Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#421

Post by umvi »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #298
umvi wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a difference between attacking the Capitol and attacking a Pizza Hut What's the difference? In both cases the stated goal of the protests was not to "break stuff" so if that ends up happening, is that the protest's fault? > There's also a difference between a protestor throwing a firework at a courthouse and taking tactical gear and weapons with a couple hundred buddies into a legislature. What about armed…

The Pizza Hut isn't in the process of processing Electoral College votes for the next president of the United States. Disrupting the delivery of pizzas is not in the same category as disrupting the selection of the president. This wasn't just a riot. It wasn't just a protest. Wasn't just an attack on a building. It wasn't just some vandalism. It was an attack on the last step of the presidential election process.

The purpose of the protest was not to breach congress and stop the processing of the Electoral College votes. A small minority of protestors decided to do that. If we are going to do that and say the entire protest is bad if contained a few bad actors, then in order to not be hypocritical we need to condemn any BLM protest that had bad actors, including the one that resulted in CHAZ.

Or, you can recognize the right to assemble and protest while condemning non-peaceful protesting. I personally unequivocally condemn the violence that occurred in both BLM and Trump protests. I also support the right to gather and peacefully protest, for both BLM and Pro-Trump supporters.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#422

Post by netsharc »

Exuma wrote: post #355
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Are you claiming MSM isn't biased?

x86_64Ubuntu forgot to add "or they'll change the topic".

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#423

Post by lldbg »

andrewem wrote: post #232

You 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.

"We can guarantee freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech." Idi Amin.

This year I have barely spoken more than 30 minutes to someone in real life, per day. If my interactions over the internet were to be as they say curated, I would effectively be silenced.

I was a frequent reader of r/dt a few years back, as the top poster was. There was nothing in particular there, no trend, that was any more terrible than what I could find in my bookshelf. Deal with it.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#424

Post by LatteLazy »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #266

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.

Violence 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.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#426

Post by philip1209 »

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…

Matthew Pierce from Cloudflare has notoriously dropped 8Chan after its content contributed to three mass shootings [1].

Will Cloudflare continue to protect thedonald[.]win? I think we should call Cloudflare out.

https://twitter.com/philipithomas/status/1347621982758719489

--

[1] https://stratechery.com/2021/trump-and-twitter/

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#427

Post by gremlinsinc »

germinalphrase wrote: post #184
neogodless wrote: post #114

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 tha…

One 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.

I 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...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#428

Post by de6u99er »

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…

Clodflade is protecting quite a lot of shady and terrorist websites/forums.

I bet they are violating multiple (inter)national laws since years.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#429

Post by pcdoodle »

HDMI_Cable wrote: post #253
mr_coleman wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love doom scrolling as much as the next guy, just make sure to get some mind bleach. Find a nice fiction podcast or take up electronics. Both sides will consume your mental health if your not careful.

I'm actually looking for a good podcast. Do you have any recommendations?

Nick's Non Fiction

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#430

Post by marcosdumay »

manfredo wrote: post #265
zionic wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Passing your speech through an ISP is not the same as compelling the ISP to speak.
Post reply on HN