38 ms·
Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
- apengwin 6y agoDidn't this already happen a few years ago?
- yters 6y agoI say crack down on all politicians inciting violent mobs. Don't make it a partisan issue.
- Exuma 6y agoWhat else is new, censorship is OK as long as only one side is doing it.
- safog 6y agoYou say this after the president of the United States has incited a seditious, violet mob to attack the Capitol because he's a sore loser. There are many examples you can pick if you want to point out bias in media, day before yesterday was not one. For reference, conservative subreddits remain active, Donald Trump is the one that's banned.
- Exuma 6y agoPlease cite me tweets/descriptions of where he incited anything. He said something like "we will remember this day," and not long after condemned violence and supported law enforcement. Then the next day he condemned it again.
- guscost 6y ago“Will be wild” was a little sketchy. But you are more right than wrong, he could easily have channeled all that energy into something truly horrible just by saying “It’s the Socialists! Let’s get the bastards!”
- cecja 6y agoYou are lying to yourself there mate. Everyone knows his intentions from his actions in the past. Fuck you and your fascist agenda.
- wmichelin 6y agoYou're either being willfully ignorant, or arguing in bad faith. Calling for your people to all organize outside of the capitol building, claiming that the election was fraudulent without providing evidence, and then telling the active terrorists "we love you" should be sufficient evidence for you.
- umvi 6y agoYou are making assumptions on what was in President Trump's brain from a few short tweets. The white house is on the opposite side of the mall as the congress building. How do you know he wasn't saying "we love you" to the huge turnout of people gathered around the Washington monument right near the white house? How do you know he was specifically praising the tiny minority of the protestors that broke into congress?
- diveanon 6y agoMore virtue signaling for the incoming administration. Reddit, Facebook, and most of all Twitter need to take a hard look at themselves and role they played in all of this. Waiting until after an armed insurrection occurs is not good enough.
- nomel 6y agoIf they used a privately hosted forum, should that forum owner take some of the blame? Would about IRC server operator? What about an iMessage group? Most of this was probably made discoverable by google searches. Should google take some of the blame? I don't understand why we have to blame the means of communication and method of discoverability rather than the, most likely mentally disturbed, people. Claiming that a very small group of unsane people bust into the capitol is some fundamental problem seems hyperbolic and reactionary to me.
- diveanon 6y agoIf someone used my forum to organize terrorist attacks then I should be held accountable. If google searches, facebook groups, twitter recommendations, and subreddjts drove people towards content that radicalized them and continued to reinforce that radicalization then those companies should be held accountable. I used to work in biomed, and if an algorithm I wrote resulted in people dying I would expect to face consequences. I don't see why the largest companies on the same planet aren't held to a similar standard while pushing for "engagement".
- balozi 6y agoAnything they do to "those other people" they will do to you, too.
- barnaclejive 6y agogood
- typon 6y agoIrrelevant. Most of the original users of /r/theDonald migrated theDonald.win, which became one of the top websites in the US in terms of traffic. They're behind Cloudflare and constantly DDoSd these days it seems like it. Moreover, they've gotten threats from their ISP that they have to delete certain posts or be shut down. (which seems scary to me) Also, please don't judge me, I just have a morbid curiosity to see what these people are talking about and how they think.
- throwaway47981 6y ago> one of the top websites in the US in terms of traffic There's something odd going on with their traffic. I've been on the front page of Reddit and thedonald.win at the same time, and either virtually nobody on that site reads the articles or the upvotes counts are being massively inflated: the upvote to pageview ratio is waaaay lower on thedonald.win then I've experienced on Reddit and HN.
- Diederich 6y ago> please don't judge me I'll say it out loud: though I despise Trump and mourn the damage he and those enabling have caused, I spend more time online looking at pro-Trump, conservative and Republican focused material than anything else. I downvote none of it, even the legit crazy/scary stuff, and in the rare cases I comment, it's carefully worded to be neutral or even sometimes conciliatory, though always honest. It scares me that many people feel the need to apologize for openly admitting that they looked at material from 'the other side'. More often, people will refrain from posting their actual, perhaps nuanced views entirely, due to the fear of being judged/attacked/whatever. Didn't Paul Graham write an essay about that? My wife was writing a research essay to present to our local Toastmasters group, which she is a relatively new member of. She was going over the talk with one of the senior members, one on one, on zoom, and she mentioned, in passing, that our family is going to delay getting the Covid19 vaccine a couple of months, because we've been exercising (essentially) phase 0 (extreme) lockdown consistently since last March. We can do that because we're blessed with the ability to work and (for our son) go to school from home. The person my wife mentioned this to just lost her shit, and went into a verbal rampage about how to delay getting the vaccine is akin to being an anti-vaxer, how it was immoral to not get it as soon as humanly possible. To be clear: If any of me, my wife or son came into contact with other human beings with any frequency, we'd get the vaccine as soon as possible. We're not afraid of it. But others need it before we do. However, that 'nuance' was entirely lost in an emotional, knee-jerk reaction which reminds me of so many other things we see today. Was there voter fraud in the 2020 US presidential election? I'd bet my life on it; that there was at least a single single incident of fraud. Did that fraud in any way change the outcome of the election? Of course not. Apologies for the tangent. I want to encourage everyone to consider looking carefully, deeply and compassionately at what 'the other side' writes and says. It's not easy to do, but I believe it's a necessary, critical work that all of us need to honestly engage in.
