6 ms·

I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to b

I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to be none etc" indicating he had not taken it seriously early. Banned after that. Which is fine, I feel that people should be free to form any clubs/groups they want.

LatteLazy 6y ago
I agree broadly though I'd add two caveats: They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society. I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. That second option is much less democractic and would (imho at least) be open to investigation and regulation like any other campaign activity. Hopefully it's not that, it's just someone trying to launch twitter 2.0 and make some cash. What a mess! :)
- singemonkey 6y ago
  > They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. Sorry, but they can and do. This is a group of people that will happily shut down your speech while proclaiming themselves to be the defenders of free speech and liberty. They will happily insult you, but are quick to play victim and complain about being oppressed and harassed and insulted.
- npsimons 6y ago
  > Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.
  - cowmoo728 6y ago
    "Rebekah Mercer is funding Parler, the social-media app touted by Republican politicians and pundits that conservatives are flocking to" https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-social-media-app-touted-by-right-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-... "[Robert] Mercer played a key role in the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by donating data analytics services to Nigel Farage. He is also a major funder of organizations supporting right-wing political causes in the United States, such as Breitbart News, and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer They're a husband and wife pair that fund hyper partisan causes, it's not exactly jumping to conclusions.
    - npsimons 6y ago
      > They're a husband and wife pair that fund hyper partisan causes, it's not exactly jumping to conclusions. Well then, I am grateful you cited sources. GP proffered the claim with nothing to back it up. I'm definitely the kind to believe these claims, as I've seen them verified in other realms before (Murdoch, Ailes, Kochs, Sinclair, etc), but that's precisely why I have to question that instinct. I can't just go believing things without evidence.
    - howlin 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure it's daughter-father, not wife-husband.
    - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
      Dan Bongino also owns a stake in Parler. They aren't remotely for free speech either, by the way. I started an account there, disagreed with someone (I guess one of the wrong people to counter), and was banned within 10 minutes for wrongthink.
- 0x445442 6y ago
  The problem is when Reddit shuts down r/conservative because they don't agree with the opinions on the sub.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    why is that the problem? r/conservative can start any club they like. reddit can run any business they like.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      It's a problem, because it doesn't end here. Even if you make your own service, once your "club" gains too much traction you are still going to be deplatformed by domain registers, DDoS protection services, payment processors etc. It's also a free speech issue. The main purpose of free speech is the ability to criticize your government and social media have obviously a huge influence on elections. As we move towards more and more lockdowns, where you won't be even able to just go out and speak your mind to the public, the social media will become the only way of communication. If you are not allowed to speak freely on those platforms and be able to actually make a change, it will render the free speech laws completely useless and you might as well repeal them at this point. Free speech laws should apply to social media. You might not agree with the ideas that are being censored right now, but sooner or later they will come after you too.
      - BlueTemplar 6y ago
        We might need an intermediary status between media and hosting, where they are allowed to censor content, but take some responsibility for that (like if you hit someone stealing something), especially if they are a for profit company.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        This is contradictory. If you tell Twitter what its platform can/can't support you are violating its freedom of speech. The 1st amendment applies to the government restricting speech - not private corporations. In the 1800s not everyone had a newspaper to spread their ideas. That is not a violation of freedom of speech for the ones who can't afford a newspaper. They aren't entitled to a platform - they're entitled to the government not restricting their platform. What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. This just isn't how the constitution works.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. This is, empirically, false. Just as the right can chant “freedom of religion” and mean by that “freedom of my religion to impose it's views on others while others are suppressed”, they can also chant “freedom of speech” and mean the exact same thing with “speech” in place of “religion”.
calinet6 6y ago
At some point we'll need to deal with the fact that the clubs self-reinforce any beliefs the tribe wants to put forward, and isolate them further from society, creating true problems for actually running said society. At some point we'll need to have a psychological nuclear weapon disarmament... the question is when and how, not if.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  The big dilemma is which rules should be written to make sure that republicans are deradicalized by democrat information, without democrats having to be traumatized by propaganda from the cesspools of the republicans, isn't it?
  - calinet6 6y ago
    No, keep in mind not all of us are brainwashed libs, even though we still care about the impact of social media on society.
npsimons 6y ago
> I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to be none etc" indicating he had not taken it seriously early. This should be all anyone needs to know about how seriously these groups takes freeze peaches. Look at their actions, not their words.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You're assuming the people doing the banning and the people defending speech are the same people. Or even if some of them are, that they represent everyone who supports the same political views.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Um... you don't normally get an objective account of why someone was banned from the banned person in question. Don't just take a claim like this as the whole story, they are generally in "tidied up" form. You'd want the text of the post, the person's posting history on the forum in question, a list of warnings etc and a copy of the forum rules to even approach a reasonable judgement.
  - philjohn 6y ago
    They also label most discussions now as "Flaired users only!" and to get flair you have to prove you're a conservative. It's not about free speech and being oppressed, it's a literal safe space - which is fine, but selling themselves as the opposite of that just makes them look foolish.
    - sonotathrowaway 6y ago
      To be clear, /r/conservative forces potential commenters to hold interviews with current members to vet their ideological purity. If at any point they flip-flop on an issue they will ban you for ideological impurity if you do not flip-flop your position accordingly. It may well be the most heavily censored board on Reddit.

