4 ms·

> they can do absolutely nothing to stop you from creating a competing community on the exact same website, leveraging the existing userbase. Admins can though

> they can do absolutely nothing to stop you from creating a competing community on the exact same website, leveraging the existing userbase. Admins can though. I see a recurring pattern of this in U.S. politics or politics-infested parts of reddit: mods of /r/PoliticalHumor or /r/MurderedByWords can make a pro-D. echo chamber out of their subreddits, but an attempt to make a pro-R. echo chamber of the similar temperature would be quarantined/banned/whatever. For an outsider, it was quite disturbing to see how dissenting opinions on U.S. politics were silenced on reddit in a matter of couple of years (2017-2018, I guess?). I do not care about U.S. politics that much, but erasure of dissent is scary.

pstuart 6y ago
I'm curious about this dissent you speak of. Could you share some examples of it that you have seen or would like to see? Edit: the question was asked in sincerity. I haven't seen any such dissent but I live in a bubble. The only conservative dissent I've seen in the last 4 years has been been republicans leaving the party over Trump.
- yakireev 6y ago
  Go to /r/all and try to find the first pro-T. post and the first "orange man bad" post. If you don't find any pro-T. posts quickly, then this is your example. We know from the election results that about half of the U.S. voters prefer R. party or T. in particular. This is a lot - this can't be a fringe group by definition of "fringe". In 2016, scrolling through reddit you could see it. There was a contested election, there were supporters from both sides on reddit, noisy and visible. In 2020, you'll be hard-pressed to find some pro-T. content unless you know where to look (I don't, and won't bother), it's all "orange man bad" now. He probably is, but come on. So, reddit somehow shut off the half of its home country from participating in political discussion on their website. They're probably in their own right, but this is scary shit.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    I need to tread carefully here, but this is the kind of political discussion that HN doesn't want. I'm interested in discussing policy, and the application of same. Tribal warfare politics is ugly and uninteresting. Are you religious? Shall I try to talk you out of your faith? Because that's what discussing T is to his followers. From my vantage point (and I'm not alone in this), it's both fascinating and horrifying but above all, frustrating, because there's no possibility of real dialog. Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard?
    - yakireev 6y ago
      > Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. How do I know? Not reddit, but I bookmarked this example a few years ago. It is a very little thing, but very showing. Remember when T. was trying to negotiate some deal with North Korea? One of the things which came out of it was DPRK returning some remnants of U.S. soldiers from the Korean war back to the U.S. I consider the New Yorker to be one of the best pieces of journalism which the U.S. has to offer (no irony here). Here are two articles from there: one is about that story, the remnants of soldiers coming back, another one is about Diet Coke. They were on the front page of their website on the same day, and I clicked both. 1: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/waiting-for-a-box-of-bones-from-north-korea https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/waiting-for-a-box-o... 2: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-decline-and-fall-of-diet-coke-and-the-power-generation-that-loved-it https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-decli... One of them mentions T, another one does not. Can you guess which one? Can you guess whether it is a "positive" mention? So, now back to your question: > Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. How do I know? I'm not from the U.S., but I guess that you are, so you tell me. For now, I can tell you that I lost a lot of trust in the U.S. media, but maybe you can change my mind. I'm not a T. follower, so (according to you) there might be a possibility of a dialog.
      - 6y ago
pstuart 6y ago
Trying again. I wanted to focus on your theme of repressed voices, not which side is good or bad (a losing game of tribal warfare). > dissenting opinions on U.S. politics were silenced on reddit A quick googling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/29/reddit-closes-long-running-forum-supporting-president-trump-after-years-policy-violations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/29/reddit-... It’s not as simple as you make it out and your framing of it suggests a significant bias on your part. Some speech doesn’t deserve a platform. You’re still free to think it, to say it out loud, to buy a domain and host it, and talk about it with like minded people — but you have zero god-given right to engage in that shit-talk in other people’s space in which you are a guest. Censorship is a concern, free speech is a concern but it’s complicated. Add in the weaponization of social media and the lovely gift of the power of disinformation from your motherland and it gets messier still. You’ve provided incredibly weak evidence to make your case (an article that didn’t praise T and an article that unnecessarily dunked on him). And all the while you conveniently ignore key factors (i.e., that T. treated his office as his personal kingdom and expressed contempt for those not loyal to him, ad nauseam). Someday I should actually read it, but the theme itself is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

