5 ms·

Reddit's procedure for communities that go against any mainstream progressive narrative is to quarantine them and then ban them under the accusation of "brigadi

Reddit's procedure for communities that go against any mainstream progressive narrative is to quarantine them and then ban them under the accusation of "brigading". They have essentially trimmed all alternative thought or discussion from the website and turned places like /r/news, which used to be a moderate and balanced place of discussion, into a completely one-sided echo chamber of modern progressive politics. The part I find most humorous is I only discovered /r/NoNewNormal this morning and found the posts there to be genuinely kind hearted, open to rational discussion, welcoming and positive. Yet they were obliterated hours later and are now being described by media outlets as evil anti-vaccine bullies. It must be nice to wield the power to delete your ideological enemies in one stroke and then get to describe them however you want across 10 media outlets without chance for rebuttal, debate, or explanation.

TMWNN 5y ago
>They have essentially trimmed all alternative thought or discussion from the website and turned places like /r/news, which used to be a moderate and balanced place of discussion, into a completely one-sided echo chamber of modern progressive politics. This has been going on for years. After the Orlando nightclub massacre in 2016, /r/news and /r/worldnews completely shut down postings about it because a Muslim was the killer. /r/askreddit and, yes, /r/the_donald opened up discussion threads because there was no alternative on Reddit.
- sinecure 5y ago
  Absolutely. It's been incredible watching it happen in slow motion over the last decade. What was once a bastion of free thought and discussion online (after the fall of Digg) has turned into another trimmed and controlled mainstream playground for only the "right" opinions.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  For those who don't believe me: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4ny59k/lets_talk_about_orlando/ https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4ny59k/lets_t... https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_subreddit_and_the_orlando_shooting/ https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_su... https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nw8nc/washington_post_redditors_checked_rnews_for/ https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nw8nc/washington_post...
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  Weird hill to die on, IMO. Remember when we were younger and there was immense pressure on cable news to stop sharing the details of mass-shooting incidents because it was glorifying the shooters and their violent means? What Reddit is doing is what we asked cable news to do. (Also, like, stop blowing your dogwhistle so damn loud.)
  - TMWNN 5y ago
    >Remember when we were younger and there was immense pressure on cable news to stop sharing the details of mass-shooting incidents because it was glorifying the shooters and their violent means? What Reddit is doing is what we asked cable news to do. First, I was never part of said "immense pressure" so don't speak on my behalf. Second, please read the links I posted elsewhere. /r/news's moderators, and Reddit's own CEO, admitted that the subreddit had completely bungled coverage of the shooting. As the Washington Post article and the replies to the previous posts discuss, they did more than that; for hours it was impossible for /r/news visitors to learn that a mass murder of 50 people in a nightclub had happened at all. I am a witness of the censorship on that subreddit that day. Third, I question whether there was ever "immense pressure" in the US to do such a thing. Even in New Zealand, where said immense pressure by the government and others caused the manifesto written by the mosque attacker to be universally censored, and overseas sites hosting footage of the shooting itself were blocked, at least the public knew such an attack had occurred in the first place. >(Also, like, stop blowing your dogwhistle so damn loud.) Ah yes, the fabled "dog whistle". AKA "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".
    - myWindoonn 5y ago
      Oh, you're not from the USA? So, uh, we have a lot of mass shootings. A common point of discussion is whether we should publically discuss the details of mass shootings, because discussion can easily excuse and glorify the shooters. The dog whistle in your earlier post is that the mean old liberals wouldn't let you talk about violence committed by Muslims, but fortunately Donald's fans were there to give you a space; how generous of them.
b0sk 5y ago
There's no rational discussion to be had between homeopathy doctor and an oncologist, for example. It's just a waste of bandwidth and source of misinformation which is killing innocents.
- sinecure 5y ago
  Assuming your position on any subject, especially novel viruses and novel vaccines, is 100% correct and immune to debate or criticism is irrational. When your position is "I'm right, they're wrong, they shouldn't be allowed to talk about it" you are the censor. If the facts support your position, why silence debate or criticism? The scientific method requires hypothesis tested by experimentation. Have we fully proven via experimentation any facts about long term side effects from the Covid vaccine? Of course not, we have not had the time! As such, any true scientist would invite debate, discourse and discussion as we as a society attempt to balance the risk of Covid with the unknown risk of vaccinations. We must also analyze and discuss the vital topics of freedom over one's body, freedom of speech, and the intricacies of quarantine restrictions on our civilization. That conversation is important and should not be casually censored off the internet under the guise of "protecting innocents from misinformation".
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    > Assuming your position on any subject, especially novel viruses and novel vaccines, is 100% correct and immune to debate or criticism is irrational. The "debate" and "criticism" is always in the form of uncited or poorly cited conspiracies, along with links to extremely unreputable sites. It some cases, the only evidence is a highly shared Facebook meme. The credentials of the "research" authors are frequently lies, too. For example, there's a big one going around from the "inventor of RNA vaccines." However, if you look into it, it's just one of thousands of people who worked on RNA vaccines at some point in its lifecycle. It's like claiming some new grad software engineer who works for Facebook is "the inventor of Facebook." Mercola, Natural News, Fox, Breitbart, *.win, Zerohedge, Infowars: These sources aren't dismissed because "there's a bias against conservative values" or whatever; they're dismissed because they regularly churn out completely debunked garbage. The times they're right about something is, at best, a fluke.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