- slg 6y agoThe cynic in me can't help but notice that all these platforms are suddenly growing a backbone now that we know Democrats will control both the executive and legislative branches.
- Traster 6y agoI think it's impossible to say. The fact that the capitol got stormed the same day as the democrats won control means it's impossible to disaggregate. It might be a cynical move by Facebook but is it also a cynical move by Betsy Devos? What difference did democrat control make to her?
- paxys 6y agoIf Pence invokes the 25th amendment then she would have to go on the record with a vote. So just resigning is the easier decision.
- llbeansandrice 6y ago> What difference did democrat control make to her? Nothing imo. Before it was probable that there could be careers and jobs outside of the presidency. With these moves it seems like Trump decided to make his bed with the worst of his base and a lot of people have finally decided that it's a bridge too far. Last-minute attempts to distance themselves after playing along the entire time.
- mywittyname 6y agoI don't think you know who DeVos or her family is. Her family owns the largest private military in the world. They don't need jobs; they aren't going anywhere. They are going to continue shoving billions of dollars of government funds into their pockets. They will be standing right there to fill key cabinet roles for the next Republican administration.
- llbeansandrice 6y agoI think we're agreeing. A lot of people hitched their wagon to Trump as long as it was printing. His supporters attacking the US capitol means that they finally have to make a choice to either stay or cut ties so that they can be there to fill cabinet roles in a Rubio/Cotton/Cruz administration rather than a Trump Jr. one.
- justaman 6y agoI'm generally against the idea of banning subreddits because they just move elsewhere. However, if this is going to be the official stance of Reddit admins, I encourage them to take a look at /r/sino and a few other communities that regularly violate the rules.
- whymauri 6y ago>I'm generally against the idea of banning subreddits because they just move elsewhere. The alternative platforms tend to die off, though. Like Voat.
- mschuster91 6y ago> The alternative platforms tend to die off, though. Because it turns out that those drifting to "alternative, free speech" platforms mostly are Nazis and pedos, and normal people don't want to hang out on a platform where the only other people are Nazis and pedos. To put it bluntly: the free market has decided that Nazi opinion and pedo stuff is not welcomed.
- dleslie 6y agoSome do, others stick around. Like Gab, Parler and others.
- whymauri 6y agoWe'll see. Parler (two years old) in particular is especially young. I'm not sure if Gab (four years old) has the funding to survive another few years. Voat lasted six solid years before running out of cash, so that's going to be my approximate benchmark. Parler might outlast both if politicians keep moving to that platform. In that case, I might be wrong. TheDonald.win is way too focused, though.
- jandrese 6y ago4chan has managed to hang on despite everything. Although many of the spinoff chans have collapsed.
- thinkingemote 6y agoKnee-jerk reactions are always the appropriate response and have never gone bad afterwards. Its important to act fast without thinking of the consequences because the stakes are so high. Optics and sending a message right now is everything
- AgentME 6y agoKnee-jerk? This seems like an action done way after it was first needed.
- tempsy 6y agoSomething tells me that internet-fueled political division isn't going away just because social media sites are starting to crack down and Trump is leaving office...
- electrotype 6y agoFor those who like to hear from both sides, without such biased moderation, https://ruqqus.com https://ruqqus.com is an option.
- mckirk 6y agoAfter a cursory check of the "frontpage" there... yeah, it doesn't seem very balanced. More like "r/The_Donald"-lite, with even some anti-vaxx stuff thrown in.
- electrotype 6y agoThey do promote free speech, from all sides. Just join and give your opinion if you do not agree with something.
