8 ms·

Reddit bans 2000 communities including The_Donald

47 points by subroutine 6y ago

subroutine 6y ago
>Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse were included.
ovi256 6y ago
Reddit's not just banning the subreddits, it's banning mentions of the websites where these communities are moving. Reddit does not want to host these groups anymore. But it doesn't want them to organize and find another host. It's a lot of power for a free forum hoster.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Interesting. I do know about thedonald.win - any news about the ChapoTrapHouse community?
  - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
    r/CTH wasn’t run by the hosts, if anything the CTH community exists on twitter
  - polytely 6y ago
    The chapo crew met on twitter so that is where their main community is, the relationship with /r/cth was never great I think. Chapo members Will Menaker (@willmenaker) and Matt Christman (@cushbomb) seem to be glad it is gone. - https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1277649588019699716 https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1277649588019699716 - https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1277649915041153025 https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1277649915041153025
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Source for this claim?
- gear54rus 6y ago
  Smart people already countered those idiots by establishing the place where to meet up in case sth like that happens beforehead.
  - s9w 6y ago
    I dread the day when they actually go for 4chan. While it's being heavily attacked especially in recent weeks, it's still by far the bigest place to get neutral information and discussion.
Darmody 6y ago
They also banned /r/RightWingLGBT. As Joe Biden would say, if you vote for they right you ain't LGBT. LGBT belongs to the Democrats.
9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
I've never heard of Chapo Trap House before, apparently it's a "dirtbag left" podcast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House Am I being too cynical to assume it was singled out in the comms so Reddit can pretend to be fair and balanced, when the actual target was r/The_Donald?
- zozbot234 6y ago
  It could well be the other way around. Progressive activists hate the hard-hitting 'dirtbag' left, they see it as a dangerous threat to their own worldview. BTW, discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425
  - mcv 6y ago
    Not so much a threat to the progressive worldview, but a threat to progressive politics having a positive impact. From what I understand, the 'dirtbag left' consider themselves the gatekeepers of progressive politics, and do a good job of alienating as many other people as possible. The Trumpists of the left, sounds like a reasonable description. Some argue they were a big part of the reason why Bernie's campaign was unable to find much traction outside his core. Of course they blame it on others, even calling other progressives, like Elizabeth Warren, traitors.
    - andybak 6y ago
      I'm really conflicted on this. On one hand I wish we could improve civic discourse and dialogue and combat tribalism in politics but on the other I recognize that one of the factors that seems to have led to the rise of the alt-right is that the left just vacated a space that appeals to a large group of people - impolite, combative and (sometimes) witty. When I was growing up it was natural for rebellious, cynical young people to be drawn to this kind of politics. That hasn't changed but now it seems to alarmingly be the primary recruiting tool for a particular brand of regressive politics. I understand these two impulses are probably in direct opposition. I can't want both but I also fear what will happen if we lose a chunk of an entire generation to the far right.
schnautzi 6y ago
> While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate. Some are more equal than others.
- peroporque 6y ago
  The left is currently redefining racism. Hate against Whites is defined as not being racist. And being White is means that you are always racist. I wish, I was kidding.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Sad that this truth has been downvoted.
    - peroporque 6y ago
      Better only being downvoted than being Canceled, like so many others are for daring to question the new "truths". So many people's economic and social lives have already been destroyed.
      - collyw 6y ago
        The silent majority needs to be able to stand up to the authoritarian and vocal minority. The problem is that you can loose your job over questioning them.
  - lowtolerance 6y ago
    I wish white people would stop crying victim every time someone mentions the word “racism”.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      I wish anti-white racist remarks were taken as seriously as other racism. Not much hope of that, I guess, when a major website like reddit is clearly saying they won't do anything at all about anti-white racism.
bluecalm 6y ago
I am ok with Reddit choosing what content is publicly available on their platform. It should go without saying Reddit should also be responsible for the content it chooses to serve. If anything it's unfair competition against traditional media which doesn't enjoy "platform" protections.
Tempest1981 6y ago
Earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425
- alecco 6y ago
  it was quickly flagged out of the front page
- imtringued 6y ago
  It's the same topic but a different article. The reddit anouncement is the official source and it's not paywalled so this submission still has some value in my opinion.
peroporque 6y ago
This is just another small piece in the big puzzle of social changes that are currently happening. The "Big Nap" is over. And it won't be fun.
chadcmulligan 6y ago
Suppose they'll move to voat.co now, a lot of the too extreme for the_donald had moved there already.
ybbond 6y ago
Just after I read about [Lemmy] on [hn post], and kinda moved to it. [Lemmy]: https://dev.lemmy.ml https://dev.lemmy.ml [hn post]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664067
Reimersholme 6y ago
"Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned. [...] While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate." So as long as you hate or incite violence towards whatever groups Reddit define as "in the majority", you are welcome? Mind blowing...
AHappyCamper 6y ago
One of the values I believe in the most is the right to free speech. Free speech is a powerful thing, which means it can be used for good and for bad. Sometimes what appears to us today as bad can actually turn out to be good in the future. The general rule of free speech is that it does not permit threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence. Hate speech, on the other hand, is MUCH more subjective. What may appear to me to be a well-reasoned argument may to you appear to be hate speech. With these complex issues in mind, I'd say that unless the groups that Reddit banned were advocating or threatening violence, banning them was counter-productive and hurtful to having an open and free discourse on the internet. Of course, there is the go-to argument that Reddit is a private company, and as such they can do whatever they like, but because they provide a public service that is used by billions of people, they have an obligation to uphold the values and laws of our society - most notably the first amendment - which protects free speech.
- krapp 6y ago
  You speak as if there is an objective definition of "threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence" but I've seen people argue that as no less subjective (and therefore no less a slippery slope) as defining hate speech.
  - AHappyCamper 6y ago
    I think there is a much more objective definition of "threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence" than there is for hate speech. Some people could interpret a sentence like: "I don't like the taste of curry" to be hate speech, since it targets the ethnic food of a difference race. (For the record, I love curry...) So yes, banning "hate speech" that does not threaten violence is a slippery slope, because it is simply too open to interpretation.
    - krapp 6y ago
      A "much more objective" definition is still subjective. Some people consider the fourteen words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" to be a threat of violence, others consider it to simply a neutral statement. Some people consider wearing MAGA hats to be a threat of violence, others simply a form of patriotism. Was Trump making a racist, violent threat when he said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," or just prosaically supporting law and order? If it can be argued that one can apply a test of reasonableness as to whether or not a statement constitutes a threat of violence, then it should be the case such a test can be applied to hate speech. There's a risk of abuse involved in both cases, yes, but there is always a risk where the interpretation of language for political ends is involved.
tatrajim 6y ago
We’re a long way from the halcyon days of Usenet. Couldn’t have imagined in the 1980s the embrace of censorship by the tech world. It almost makes me physically ill.