LatteLazy 6y ago

I agree broadly though I'd add two caveats: They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society. I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. That second option is much less democractic and would (imho at least) be open to investigation and regulation like any other campaign activity. Hopefully it's not that, it's just someone trying to launch twitter 2.0 and make some cash. What a mess! :)

singemonkey 6y ago
> They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. Sorry, but they can and do. This is a group of people that will happily shut down your speech while proclaiming themselves to be the defenders of free speech and liberty. They will happily insult you, but are quick to play victim and complain about being oppressed and harassed and insulted.
npsimons 6y ago
> Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.
- cowmoo728 6y ago
  "Rebekah Mercer is funding Parler, the social-media app touted by Republican politicians and pundits that conservatives are flocking to" https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-social-media-app-touted-by-right-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-... "[Robert] Mercer played a key role in the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by donating data analytics services to Nigel Farage. He is also a major funder of organizations supporting right-wing political causes in the United States, such as Breitbart News, and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer They're a husband and wife pair that fund hyper partisan causes, it's not exactly jumping to conclusions.
  - npsimons 6y ago
    > They're a husband and wife pair that fund hyper partisan causes, it's not exactly jumping to conclusions. Well then, I am grateful you cited sources. GP proffered the claim with nothing to back it up. I'm definitely the kind to believe these claims, as I've seen them verified in other realms before (Murdoch, Ailes, Kochs, Sinclair, etc), but that's precisely why I have to question that instinct. I can't just go believing things without evidence.
  - howlin 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's daughter-father, not wife-husband.
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    Dan Bongino also owns a stake in Parler. They aren't remotely for free speech either, by the way. I started an account there, disagreed with someone (I guess one of the wrong people to counter), and was banned within 10 minutes for wrongthink.
0x445442 6y ago
The problem is when Reddit shuts down r/conservative because they don't agree with the opinions on the sub.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  why is that the problem? r/conservative can start any club they like. reddit can run any business they like.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    It's a problem, because it doesn't end here. Even if you make your own service, once your "club" gains too much traction you are still going to be deplatformed by domain registers, DDoS protection services, payment processors etc. It's also a free speech issue. The main purpose of free speech is the ability to criticize your government and social media have obviously a huge influence on elections. As we move towards more and more lockdowns, where you won't be even able to just go out and speak your mind to the public, the social media will become the only way of communication. If you are not allowed to speak freely on those platforms and be able to actually make a change, it will render the free speech laws completely useless and you might as well repeal them at this point. Free speech laws should apply to social media. You might not agree with the ideas that are being censored right now, but sooner or later they will come after you too.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      We might need an intermediary status between media and hosting, where they are allowed to censor content, but take some responsibility for that (like if you hit someone stealing something), especially if they are a for profit company.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      This is contradictory. If you tell Twitter what its platform can/can't support you are violating its freedom of speech. The 1st amendment applies to the government restricting speech - not private corporations. In the 1800s not everyone had a newspaper to spread their ideas. That is not a violation of freedom of speech for the ones who can't afford a newspaper. They aren't entitled to a platform - they're entitled to the government not restricting their platform. What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. This just isn't how the constitution works.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. This is, empirically, false. Just as the right can chant “freedom of religion” and mean by that “freedom of my religion to impose it's views on others while others are suppressed”, they can also chant “freedom of speech” and mean the exact same thing with “speech” in place of “religion”.

calinet6 6y ago

At some point we'll need to deal with the fact that the clubs self-reinforce any beliefs the tribe wants to put forward, and isolate them further from society, creating true problems for actually running said society. At some point we'll need to have a psychological nuclear weapon disarmament... the question is when and how, not if.

im3w1l 6y ago
The big dilemma is which rules should be written to make sure that republicans are deradicalized by democrat information, without democrats having to be traumatized by propaganda from the cesspools of the republicans, isn't it?
- calinet6 6y ago
  No, keep in mind not all of us are brainwashed libs, even though we still care about the impact of social media on society.

npsimons 6y ago

> I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to be none etc" indicating he had not taken it seriously early. This should be all anyone needs to know about how seriously these groups takes freeze peaches. Look at their actions, not their words.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
You're assuming the people doing the banning and the people defending speech are the same people. Or even if some of them are, that they represent everyone who supports the same political views.
concordDance 6y ago
Um... you don't normally get an objective account of why someone was banned from the banned person in question. Don't just take a claim like this as the whole story, they are generally in "tidied up" form. You'd want the text of the post, the person's posting history on the forum in question, a list of warnings etc and a copy of the forum rules to even approach a reasonable judgement.
- philjohn 6y ago
  They also label most discussions now as "Flaired users only!" and to get flair you have to prove you're a conservative. It's not about free speech and being oppressed, it's a literal safe space - which is fine, but selling themselves as the opposite of that just makes them look foolish.
  - sonotathrowaway 6y ago
    To be clear, /r/conservative forces potential commenters to hold interviews with current members to vet their ideological purity. If at any point they flip-flop on an issue they will ban you for ideological impurity if you do not flip-flop your position accordingly. It may well be the most heavily censored board on Reddit.