- jandrese 6y agoNo moderation means it will be overrun with trolls and spammers. This is true of any discussion system. Once you grow beyond a certain point, typically a few dozen users or so moderation is necessary to avoid having the signal to noise ratio drop so low that all of the quality people leave.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoI remember reading about Parler having that exact problem. Because of the "no-moderation" aspect, they were being overrun with spam and pornography.
- minikites 6y agoIt's important to have both sides: one side believes in baseless conspiracy theories and the other side lives in reality.
- kwargs 6y agoleftists are at full swing, big tech and new world order disgust me
- fasteddie31003 6y agoI just checked out http://thedonald.win/ http://thedonald.win/ and it has gotten a lot more extreme since it was moved off Reddit. I think it would have not gotten as extreme if it were in the Reddit ecosystem still.
- whymauri 6y agoI'm willing to bet it'll go the same way as Voat. Except Voat actually had a diversity of topics to discuss when it founded (although it turned to garbage in a few weeks), this website is laser focused on one demagogue.
- zionic 6y agoPretty sure its way above voat in terms of traffic, and now with admins purging the top /r/conspiracy mod they're moving there as well. The .win ecosystem is trying to parallel reddit and its doing so much faster by pulling in high profile departures.
- dragontamer 6y agoGroups becoming more extreme when they exodus is fine and part of the calculus. The reason to take it off of Reddit is to prevent more followers from joining up with them. Stormfront is extreme and everyone knows about them. (Literally a white-nationalist website). But without a foothold on Reddit, they lack the ability to gain followers. When LUE was banned from GameFAQs decades ago, they just formed up their own group (G00Ns, Something Awful, etc. etc.). They were no longer GameFAQ's problem, and GameFAQs no longer had to deal with its members slowly becoming indoctrinated by an group bent on posting pornography on video game forums where children were active. The rest of GameFAQs got better. Ditto with 4Chan when they kicked the Gamergate people off to 8Chan. 4Chan got better, though the Gamergate dudes grew more extreme.
- jandrese 6y agoIt's the Amiga effect. The smaller a group is the more radical the membership. Having thedonald.win be a cesspool isn't all bad. If someone is on the fence and goes to check it out their first reaction is likely to be of disgust, especially if the userbase is hostile to "noobs" because they're paranoid about infiltration.
- mywittyname 6y agoAt this point, why bother? The damage was done years ago and these groups have already largely jumped ship to their own self-hosted platforms. Doing this now makes me think their leadership are all cowards, at best. It reveals that leadership knew this step should have been done a long time ago, but failed to act due to fear. Had they left it alone, at least we could have all bought into this BS notion that it was due to fairness and a belief in free speech. I say, cowards, at best, because what would be worse, is that this is entirely motivated by finances. That none of this is done for a concern of the well-being of our state, but because it is good advertising. I'm sure next time will be different, right guys?
- PenguinCoder 6y agoIt's always been too little, too late. Saving face , or finally got enough complaints from advertisers.
- jjulius 6y ago"Well, now that everyone else is doing it, we won't face as much heat, so..."
- nikolay 6y agoSo, what's the goal? Force Trump supporters to build their own social media?! When I see the growth of Parler, how is this helping the already struggling Twitter, Reddit, etc. I don't really get why technology companies want to get involved in the policing business - how is this helping their bottom line? Are they business or activists pretending to be businesses?
- rglover 6y agoPay attention to the narrative shift: it went from "build your own platform," to now calls for removing those alternatives entirely (https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347522919992336387 https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347522919992336387). The end goal is total censorship.
- FireBeyond 6y agoThe end goal is cessation of real and specific incitements to violence against people and property, and planning thereof. Much as you like to spin it, if there weren't notable, repeated documented cases of idiots on Parler coordinating protests and outright violence, then no-one would really give a shit. Making this out to be "the left wants to remove our ability to speak whatsoever" is not a "narrative shift", it's your conjecture.
- zionic 6y ago> The end goal is cessation of real and specific incitements to violence against people and property, and planning thereof. So are we just pretending that March-September 2020 didn't happen in dozens of major cities across the US.
- FireBeyond 6y agoOn what forums were specific plans discussed in public?