47 points by subroutine 6y ago

>Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse were included.

ovi256 6y ago

Reddit's not just banning the subreddits, it's banning mentions of the websites where these communities are moving. Reddit does not want to host these groups anymore. But it doesn't want them to organize and find another host. It's a lot of power for a free forum hoster.

zozbot234 6y ago
Interesting. I do know about thedonald.win - any news about the ChapoTrapHouse community?
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  r/CTH wasn’t run by the hosts, if anything the CTH community exists on twitter
- polytely 6y ago
  The chapo crew met on twitter so that is where their main community is, the relationship with /r/cth was never great I think. Chapo members Will Menaker (@willmenaker) and Matt Christman (@cushbomb) seem to be glad it is gone. - https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1277649588019699716 https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1277649588019699716 - https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1277649915041153025 https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1277649915041153025
im3w1l 6y ago
Source for this claim?
gear54rus 6y ago
Smart people already countered those idiots by establishing the place where to meet up in case sth like that happens beforehead.
- s9w 6y ago
  I dread the day when they actually go for 4chan. While it's being heavily attacked especially in recent weeks, it's still by far the bigest place to get neutral information and discussion.

Darmody 6y ago

They also banned /r/RightWingLGBT. As Joe Biden would say, if you vote for they right you ain't LGBT. LGBT belongs to the Democrats.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago

I've never heard of Chapo Trap House before, apparently it's a "dirtbag left" podcast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House Am I being too cynical to assume it was singled out in the comms so Reddit can pretend to be fair and balanced, when the actual target was r/The_Donald?

zozbot234 6y ago
It could well be the other way around. Progressive activists hate the hard-hitting 'dirtbag' left, they see it as a dangerous threat to their own worldview. BTW, discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425
- mcv 6y ago
  Not so much a threat to the progressive worldview, but a threat to progressive politics having a positive impact. From what I understand, the 'dirtbag left' consider themselves the gatekeepers of progressive politics, and do a good job of alienating as many other people as possible. The Trumpists of the left, sounds like a reasonable description. Some argue they were a big part of the reason why Bernie's campaign was unable to find much traction outside his core. Of course they blame it on others, even calling other progressives, like Elizabeth Warren, traitors.
  - andybak 6y ago
    I'm really conflicted on this. On one hand I wish we could improve civic discourse and dialogue and combat tribalism in politics but on the other I recognize that one of the factors that seems to have led to the rise of the alt-right is that the left just vacated a space that appeals to a large group of people - impolite, combative and (sometimes) witty. When I was growing up it was natural for rebellious, cynical young people to be drawn to this kind of politics. That hasn't changed but now it seems to alarmingly be the primary recruiting tool for a particular brand of regressive politics. I understand these two impulses are probably in direct opposition. I can't want both but I also fear what will happen if we lose a chunk of an entire generation to the far right.