TMWNN 5y ago

>They have essentially trimmed all alternative thought or discussion from the website and turned places like /r/news, which used to be a moderate and balanced place of discussion, into a completely one-sided echo chamber of modern progressive politics. This has been going on for years. After the Orlando nightclub massacre in 2016, /r/news and /r/worldnews completely shut down postings about it because a Muslim was the killer. /r/askreddit and, yes, /r/the_donald opened up discussion threads because there was no alternative on Reddit.

sinecure 5y ago
Absolutely. It's been incredible watching it happen in slow motion over the last decade. What was once a bastion of free thought and discussion online (after the fall of Digg) has turned into another trimmed and controlled mainstream playground for only the "right" opinions.
TMWNN 5y ago
For those who don't believe me: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4ny59k/lets_talk_about_orlando/ https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4ny59k/lets_t... https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_subreddit_and_the_orlando_shooting/ https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_su... https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nw8nc/washington_post_redditors_checked_rnews_for/ https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nw8nc/washington_post...
myWindoonn 5y ago
Weird hill to die on, IMO. Remember when we were younger and there was immense pressure on cable news to stop sharing the details of mass-shooting incidents because it was glorifying the shooters and their violent means? What Reddit is doing is what we asked cable news to do. (Also, like, stop blowing your dogwhistle so damn loud.)
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >Remember when we were younger and there was immense pressure on cable news to stop sharing the details of mass-shooting incidents because it was glorifying the shooters and their violent means? What Reddit is doing is what we asked cable news to do. First, I was never part of said "immense pressure" so don't speak on my behalf. Second, please read the links I posted elsewhere. /r/news's moderators, and Reddit's own CEO, admitted that the subreddit had completely bungled coverage of the shooting. As the Washington Post article and the replies to the previous posts discuss, they did more than that; for hours it was impossible for /r/news visitors to learn that a mass murder of 50 people in a nightclub had happened at all. I am a witness of the censorship on that subreddit that day. Third, I question whether there was ever "immense pressure" in the US to do such a thing. Even in New Zealand, where said immense pressure by the government and others caused the manifesto written by the mosque attacker to be universally censored, and overseas sites hosting footage of the shooting itself were blocked, at least the public knew such an attack had occurred in the first place. >(Also, like, stop blowing your dogwhistle so damn loud.) Ah yes, the fabled "dog whistle". AKA "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".
  - myWindoonn 5y ago
    Oh, you're not from the USA? So, uh, we have a lot of mass shootings. A common point of discussion is whether we should publically discuss the details of mass shootings, because discussion can easily excuse and glorify the shooters. The dog whistle in your earlier post is that the mean old liberals wouldn't let you talk about violence committed by Muslims, but fortunately Donald's fans were there to give you a space; how generous of them.

b0sk 5y ago

There's no rational discussion to be had between homeopathy doctor and an oncologist, for example. It's just a waste of bandwidth and source of misinformation which is killing innocents.

sinecure 5y ago
Assuming your position on any subject, especially novel viruses and novel vaccines, is 100% correct and immune to debate or criticism is irrational. When your position is "I'm right, they're wrong, they shouldn't be allowed to talk about it" you are the censor. If the facts support your position, why silence debate or criticism? The scientific method requires hypothesis tested by experimentation. Have we fully proven via experimentation any facts about long term side effects from the Covid vaccine? Of course not, we have not had the time! As such, any true scientist would invite debate, discourse and discussion as we as a society attempt to balance the risk of Covid with the unknown risk of vaccinations. We must also analyze and discuss the vital topics of freedom over one's body, freedom of speech, and the intricacies of quarantine restrictions on our civilization. That conversation is important and should not be casually censored off the internet under the guise of "protecting innocents from misinformation".
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  > Assuming your position on any subject, especially novel viruses and novel vaccines, is 100% correct and immune to debate or criticism is irrational. The "debate" and "criticism" is always in the form of uncited or poorly cited conspiracies, along with links to extremely unreputable sites. It some cases, the only evidence is a highly shared Facebook meme. The credentials of the "research" authors are frequently lies, too. For example, there's a big one going around from the "inventor of RNA vaccines." However, if you look into it, it's just one of thousands of people who worked on RNA vaccines at some point in its lifecycle. It's like claiming some new grad software engineer who works for Facebook is "the inventor of Facebook." Mercola, Natural News, Fox, Breitbart, *.win, Zerohedge, Infowars: These sources aren't dismissed because "there's a bias against conservative values" or whatever; they're dismissed because they regularly churn out completely debunked garbage. The times they're right about something is, at best, a fluke.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]