Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump” • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#261

Post by jtxxwl » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #110

sjaak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it strange that you have to make a disclaimer like “please don’t judge me?”. Quite literally 1/2 of the USA voted for Trump, should you automatically be ashamed of that? (It’s easy for me to say ofc, I have no horse in this race)

Popularity does not imply morality. 46.8% of people voted for Donald Trump (not "quite literally 1/2"), a man who is a known fraud, morally bankrupt in business and personal life, and who has shown himself to be incompetent in office. People who voted for Donald Trump should be ashamed of their vote. That said, reading what people are saying in an effort to understand and to de-radicalize is not something to be asham…

Hopefully the wonderful moderators on this board reprimand you for posting political flamebait and attempting to use hacker news for political or ideological battle.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#262

Post by blisterpeanuts » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #174

typon wrote: post #12

Irrelevant. 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…

If you wonder why they are threatened consider parler and the things people post there. Please forgive the language it is verbatim and I think threats of violence are more offensive than bad words. > You had better be ready partriots! It is go time very soon. We must attack all central communications to big cities are democratic cities. Fiber optics telecom bridges supply routes we can starve those motherfuckers to d…

> "the things people post there"

You mean, the things a tiny handful of people post there. Most posters are center-right and don't advocate violence.

I would also note that there's been plenty of talk of violence against conservatives on left-leaning platforms, Twitter especially but many others. These people are never called out even if they talk about "rounding them up and putting them in camps" and similar Nazi-like talk, even killing them seems to be permissible. I've reported lots of such tweets and sometimes they're taken down, other times, not.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#263

Post by paxys » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #51

slg wrote: post #13

The 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.

I 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?

If Pence invokes the 25th amendment then she would have to go on the record with a vote. So just resigning is the easier decision.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#264

Post by sharatvir » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

Exuma wrote: post #123

edmundsauto wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tryin…

Aren't white people more likely to die by police? (seriously asking, I remember this data point but it's not in front of me).

There may be more white people killed by police (in sheer volume) but that’s not the same as white people being more likely to die by police.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#265

Post by manfredo » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #195

manfredo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moreover, they've gotten threats from their ISP that they have to delete certain posts or be shut down. (which seems scary to me) Agreed - though I find it's more of a headache than scary. On end, I don't like the fact that increasingly internet infrastructure is acting as a de facto judge in deciding what speech is and isn't allowed. I empathize with both parties. ISPs don't want to host speech they feel is abhorr…

> ISPs don't want to host speech they feel is abhorrent But where does this end? Does the phone company want to allow conversations they find morally reprehensible? Does apple want to send iMessages that denigrate their company? After all, they are private companies! /s

It's actually a serious and legitimate question. Freedom from speech also means freedom from compelled speech. A government can't pass a law to make a Mom and Pop shop sell a certain magazine. And corporations enjoy the same freedoms: I'm very confident that the government could not pass a law forcing Twitter to overturn bans. And ISPs possibly have the same freedom from compelled speech.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the distinction is in utilities. The postal service, for instance, can't just refuse service to people they don't like. Same with power companies. I'm not sure how phone providers and ISPs fit into this. But I think it may be useful to have ISPs, payment providers, and maybe also DNS and DDOS protection providers be considered utilities. My basic measuring stick is that putting HMTL and CSS out on the internet should be protected akin to the ability to send letters through the mail.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#266

Post by CodeGlitch » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

So 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.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#267

Post by d1zzy » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

tstrimple wrote: post #100

dijit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rub is always: association with the group is association with the worst of that group. Their worst right now is much worse than expected, I would be ashamed to be associated.

> Their worst right now is much worse than expected, I would be ashamed to be associated. This doesn't follow. Trump has been promoting violence since 2016. There have been multiple attacks carried out by Trump supporters. Most Republicans think the election was stolen thanks to Trump. Anyone who was surprised by this hasn't been paying attention to the blatantly obvious signs that have been on display nor to the rep…

It does follow if you think that most people that voted for Trump didn't actually think that Trump means most of the things he says. Which matches up with what Trump supporters say in interviews regarding Trump's stance on topics that even many of his supporters don't agree with. They will generally say something like "yeah, I don't agree with what Trump says about X and Y but I vote for him because of Z".

And to be fair their stance is not totally unreasonable. On both isles of the political spectrum most voters for some candidate ignore at least part of what the candidate says _and_ does. No candidate perfectly matches up with what you think should be done, that's normal and expected, democracy isn't perfect. A part of this process is trying to guess what the political candidate really thinks/believes vs what they say just to gain political capital. All people living in a democracy learn to do this early on. I guess for many Trump supporters they guessed that even with all the seemingly violence inducing rhetoric it wouldn't end up with a mob assaulting a federal government institution. Mistakes were made. :)

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#268

Post by froh » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

boustrophedon wrote: post #86

sjaak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it strange that you have to make a disclaimer like “please don’t judge me?”. Quite literally 1/2 of the USA voted for Trump, should you automatically be ashamed of that? (It’s easy for me to say ofc, I have no horse in this race)

Approximately 22% of the USA voted for Trump this election.

voter turnout * share = .667 * .469 = 0.312823

or did you count in people not eligible to vote? like kids and foreigners?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#269

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #79

typon wrote: post #12

Irrelevant. 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…

I do not even think it is morbid. 70 million people voted for Trump. Understanding them better is not a bad thing. Does not mean agreeing with them. And yes, same.

We understand them well enough. No need to hear why people's civil rights need to be brushed aside to make room for a white supremacy.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#270

Post by gfodor » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #194

gfodor wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'll admit I didn't follow it completely and didn't care enough to investigate. I'm sure it'll bubble up here if it does with more details just like when they got nuked from Reddit. Arguably sites like this one are a good way to gauge the true robustness of the Internet - given the situation this week they clearly now are in the realm of law enforcement, but up until these rather insane events to me their contin…

Quoted post unavailable.

You may be reading too much into what I wrote. My standard here is simply that I think if a website is literally organizing something which explicitly, literally, supports violent overthrow of the government, then I'm going to yield to the legal system to enforce whatever laws exist to properly regulate that speech. I don't have a strong opinion beyond that since I am not a lawyer. My point is that if the mechanism to enforce those laws includes SSL or CDN interference, I won't include such interference on the list of things I'd be concerned about in my bucket of "corporate interests mediating acceptable global speech."