schnautzi 6y ago

> While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate. Some are more equal than others.

peroporque 6y ago
The left is currently redefining racism. Hate against Whites is defined as not being racist. And being White is means that you are always racist. I wish, I was kidding.
- collyw 6y ago
  Sad that this truth has been downvoted.
  - peroporque 6y ago
    Better only being downvoted than being Canceled, like so many others are for daring to question the new "truths". So many people's economic and social lives have already been destroyed.
    - collyw 6y ago
      The silent majority needs to be able to stand up to the authoritarian and vocal minority. The problem is that you can loose your job over questioning them.
- lowtolerance 6y ago
  I wish white people would stop crying victim every time someone mentions the word “racism”.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    I wish anti-white racist remarks were taken as seriously as other racism. Not much hope of that, I guess, when a major website like reddit is clearly saying they won't do anything at all about anti-white racism.

bluecalm 6y ago

I am ok with Reddit choosing what content is publicly available on their platform. It should go without saying Reddit should also be responsible for the content it chooses to serve. If anything it's unfair competition against traditional media which doesn't enjoy "platform" protections.

Tempest1981 6y ago

Earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679425

alecco 6y ago
it was quickly flagged out of the front page
imtringued 6y ago
It's the same topic but a different article. The reddit anouncement is the official source and it's not paywalled so this submission still has some value in my opinion.

peroporque 6y ago

This is just another small piece in the big puzzle of social changes that are currently happening. The "Big Nap" is over. And it won't be fun.

chadcmulligan 6y ago

Suppose they'll move to voat.co now, a lot of the too extreme for the_donald had moved there already.

ybbond 6y ago

Just after I read about [Lemmy] on [hn post], and kinda moved to it. [Lemmy]: https://dev.lemmy.ml https://dev.lemmy.ml [hn post]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664067

Reimersholme 6y ago

"Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned. [...] While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate." So as long as you hate or incite violence towards whatever groups Reddit define as "in the majority", you are welcome? Mind blowing...

AHappyCamper 6y ago

One of the values I believe in the most is the right to free speech. Free speech is a powerful thing, which means it can be used for good and for bad. Sometimes what appears to us today as bad can actually turn out to be good in the future. The general rule of free speech is that it does not permit threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence. Hate speech, on the other hand, is MUCH more subjective. What may appear to me to be a well-reasoned argument may to you appear to be hate speech. With these complex issues in mind, I'd say that unless the groups that Reddit banned were advocating or threatening violence, banning them was counter-productive and hurtful to having an open and free discourse on the internet. Of course, there is the go-to argument that Reddit is a private company, and as such they can do whatever they like, but because they provide a public service that is used by billions of people, they have an obligation to uphold the values and laws of our society - most notably the first amendment - which protects free speech.

krapp 6y ago
You speak as if there is an objective definition of "threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence" but I've seen people argue that as no less subjective (and therefore no less a slippery slope) as defining hate speech.
- AHappyCamper 6y ago
  I think there is a much more objective definition of "threats of violence or obvious incitement to violence" than there is for hate speech. Some people could interpret a sentence like: "I don't like the taste of curry" to be hate speech, since it targets the ethnic food of a difference race. (For the record, I love curry...) So yes, banning "hate speech" that does not threaten violence is a slippery slope, because it is simply too open to interpretation.
  - krapp 6y ago
    A "much more objective" definition is still subjective. Some people consider the fourteen words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" to be a threat of violence, others consider it to simply a neutral statement. Some people consider wearing MAGA hats to be a threat of violence, others simply a form of patriotism. Was Trump making a racist, violent threat when he said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," or just prosaically supporting law and order? If it can be argued that one can apply a test of reasonableness as to whether or not a statement constitutes a threat of violence, then it should be the case such a test can be applied to hate speech. There's a risk of abuse involved in both cases, yes, but there is always a risk where the interpretation of language for political ends is involved.

tatrajim 6y ago

We’re a long way from the halcyon days of Usenet. Couldn’t have imagined in the 1980s the embrace of censorship by the tech world. It almost makes me physically ill.