- 6y ago
- nixass 6y agor/Conservative next please
- notassigned 6y agoI disagree, but you will likely get your wish
- neogodless 6y agohttps://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship > In general, sedition is defined as trying to overthrow the government with intent and means to bring it about; the Supreme Court, however, has been divided over what constitutes intent and means. > These acts made it a federal crime to speak, write, or print criticisms of the government that were false, scandalous, or malicious. It is frightening to me that so many U.S. citizens get their perception of reality through social media channels; that is to say they get messages that are amplified by algorithm with insufficient regard to refutability (and a requirement of evidence to refute or confirm.) As someone who cannot visit every single polling place in the country (I visited zero and voted by mail) I cannot with absolute certainty proclaim that there there was no widespread, coordinated and shockingly well-concealed election fraud. As a person of logic and reason and based on multiple sources of information that I consider reputable, I strongly believe this did not take place, and I would need multiple, reputable sources of information and likely trusted peer acceptance before I would change my mind to believe it did. My way of trying to only accept what I believe to be accurate information will always be imperfect, and, at times, fail me. But I believe it is only shades different from what someone who believes in election fraud does. Their sources include the content of speeches made by the President of the United States, news anchors and journalists of conversatively-biased news, and perhaps most importantly, peers they trust liking and sharing those same speeches and articles with them as a stamp of acceptance. That's a complex and very human problem that is not readily solved with gut reactions, broad strokes and absolutes.
- germinalphrase 6y agoOne difference, of course, is that despite there being a significant number of ‘trusted’ sources claiming extensive election fraud - there has been near zero evidence presented by these same sources to defend the claims. That alone should be a red flag that the claims are mere assertions rather than statements of fact.
- gremlinsinc 6y agoI might be convinced to be skeptical if judges say, woah this is damaging EVEN if those judges are Trump appointed, by the same token though, if a Trump appointed judge laughs Trump's team out of the court with a frivolous law suit, I'm doubly sure that there's absolutely no chance of fraud. The RIGHT, people who supported/enabled Trump have said, nope - nothing to see, all's legit, got any better proof? Kemp for instance was a HUGE Trump supporter, Pence has no reason not to support Trump, yet now he's a "traitor" for doing his job. Seriously. I'd hate to play any board game with these people, you could never win, they'd throw a fit if they lost until you admit they won...
- one2know 6y agoIncredible how so called "Americans" will drop free speech in a millisecond because it is made by people who are not with their party's OurGuy(TM). I recognize Reddit is under extreme foreign pressure having received and operating on $300MM from the chinese communist party.
- raldi 6y agoThere's no point in American history where a mainstream pub or club or meeting hall would willingly host a conspiracy to overturn the results of a democratic election. This is fully in keeping with the Founders' vision for our country.
- terse_malvolio 6y agoSources?
- berkes 6y ago> having received and operating on $300MM from the chinese communist party. Source?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- one2know 6y ago"Reddit confirms $300M Series D led by China’s Tencent at $3B value" https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/11/reddit-300-million/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/11/reddit-300-million/ "CCP-Controlled Tencent Inserts Tentacles Into Reddit" https://visiontimes.com/2019/02/22/ccp-controlled-tencent-inserts-tentacles-into-reddit.html https://visiontimes.com/2019/02/22/ccp-controlled-tencent-in... Has anyone seen Jack Ma?
- one2know 6y agoHaha, when you lose an argument, readers just flag a post? Hilarious.
- adolph 6y agoThis comment is to establish my gratitude to major service providers for removing hateful content and reestablishing trust with the people of the United States and the world who depend on their honesty and public service. Zuck, Jack and whoever is CEO this week at Reddit should be first in line for the Nobel Peace Prize after the General Atomics CEO.
- raldi 6y agoReddit's last change of CEO happened the same month as Twitter's, more than five and a half years ago.
- amyjess 6y agoFor what it's worth, there were a few other bans yesterday: * The top moderator of /r/conspiracy (just gonna quote the SRD thread: "At times this mod would spam over 100 pro-Trump posts a day, deleting their posts and spamming them over and over until they got the response they wanted, all while banning dozens of people per post. Anyone that openly challenged them or Trump would be immediacy banned.") [0] * /r/GenerationNazbol (Nazbol = "Nazi Bolshevik" = racist tankies) [1] * /r/PinkPillFeminism (ban evasion sub for /r/GenderCritical, which was banned in June) [2] [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/ksk6ur/top_moderator_of_rconspiracy_axolotl_peyotl_has/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/ksk6ur/top_... [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/kskdue/rpinkpillfenimism_has_been_banned/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/kskd... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/ksl3j4/rgenerationnazbol_has_been_banned/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/ksl3...
- hiram112 6y agoIt's irrelevant, but it's quite apparent that the establishment is using what's relatively a minor event* to put into motion the crack downs they've wanted to do for years. Seeing the Twitter mob, composed not only of the usual subjects, but also major media members, celebrities, and politicians outright push for restrictions and "punishments" for anyone who has ever shown support for Trump is terrifying. The left has become the true fascists they've always pretended they were fighting. It's a small step from here to the Bolshevik purges and Chinese Cultural Revolution. Exact same playbook being enacted. * Congress has been "stormed" many times in US history, as recent as Kavanaugh hearings.
- polote 6y agoThe solution is probably something along the line of preventing unverified content to be published to millions of followers, but that would kill their business...
- andrewem 6y agoYou know what scares the shit out of me, to use your phrasing? The people on that site murdering me or overthrowing the government, so that they seize power and elections end or become irrelevant. “The free Internet” has value, but it’s not the only thing that has value. When it conflicts with other values, then there has to be a nuanced resolution.
- cercatrova 6y agoThis is the paradox of tolerance. We can tolerate having a free internet but if it leads to the intolerant taking over and making everything worse, we need to be intolerant of them now, not later.
- danaliv 6y agoPlease, can we put this canard to rest? It is an extremely simplistic take that is bordering on cliche at this point. It adds nothing, it illuminates nothing, and it fails to address any of the very real and complex issues by turning everything into a binary of tolerant/intolerant.
- gfodor 6y agoA witty saying proves nothing, and in this case it particularly doesn't since you seem you do not know what else was being said when it was written by its author.
- gameman144 6y agoIs the irony that this cuts both ways not obvious? Seems very clear; the left thinks the right is intolerant and must be silenced, the right thinks the left is intolerant and must be hobbled. The twist is that both sides are absolutely correct: the other side is intolerant. The Paradox of Tolerance is a great game theory exercise, just like Mutually Assured Destruction, but I'd prefer to live in a society where we don't lean into these strategies with our foot on the gas.
- seppin 6y agoCalls to violence were not, and are not, protected speech. It is a false argument to say they should be now.
- icefrakker 6y agoIt's weird how censorship is so frowned upon when it comes to other sites but not here. This site is censored like no other site I've used before. Of course people defend censorship for this site: yeah yeah you want a certain audience. How come that's okay here but when reddit does it it's a war crime? Y'all shameless hypocrites.
- 2020swillbelit 6y agoSo it begins. We'll remember this period with shame and regret. Our compulsion to righteously award the state and massive unelected corporate tech powers to censor and punish our enemies will be looked back on in shame. We are sowing the seeds of chaos. 2001 vibes all over again.
- wnevets 6y agoThe irony of people complaining about free speech and censorship when this happens is if you post ANYTHING even remotely against the current narrative in those subs you will be immediately banned by mods. You can literally quote trump word for word in /r/conservative and get banned if it happens to go against today's collective reality. Rules for thee but not for me is the modus operandi and Wednesday was just an extension of that.
- onehair 6y agoIt's one thing for a mod in a forum to ban someone, as it sometimes only represents the opinions of that mod, and maybe be backed by rules (and trends) It's another thing for social media to do it. although they are all private companies, they remain a very global big force, that do not have reach only in the US, but are global and can do the same and affect many countries and politics across the globe. Soon, if not already happening, politics will be pushed to one side or the other. And it won't be for stopping hate speech, it will and it is so that they can make even more money. On the bright side, I am an optimistic person, and since they dared block the president of the USA, maybe be they might not flinch anymore at blocking pedophiles, hitmen, terrorists, and all sorts of vile users on their platforms.
- wnevets 6y ago> It's another thing for social media to do it. Why? Removing a subreddit isn't the same as banning a user. A ban is a ban is a ban.
- stale2002 6y ago> Why? For the same reason that the government banning something is worse than when a private company does it. Because one party has way more power and ability to actually ban someone. Kicking someone out of my house is less powerful/effective at preventing speech than being banned by a subreddit, which is less effective than the website banning you, which is less effective than a bunch of websites banning you, which is less effective than the government banning it. The more effective a ban is, the more careful we have to be about it. Because if the government bans you, that is going to have very significantly different consequences than me not letting a friend in my house.
- mullingitover 6y agoTwenty years from now we won't talk much about Donald Trump. However, every time we do, the sacking of the US capitol will be the top thing we link to his presidency. Probably the only thing. For many of his supporters, the only thing they will be remembered for is their support of him. Reddit isn't stupid. This is still sinking in for many, and for those ahead of the curve they're doing everything they can to disassociate themselves from any hint of support or enablement as quickly as possible.
- stuckindider 6y ago>the sacking of the US capitol will be the top thing we link to his presidency Lol
- txsoftwaredev 6y agoIf that's all you believe he'll be remembered for then you are willfully ignorant. Under his administration he has: 1. Brought black and hispanic unemployment to record lows. 2. The DOW tied the record for the most consecutive all-time closing highs in a row. 3. Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. 4. United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957. 5. Reduced illegal border crossings. 6. Improved relations with North Korea. 7. Promoted equitable and fair trade deals with a host of countries like South Korea, Japan, and other Middle East countries. 8. Signed the Right-To-Try legislation that allowed for patients to explore experimental treatments that have not necessarily been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And many more...
- mullingitover 6y agoAs I was saying, this is still sinking in for many. I'm not saying these things won't be listed in some encyclopedia page, obviously history will give a thorough account of his time in power. However, children who are born this year won't be spending a lot of time in history class covering Trump's mundane policy victories in school. They'll be looking at the bullet points, and the first one will be about his incitement of a mob to sack the US capitol and shed blood in his name.
- CodeGlitch 6y agoSo let me get this straight: It was fine when violence was insighted during the Arab Spring, but now it's not ok? I'm British and live in England so have no skin in the game, just amazed at the double standards by the major social media companies. On second thoughts perhaps I shouldn't be that surprised.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoAre we going to sit here and act like the stated goals of the Arab Spring and Trump supporters are remotely equivalent morally?
- Glide 6y agoFrom the perspective of their respective governments? Yes. Absolutely yes. The hands of those on the levers of power change over the years. Beware what you give them.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoBut we aren't talking about governments, we are talking about Reddit and it's userbase.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoAnd they've always had this power. It's only become problematic in the past few months when white supremacists and their sympathizers felt pressure of being marginalized off of major platforms. It was never a problem before then.
- LatteLazy 6y agoViolence is permissible only when you have no other option: no votes no representatives, no reliable elections, no fair courts etc. When America (or any other country) lacks those then the people can and should take to the streets. But we're not there. We have people inciting violence because they lost a fair election (by a wide margin). They had their chance in the battle of minds, at the poll booth, in the courts and even in the senate. They've lost fair and square.
- 3232kjfhdajskf 6y agoThis seriously isn't enough. We need to ask for more before it's too late for this country. - Ban all /r/conservative - Ban /r/libertarian - Require pinned posts from /r/politics at all time to keep people properly informed (/r/all) - Create an internal auditing team to start immediately banning users who may have voted for Trump or comment against progressive causes - Work with other social media companies to create a shared "social credit" score worth for creating a minimum bar for who and what can get posted
- hstan4 6y agoBan everyone who disagrees with you and audit users who “MAY” have voted for Trump? That’s your solution? It’s quite sad that even HN is turning more and more into the likes of /r/politics. Quality discussion is basically down the drain on any thread that has any hint of politics. What comes after banning these people with your “internal auditing team”, re-education camps for the half of the country you hate?
- umvi 6y agoSo in other words, ban half the US's population from using reddit? I suppose twitter and facebook too? Sounds like a a recipe for a civil war.
- psyc 6y agoAs I type this, all the other replies have been Poe's Law'd by this comment. Well done.
- koolk3ychain 6y agoAs someone who voted for Joe Biden, I'm not surprised at all by the current response from the right, even those who aren't hell bent on supporting Trump. Silencing people doesn't make them go away or give up,it makes them double down on their beliefs (whether based on conspiracy theories or not) and continue to escalate. Good faith arguments and honest media are how we solve this problem, not by banning people we disagree with just to feel good on the inside.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoNo one is obligated to deal with folks who consistently argue for their marginalization in bad faith.
- 2020swillbelit 6y agoOf course you're not obligated. But it's in all of our best interest to talk with them rather than suppress their voices (however crazy). Many metrics relating to quality of life for many Americans are trending in the wrong direction. We cannot afford to further decouple people from society. This isn't just for the rural working classes but also the inner city poor. People need to feel worth and have a life of meaning otherwise they can become dangerous liabilities.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoThey are decoupled from society because they see a dimming of the white hegemony that has lit their world for centuries. No amount of listening to their Jim Crow rhetoric will ever change that.
- 2020swillbelit 6y agoThen to you, they are too far gone and are already enemies. I only see conflict arising through that perspective. I have too much to lose for that to happen. I hope you realize the implications of your line of thought, not to just yourself, but to society around you.
- bythckr 6y agoThis is not an original idea/thought that I have, but feel repeating it is vital: This whole censorship crusade that the Facebook, twitter & now reddit is on is a dangerous precedence we are setting for our society. Whatever they call it, this is censorship. Already due to AI suggesting similar contents on services like Facebook & Youtube and the design of sub-reddits on reddit, we have living inside echo chambers. Atleast users have an option of searching for different contents on the platform. It's a bit easier to come out of the echo chamber. Now, by pushing people off the platform, echo chamber platforms are coming up like parler & rumble. The divide is widening. I am not sure what other options are there, but censorship is the worst option.
- zionic 6y ago-Don't like it? Make your own subreddit/group/discord! X -Don't like it? Make your own image host! X -Don't like it? Make your own social media! X -Don't like it? Make your own aggregator! X -Don't like it? Make your own cloudfare/hosting provider (you are here) -Don't like it? Make your own ISP! -Don't like it? Make your own banking/payment infrastructure! Edit: TIL HN doesn't support emoji
- d1zzy 6y agoLike you listed above there are lots of options still available, that's not really the limiting factor here. I believe a more subtle and harder barrier to overcome for posting controversial Internet content is going to be the credit card companies or payment processors. They are much fewer and if they refuse to do business with you you'd have no means to pay for any service you might need. Except, of course, for cryptocurrency... EDIT: One option I think you forgot is using one of the existing hosting providers but hide the web service under a TOR hidden service. That way people can't track it back to your hosting provider to complain about the hosted content (and you can use encryption of the content that is decrypted on the fly when being served by the web server) if you worry about the hosting provider doing some scans of customer content tho that seems very unlikely to me.
- Dylan16807 6y agoI feel like 2-4 are all on the same level? Make your own group: valid Make your own site: valid Make your own hosting provider: this one is tricky Make your own ISP: shouldn't be needed Make your own payment infrastructure: shouldn't be needed
- kr99x 6y agoI've been having this argument more and more lately. People keep coming around to "surely, we must prevent *THIS* content?" and every time the answer is no. Somehow, we seem to be forgetting how free speech benefits us all, but only when it is categorically FREE and there are not exceptions "just this one time" Why just the other day, I had friends blow up on me for daring to suggest that a particular type of bigoted speech should remain legal. The free exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for a just world. You cannot build one without it. If you place limits on the free exchange of ideas, "just for this one really bad kind of thing", then you have forfeited your own future ability to resist WHEN - not if, but WHEN - a good and true idea is wrongfully labelled harmful and banned by the same mechanisms. Every single authoritarian regime in history has made speaking ill of the leadership a crime. Every last one.
- gremlinsinc 6y agoMaybe reddit should completely end moderation then? So progressives and liberals can take over /r/conservative and post anything they want without fear of being banned? No more 'flaired users only'? because that's ALSO censorship, no? Also, who's stopping you from starting a reddit competitor and saying whatever you want? You have ZERO rights to THEIR customers, their users, etc. I mean, can you go to the local news station and get on the air whenever you want? Because they aren't saying what you want to hear? No. They control who they put on the air. Social media is no different in this aspect.
- Tokkemon 6y agoPrecisely. It has to go both ways or it's not really free speech.
- kr99x 6y agoYou're thinking I'm upset specifically about reddit banning the group because that's the article I posted it on. That's sensible, and on me somewhat for not being quite clear enough. I'm upset at the broader topics that are always brought up when articles like this are posted. I also have an opinion about what reddit should or shouldn't do, but the post you're responding to is not it.
- maremmano 6y agohey! where is my IsDonaldBannedYet ?
- LatteLazy 6y agoReddit are front of the queue of people who were warned and ignored the problem for years because of page views. This stinks of bolting the door after the horse has bolted. Now /DonaldTrump is likely going to shrink we can close it.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 6y agooverton window adjustment
- ffggvv 6y agoimo with such a doubling down on politics and partisanship, reddit is limiting its own audience. just visiting the front page for me is enough to dissuade me from using it with all the cringy center left takes being used on every subreddit and filling the home page. why are subreddits like “photos” or “pets” littered with “orange man bad” posts?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- balozi 6y agoAlso lets forget that in the summer of 2020, there was nationwide protest that included arson, looting, and violent confrontation with police. Almost all of it coordinated on the same social media properties.
- camel_Snake 6y ago> "We have also taken action to ban the community r/donaldtrump given repeated policy violations in recent days regarding the violence at the U.S. Capitol.” This is what they were banned for. Find me evidence that /r/BLM and its moderators were doing the same and I'll gladly cede the point.
- timwaagh 6y agoWell I suppose after inciting a mob to storm the parliament it's entirely defensible his group gets the ban. I am generally not a fan of banning political groups based on their stance alone but this one is getting dangerous.
- tamaharbor 6y agoWhy not piss off half the population while we are on the brink of a civil war?
- davesque 6y agoUnfortunately, it seems we've literally run out of options at this point. Social media companies can either act to silence violent insurrectionists (and hopefully prevent them from organizing) or they can turn the other cheek and risk allowing them to overthrow our government. And do we really believe that a Trump-led dictatorship would be more friendly towards dissenting views or permissive of media platforms that broadcast them?
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago> And do we really believe that a Trump-led dictatorship would be more friendly towards dissenting views or permissive of media platforms that broadcast them? How is this relevant? We don't have a Trump-led dictatorship in the US. And since when is "Well it's not as bad as a <insert really bad scenario>" a well thought out argument?
- davesque 6y ago> How is this relevant? We don't have a Trump-led dictatorship in the US. Precisely what would we have gotten if those insurrectionists had succeeded in neutralizing the legislative branch? > And since when is "Well it's not as bad as a <insert really bad scenario>" a well thought out argument? It's an argument that is sufficiently well thought out when we are literally faced with a choice between A and B. We can do whatever we can now to prevent this movement from continuing to gain momentum or we can allow ourselves to be overrun by the movement.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago> Precisely what would we have gotten if those insurrectionists had succeeded in neutralizing the legislative branch? Oh please. This is pure delusion. There was 0 path for a group of a few hundred to “neutralizing the legislative branch”. What happened at the capitol was bad, but pretending there was any chance in it ending in a Trump dictatorship is simply hyperbole.
- beezle 6y agoWhen people (especially children) can't abide by social norms they are shut down. Maybe that is a time out in the corner. Maybe it is being asked to leave the party. Reddit, Twitter, etc are no different. You go to their house, you abide by their rules. If you don't, hard to be suprised when they show you the door.
- davesque 6y agoThe way people blindly defend this simplified notion of Free Speech makes it seem as though they believe it is some kind of universally guaranteed right that is like a law of physics. No, we enjoy this luxury of debating the ethics of free speech because we live in a society that permits it. Right now, that society faces an imminent threat from violent insurrectionists. We need to prevent them from organizing and carrying out their plan. I don't care if it wades into questionable ethical territory. This is not the time for a nuanced debate. This is the time for action.
- chillacy 6y agoI'm all for acknowledging the problems of free speech but I don't like the emergency powers argument either. It's far too easy to sacrifice your virtues, whatever they might be (sacrifice some privacy to catch terrorists, sacrifice social progress to pump the economy).
- pie_flavor 6y agoFree speech is not the protection of the speech you don't mind. It is the protection of the speech you vigorously hate. The speech you don't mind needs no special protection. To borrow a quote from Scott Alexander: "But then someone else says “Well, if they get their exception, I deserve my exception,” and then someone else says “Well, if those two get exceptions, I’m out” [...] Civilization didn’t conquer the world by forbidding you to murder your enemies unless they are actually unrighteous in which case go ahead and kill them all."
- m94710 6y agoI appreciate your point and I don’t have anything to add to the conversation but your italics comes across as condescending.
- knodi 6y agoAbout time
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoIt's clear that liberals(and never-trump conservatives) don't know how to effectively deal with Trump supporters. Censoring(or moderating if that's what you're going to argue it's called) will only make things worse, it will polarize things even further. The way to address Trump supporters is to listen to them. Suppress whatever biased lower-level consciousness that's going to hijack your thought process and demonize them. Observe what is driving their anger and actually help them. You cannot stomp out this many people who have very real concerns that need to be addressed. And the effective solution will not be the thing that confirms all your priors.
- courtf 6y agoIt's going to be amazing when thedonald.win turns on their eponymous leader. Will they have to ban themselves? Stay tuned to find out!
- courtf 6y agoReal patriots give their SSI and a photo of their driver's license to parler anyway.
- threesmegiste 6y agoNo dangerous people censored that way. Only the person that tell the truths was be censored that way. Now i think we should listen trump.
- newscracker 6y agoAt some point, this is soon going to backfire a lot and get a lot more harmful and uglier (for the people and the country). I’m kinda tired of every platform suddenly having the courage to do something while some of these platforms should’ve done a whole lot more over the years before the elections. All these actions also seem to further fuel the beliefs that all the people who (partially or fully) supported Trump are being suppressed and beaten down by conspirators on the other side. I don’t know the answers, but collectively humans of the last couple of decades have not figured out how to deal with misinformation in the Internet age. I wonder what the results of any trials have been. Shorter memory recall makes it seem like polarization has increased and gotten more violent.