That isn't a burden of proof though, which is what the question asked for. You're basically saying that Reddit should never ban subreddits, which means that you don't even have a burden of proof for banning a subreddit. This means no matter what you're always against banning a subreddit on a privately owned website, yet you fawn at other reasons to justify it (fringe users, not enough data points, etc.) Your proposed solution instead is that admins should police every user, when mods fail to, which just isn't scalable. Especially when the barrier to just creating a new account to bypass the ban is so low.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Privately owned doesn't mean they can do anything they want. We've allowed privately owned companies to control the means of communication, without regulation. It's time to bring back the laws that limited the phone companies and big three TV networks interference in politics, updated for the Internet.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

leereeves 7y ago

Here's the original story accusing TD of advocating violence: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump-subreddit-is-full-of-calls-for-violence-in-support-of-Oregon-Republicans/224018 https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump... Featuring comments with as few as 1 point. Those are just an excuse to further restrict a community they've restricted several times in the past, without admitting it's for political reasons.

bduerst 7y ago
Okay, you've signalled that they do do it, but now there are not enough points of data. How many points of data is your burden of proof, before you agree?
- leereeves 7y ago
  "They"? Those are comments from a few fringe users, buried so deep that most people never saw them. Is that a reason to punish a community of hundreds of thousands of people? That's like quarantining an entire city because a few people there are violent. That's not a good solution in the real world or online.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    So is the burden of proof that the people commenting about inciting violence have to be "main" users before it's a problem? What's your criteria for that? You're being pretty slippery right now by dodging questions.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      I'd say handle it like we handle crime in the real world. Punish the offender, not the community. Now will you answer a similar question? I spent a couple minutes looking through a single post on r/politics and found a couple of violent comments: > Just do a 180 turn on gun reforms. They’ll take an armed population more seriously. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es387hw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... > It's because protests don't achieve anything. ... Riots on the other hand... https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es397lg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... Do you think r/politics should be quarantined because of those two posts? Unless that was an extremely unusual post, there are undoubtedly many more. How many more would make you want a quarantine?
      - bduerst 7y ago
        That isn't a burden of proof though, which is what the question asked for. You're basically saying that Reddit should never ban subreddits, which means that you don't even have a burden of proof for banning a subreddit. This means no matter what you're always against banning a subreddit on a privately owned website, yet you fawn at other reasons to justify it (fringe users, not enough data points, etc.) Your proposed solution instead is that admins should police every user, when mods fail to, which just isn't scalable. Especially when the barrier to just creating a new account to bypass the ban is so low.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Privately owned doesn't mean they can do anything they want. We've allowed privately owned companies to control the means of communication, without regulation. It's time to bring back the laws that limited the phone companies and big three TV networks interference in politics, updated for the Internet.