pstuart 6y ago

I'm curious about this dissent you speak of. Could you share some examples of it that you have seen or would like to see? Edit: the question was asked in sincerity. I haven't seen any such dissent but I live in a bubble. The only conservative dissent I've seen in the last 4 years has been been republicans leaving the party over Trump.

yakireev 6y ago
Go to /r/all and try to find the first pro-T. post and the first "orange man bad" post. If you don't find any pro-T. posts quickly, then this is your example. We know from the election results that about half of the U.S. voters prefer R. party or T. in particular. This is a lot - this can't be a fringe group by definition of "fringe". In 2016, scrolling through reddit you could see it. There was a contested election, there were supporters from both sides on reddit, noisy and visible. In 2020, you'll be hard-pressed to find some pro-T. content unless you know where to look (I don't, and won't bother), it's all "orange man bad" now. He probably is, but come on. So, reddit somehow shut off the half of its home country from participating in political discussion on their website. They're probably in their own right, but this is scary shit.
- pstuart 6y ago
  I need to tread carefully here, but this is the kind of political discussion that HN doesn't want. I'm interested in discussing policy, and the application of same. Tribal warfare politics is ugly and uninteresting. Are you religious? Shall I try to talk you out of your faith? Because that's what discussing T is to his followers. From my vantage point (and I'm not alone in this), it's both fascinating and horrifying but above all, frustrating, because there's no possibility of real dialog. Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard?
  - yakireev 6y ago
    > Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. How do I know? Not reddit, but I bookmarked this example a few years ago. It is a very little thing, but very showing. Remember when T. was trying to negotiate some deal with North Korea? One of the things which came out of it was DPRK returning some remnants of U.S. soldiers from the Korean war back to the U.S. I consider the New Yorker to be one of the best pieces of journalism which the U.S. has to offer (no irony here). Here are two articles from there: one is about that story, the remnants of soldiers coming back, another one is about Diet Coke. They were on the front page of their website on the same day, and I clicked both. 1: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/waiting-for-a-box-of-bones-from-north-korea https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/waiting-for-a-box-o... 2: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-decline-and-fall-of-diet-coke-and-the-power-generation-that-loved-it https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-decli... One of them mentions T, another one does not. Can you guess which one? Can you guess whether it is a "positive" mention? So, now back to your question: > Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. How do I know? I'm not from the U.S., but I guess that you are, so you tell me. For now, I can tell you that I lost a lot of trust in the U.S. media, but maybe you can change my mind. I'm not a T. follower, so (according to you) there might be a possibility of a dialog.
    - 6y ago

pstuart 6y ago

Trying again. I wanted to focus on your theme of repressed voices, not which side is good or bad (a losing game of tribal warfare). > dissenting opinions on U.S. politics were silenced on reddit A quick googling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/29/reddit-closes-long-running-forum-supporting-president-trump-after-years-policy-violations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/29/reddit-... It’s not as simple as you make it out and your framing of it suggests a significant bias on your part. Some speech doesn’t deserve a platform. You’re still free to think it, to say it out loud, to buy a domain and host it, and talk about it with like minded people — but you have zero god-given right to engage in that shit-talk in other people’s space in which you are a guest. Censorship is a concern, free speech is a concern but it’s complicated. Add in the weaponization of social media and the lovely gift of the power of disinformation from your motherland and it gets messier still. You’ve provided incredibly weak evidence to make your case (an article that didn’t praise T and an article that unnecessarily dunked on him). And all the while you conveniently ignore key factors (i.e., that T. treated his office as his personal kingdom and expressed contempt for those not loyal to him, ad nauseam). Someday I should actually read it, but the theme itself is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance