8 ms·

What else is new, censorship is OK as long as only one side is doing it.

• safog 6y ago
  You 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 ago
    Please 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 ago
      You are lying to yourself there mate. Everyone knows his intentions from his actions in the past. Fuck you and your fascist agenda.
    • wmichelin 6y ago
      You'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 ago
        You 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?
        • camel_Snake 6y ago
          The President is responsible for his words and actions, not solely his feelings and thoughts. If he can't effectively communicate his intention to the point he 'accidentally' whips is supporters into a seditious frenzy that makes him unfit for office.
      • mherkender 6y ago
        Don’t forget the calls for Total War and Trial by Combat from his son and lawyer.
        • dragonwriter 6y ago
          Or for the execution of Pence by Lin Wood (targeting Pence specifically is something I've also seen in several quotes from the insurrectionists.)
    • sidlls 6y ago
      This is like people who think judges are dumb and apply the law mechanically and strictly as written without any room for context or nuance. The fact is there is a history of Trump supporters turning violent after Trump rallies and speeches. It’s an established pattern that requires willfully ignoring to contend he has plausible deniability.
      • Exuma 6y ago
        It's no different than BLM members burning down cities. There's this sort of thing on both sides which don't represent the larger group. Also, FWIW, I don't support anything remotely close to storming building, but people on the left certainly are quick to blame when I've watched exact same thing happen over the last year or two.
        • sidlls 6y ago
          Tu quoque doesn’t change what Trump did.
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
    • BobbyJo 6y ago
      The beauty (and horror) of a lot of Trump's incitement is he always does it implicitly as opposed to explicitly. It's not about quotes and verbage as much as meaning and intent. That being said, his incitement Wednesday was actually pretty explicit. From the Times: Trump said "If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore" before urging supporters to go to the capital. Sounds like a pretty powerful incitement from a sitting President.
      • guscost 6y ago
        Urging supporters to go to the capital “peacefully” using that explicit qualifier. You still have a point, but be transparent about it.
        • BobbyJo 6y ago
          Just because he followed up with "peacefully" later doesn't negate him saying 'fight like hell'. I mean, most of the problematic things Trump has said have been followed/preceded by things intended to make them look less problematic. I wasn't intentionally leaving anything out though, I took that quote directly from the Times.
          • guscost 6y ago
            The Times intentionally left that out. Notwithstanding earlier inflammatory language, this is the exact quote: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.” You may believe that the word “patriotically” was a dog-whistle, but none of the headlines characterized the statement correctly.
    • stronglikedan 6y ago
      > Please cite me tweets/descriptions of where he incited anything. It's not gonna happen, because it didn't happen. I've asked everyone I know to cite the same thing, and no one has been able to. Of course, that won't stop the narrative, because truth has become irrelevant. EDIT: I find it amusing that even the people that have responded to you so far, still haven't actually cited anything yet.
      • bdamm 6y ago
        Because I've already done this for so many other people that I'm exhausted. Go f*cking read the speech yourself. What did he think would happen when he asked his supporters to "talk to their representatives" literally as they are voting? Go have a nice cup of tea?
        • x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
          They are sea-lioning. They are going to constantly ask for "evidence", and then when provided for it, act as if it's biased/false/non-existant and then restate the question. The goal is to put all the labor of the conversation and gathering of sources onto you while they just get to reply: "I don't believe that, the MSM is biased, show me another source".
          • Exuma 6y ago
            Are you claiming MSM isn't biased?
            • netsharc 6y ago
              x86_64Ubuntu forgot to add "or they'll change the topic".
            • gremlinsinc 6y ago
              Are you claiming specifically biased-right-wing <insert journal name> isn't biased? MSM (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC) is 10% as biased (to the left), Fox (probably 50% biased to the right), etc. Least biased is probably Reuters, AP, and PBS, and maybe NPR. Local news is usually not so biased either. But Washington Times, Breitbart, Random Youtube Vlogger, etc...none of those can be trusted. That's why they're never linked to on Hackernews, except maybe in comments, I'd imagine. They're basically tabloids. Good to cross-reference with Snopes or Politifact if you are curious what's true. Personally, I like to read multiple sources and google a topic to get a better picture to see other 'takes'. Only way to not get bubble/group think.
    • sixothree 6y ago
      He literally gave an hour long speech minutes before they attacked our nation's capitol.
      • Supermancho 6y ago
        Not sure what THAT video is "showing", but let's look at the actual speech... You can see/hear/read (via transcript) starting about here: https://youtu.be/ht20eDYmLXU?t=10186 https://youtu.be/ht20eDYmLXU?t=10186 Romney, American Elections, Press "enemy of the people", American 3rd world country, Republicans Fighting/Boxing, Fight Bad People, Pence and Constitution, Congress addressing assault on country, Walk down to Capitol with me, Show strength and be strong, Demand congress do the right thing lawfully, March over peacefully and patriotically make voices heard, Integrity of elections and country, Country under siege, blah blah Get up to the final incite: https://youtu.be/ht20eDYmLXU?t=13513 https://youtu.be/ht20eDYmLXU?t=13513 and it's had a tremendous impact that we got rid of catch and release we got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with but now the caravans they think biden's getting in the caravans are forming again they want to come in again and rip off our country can't let it happen as this enormous crowd shows we have truth and justice on our side we have a deep and enduring love for america in our hearts we love our country we have overwhelming pride in this great country and we have it deep in our souls together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people by the people and for the people our brightest days are before us our greatest achievements still wait i think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until i came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were and again most people would stand there at nine o'clock in the evening and say i want to thank you very much and they go off to some other life but i said something's wrong here something's really wrong can't have happened and we fight we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not gonna have a country anymore our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun my fellow americans for our movement for our children and for our beloved country and i say this despite all that's happened the best is yet to come so we're going to we're going to walk down pennsylvania avenue i love pennsylvania and we're going to the capitol and we're going to try and give the democrats are hopeless they're never voting for anything not even one vote but we're going to try and give our republicans the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country so let's walk down pennsylvania avenue i want to thank you all god bless you and god bless america thank you all for being here this is incredible thank you very much
  • umvi 6y ago
    > You 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. By this logic pro-BLM democrats (including some high level pro-BLM politicians) incited numerous violent mobs over the course of 2020 to attack Seattle and Portland and usurp rule-of-law. But when it happened then the protests were "fiery but mostly peaceful" because "collateral damage is okay if it is done in the name of grappling with racism". Now that the other side has gathered to protest what they see as injustices, it's "a coup" and "terrorism" because of the bad actors who postponed congress for a few hours despite the fact that the vast majority of the people at the protest were peacefully protesting.
    • edmundsauto 6y ago
      You say these things as if they are not facts. BLM was protesting the injustice of systematic oppression that results in black people bejng murdered by police. 93% of the protests were entirely peaceful. In the other 7%, it is not clear if the violence was instigated by citizens or police. On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. They were trying to disrupt the federal government. Some of them had zip tie handcuffs and were reportedly looking for VP Pence. If you cannot see the clear daylight between those two things, and insist on reducing it to “violence on both sides”, then I simply don’t know what to say to you except to please re-examine your humanity as well as your critical thinking skills.
      • umvi 6y ago
        > On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. Could you directly address that time back in June when armed BLM protestors stormed Capitol Hill in Seattle and kicked out all the police for a month?[0] Why does that event get a pass in the context of this conversation? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
        • Tokkemon 6y ago
  • staplers 6y ago
    Imagine if ISIS had a twitter account or reddit fanpage. How fast would conservatives pass legislation to take it down? If the terrorists are white, they're treated differently.
    • gscott 6y ago
      ISIS had thousands of Twitter accounts and were selling Rohingya underage girls into sex slavery over Facebook.
      • nafizh 6y ago
        That’s Yazidi not rohingya. Two separate groups at two distant places on earth.
    • ByteJockey 6y ago
      ISIS uses twitter a lot. It's one of their main recruitment methods. https://towardsdatascience.com/how-isis-uses-twitter-10065790354a https://towardsdatascience.com/how-isis-uses-twitter-1006579... Or were you talking more of an "official" twitter account for the organization itself (the same way Wendy's has a twitter account)?
  • oceanplexian 6y ago
    When you use words such as seditious and mob, I want to remind you that words have power and that those words don’t unify but rather tend to divide and amplify hatred on both sides. There were many instances where protests got out of hand this summer and courthouses and police stations were destroyed; entire city blocks were taken over and those responsible enacted and enforced their own laws. The actions weren’t referred to as sedition and most media outlets avoided words like mob, treason, etc. Of course, don’t take my statement to mean I condone ANY case of violence, rioting, property damage, etc. (And in all cases those responsible and those inciting violence should be held accountable) but being consistent and avoiding charged language when depicting civil unrest would go a long way to heal the country rather than to divide it.
    • trustfundbaby 6y ago
      yes, because they didn't literally overrun the seat of power and threaten to topple the government. Seditious is spot on.
    • dragontamer 6y ago
      > When you use words such as seditious and mob The seditious mob injured 50 officers and killed one of them. You should quit defending them. Stop with the "both-sidesisms". We can clearly point out which group is evil here.
    • adamsea 6y ago
      > those words don’t unify but rather tend to divide and amplify hatred Hahahahaha unify. You. The one enabling white supremacy by refusing to name it. Unify.
    • Exuma 6y ago
      I don't disagree the problem is the left has so many examples that this hypocrisy is just excruciating to me. You literally have people creating lists to blackball anyone who supports trump, praised and lauded by some political people high up on the food chain. I rarely ever see the left actively support an ACTUAL view of "unity," and believe me, I truly look for it by looking at all opposing views on my social media, on people I disagree with, etc.
  • pnw_hazor 6y ago
    “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend" - Nancy Pelosi
    • txsoftwaredev 6y ago
      "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." - Maxine Waters
      • camel_Snake 6y ago
        Notice how this is advocating the use of free speech? Notice the lack of violent words like "attack" "battle" "combat" "fight" etc? Do you notice just how different this is than the rhetoric employed by Trump, Guiliani, etc. recently?
        • txsoftwaredev 6y ago
          “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend,” Pelosi said during a press conference. “It’s a horrible thing, and I don’t see any prospect for legislation here.” - Nancy Pelosi Definition of uprising : an act or instance of rising up especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government
• wvenable 6y ago
  My house, my rules.
  • willcipriano 6y ago
    Ownership of the house changes every couple of decades, might want to consider what rules you want to be customary once someone else has the deed.
    • wvenable 6y ago
      If you don't like the rules, leave. You don't have to use reddit. > Ownership of the house changes every couple of decades If you can't control your house, what's the point of owning it? This undermines the whole concept of private ownership.
      • willcipriano 6y ago
        Sorry, I'm not talking about Reddit specially. The cultural pendulum travels back and forth so one day, sooner than you think, the people you disagree with will make the editorial decisions for the major social media platforms. If you want to make it the rule that it's fine for platforms like that to remove their political opponents, by all means I just suspect you or your children will regret it.
        • wvenable 6y ago
          You didn't address my point. What about undermining the concept of ownership? You're saying that if I produce a website I should not be allowed to control what is posted there? Who is going to enforce that? I suspect you or your children would regret that sort of thing as well. Perhaps the issue isn't that black and white.
          • willcipriano 6y ago
            I think you are missing the point because you are thinking too short term. Reddit likely won't exist/won't be as popular in a decade or two, the current owners would still own it but it won't be part of the cultural zeitgeist in the same way. Think AM Radio, Cable TV, Friendster or MySpace. Instead it will be replaced with something else, that something else might not even be called social media, and that thing will be controlled by people with a different political ideology than who currently control Reddit. I don't know how old you are but do you recall the mid to late 90s/early 2000's in the US? Back then we had to fight so shows like South Park could be shown on cable television (a private platform) due to the fact that the general consensus among the population was that content like that offended their personal and religious values and should be prohibited. Those exact people won't be in power again, but people similar to them almost certainly will. Moves like this hand them a weapon to use against you.
• eyelidlessness 6y ago
  No one is being censored. You’re perfectly welcome to go on 4chan or breitbart or parler or even other subreddits or just build a new platform. No one is entitled to use other people’s resources and effort to have their views amplified without moderation by those people offering that service. Edit: every time I post a comment like this here I get downvoted. I’m not complaining, downvote away. But I have to wonder if the folks downvoting realize how much this site is moderated and how much they’re actively participating in it.
  • Exuma 6y ago
    This argument isn't valid when literally 80 million people support a different idea. At some point when a platform gets large enough it's egregious to shut down so many views especially when any rational human can see the reasons are incredibly biased.
    • eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Yes it is valid. Literally 7 billion people are not entitled to unmoderated amplification using Reddit’s resources, regardless of their bias.
    • amyjess 6y ago
      I take it you don't remember what life was like before the Internet was a thing. A major city would have approximately four local TV stations with any kind of news organization and two newspapers. Maybe you'd have CNN if you had cable, which a lot of people didn't have. I could guarantee you right here that none of them would platform extreme viewpoints, and the country was much better off for it. I guess if you lived in NYC you'd have a few more options, but they were still pretty limited. And none of these were interactive in any way we'd recognize: maybe, at the most, you'd get a letter to the editor published if you got lucky. The idea where anyone could say anything and be given a massive platform on an international social network that most of the population uses is a very, very new development. Algorithm-driven social media where anyone can post whatever is actively harmful to our country. Right now, if you view any YouTube videos about WW2, you'll start getting videos "explaining" that the Holocaust was a hoax in your recommendations. If you're thinking about getting into hunting, and you look up gun reviews on YouTube, your recommendations are going to fill up with "Stop the Steal" and QAnon and other boogaloo propaganda. This is the kind of behavior that, if allowed to continue, will absolutely and utterly burn down society.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• srveale 6y ago
  If the left-leaning subreddits were also promoting hate, misinformation and violence then they would be banned too. It's not favouritism, the "one side" that's being targeted is the side that's breaking the platform's rules.
  • im3w1l 6y ago
    They literally tried to put double standards in the rules[0]. But realized that was a little bit too blatant and backtracked after. "the rule on hate (...) 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 " [0] https://archive.vn/OZ03o https://archive.vn/OZ03o
  • matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > If the left-leaning subreddits were also promoting hate, misinformation and violence then they would be banned too. There's plenty of hate and misinformation in those subreddits. None of them have been banned yet.
    • Miner49er 6y ago
      This is simply untrue. (Arguably) the largest leftist subreddit, /r/ChapoTrapHouse, was banned with /r/thedonald in June.
  • ksk 6y ago
    Which subreddit got banned for promoting the nonsense Steele dossier, and other ridiculous Trump conspiracies like the pee tape?
    • srveale 6y ago
      Those are at worst unsubstantiated, and contain truth like how Russia interfered in the election and Trump's campaign accepted their help. Totally different than something like "the election was rigged", which was tested and failed in court, but still gets shouted from the rooftops, leading to dangerous outcomes like what we saw in DC.
• adamsea 6y ago
  Censorship of what? Tell me specifically the content of the speech being censored, so we can have a reasonable discussion about if there might be a rare but valid reason to censor said speech. Also, go fuck yourself. [EDIT: Lets get to the heart of it. If you refuse to accept the results of the election, you are promoting treason. If you want to play second-grade word games to explain why President Trump isnt responsible for the attempted coup, you are promoting treason. And deep down you know you are wrong and feel shame, which is why you get so angry. You are not supported by the majority of Americans. Your cause has lost and ultimately will always lose, because it is fundamentally hateful. You still can reflect and change your beliefs and attitudes towards other people.]
  • Exuma 6y ago
    What part about "deleted" don't you understand?
    • strathmeyer 6y ago
      Content moderation is a form of free speech. You don't get to tell others what to do just because of your wayward political views. They taught us this in elementary school.
      • Exuma 6y ago
        I agree - but as I've said above at some point, at some certain size, moderation goes very quickly to censorship when you go deleting the largest platform by far for one side to discuss things, when they're NOT actually doing anything that thousands of other subreddits do that aren't banned.
        • FireBeyond 6y ago
          No matter how you try to shoehorn it in there, it is not censorship for someone not to provide you a platform. Your viewpoint and perspective is free to be shared on several other platforms. They're not as big? So what? Your right to speak is not "your right to audience the size of your choosing".
• x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  How are they being censored? They are perfectly fine to host their community elsewhere, and no one from the state has kicked in their door and hauled them off to a black site.