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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#501

Post by Traster »

0x1F8B wrote: post #467
Traster wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not sure what the other options are? You've seen it. Which is worse, censorship of people calling for the violent otherthrow of the democratically elected government. OR what we've seen this week - people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US. Oh and by the way- when the MAGA hat wearers have taken over, sure as hell they aren't going to be defending your right to equivocate be…

> people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US. The hysterics in this thread are pretty rich.

I don't know how many people need to storm the capitol under the instructions of the loser of a recent election before you stop thinking the people commenting on it are "hysterical".

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#502

Post by BitwiseFool »

eertami wrote: post #484
BitwiseFool wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it whataboutism if you wish, but it's relevant to the discussion when it comes to evenly applying the rules.

It unequivocally is in no way relevant. Sure, if these people you mention had invaded the white house with weapons and make-shift bombs then it would be a fair comparison. However that didn't happen, it is a completely false equivalence. I simply don’t know what to say to you except to please re-examine your humanity as well as your critical thinking skills.

>"I simply don’t know what to say to you except to please re-examine your humanity as well as your critical thinking skills. "

If you're worried about logical fallacies like Whataboutism, you've just committed an Ad Hominem. Why go there? Why question my humanity?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#503

Post by umvi »

Tokkemon wrote: post #485
umvi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By definition it is not. Only governments can censor What if we live in a WALL-E type world where corporations are so large and powerful they effectively govern society?

But they don't.

Powerful lobbies shape our laws according to the interests of corporations. "Public Squares" have largely moved to privately-owned internet platforms. And there's no way to have a "voice" on the internet protected by the first amendment because no matter what you have to go through a private corporation that can decide to cut you off at some layer in the stack, even if you self host.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#504

Post by criddell »

gfodor wrote: post #471
simias wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These website clearly radicalize some people. I too lurk from time to time on thedonald.win and far-right subreddits, you can see that over there reality is completely distorted, calls to violence are constant and they just feed off each other's insecurities, fears and hate. Nothing good comes out of these places, regardless of where in the political spectrum you position yourself (except maybe downright fascists). L…

You claim "nothing good comes out of these places" - that's a strong claim to make. Here's my argument: having this stuff out in the open does have benefits. Most people lurk. Lurking these sites has a lot of benefits despite the risk of being drawn into radicalization: - It allows you to truly understand the motives of these kinds of people, and predict what they will do. - Understanding these motives allows you to…

There may be benefits, but the harm - real and potential - dwarf anything you've listed.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#505

Post by kr99x »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #460
kr99x wrote: post #319

I'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 bigote…

Maybe 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…

You'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.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#506

Post by one2know »

one2know wrote: post #273
berkes wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having received and operating on $300MM from the chinese communist party. Source?

"Reddit confirms $300M Series D led by China’s Tencent at $3B value" 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-in... Has anyone seen Jack Ma?

Haha, when you lose an argument, readers just flag a post? Hilarious.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#507

Post by jaywalk »

kemiller wrote: post #281
ravenstine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the danger in going to such lengths to shut down disagreeable viewpoints. People say "make your own website", but that becomes a race to the bottom when we start politicizing server hosts and ISPs. When you completely shut people up, that doesn't mean they're gone, and now you don't know what they're thinking. Meanwhile you're actually tyrannical because a monopoly on information makes the mass 80% believe tha…

Incitement has been a limited carve-out from the First Amendment pretty much from the beginning. Stating a political view is different from threatening your opponents with violence.

The current standard is "imminent lawless action" which is a pretty high bar. Incitement in many cases does not meet that bar.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#508

Post by legulere »

kr99x wrote: post #319

I'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 bigote…

No right is absolute, because there are areas where exercising one right might infringe on another right.

Everyone has a right to their life, which is one of the most sacrosanct rights, but in self-defence you might still rightfully kill someone else. Those intersections of rights are always a fine line to walk on and you have to be careful so it is not abused. Just putting one right above the other can never be the solution.

Also freedom of speech has its limitations. Defamation is one case where I guess most people can get behind.

I think one could also make the case here, where there is a real danger that democracy can be lost.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#509

Post by ModernMech »

oceanplexian wrote: post #183
safog wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 ref…

> The actions weren’t referred to as sedition and most media outlets avoided words like mob, treason, etc.

"Barr Told Prosecutors to Consider Sedition Charges for Protest Violence"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/us/politics/william-barr-...

This is about the protests over the summer, not the recent insurrection. Yes, I'm calling it that. I think functionally it matters a bit more if the USAG is using words like "sedition" compared to media outlets or internet posters.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#510

Post by gpm »

afuchs wrote: post #303
gpm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would prefer is removing moderators, aggressively fighting bots, and putting reasonably neutral parties in the moderation position. The second part of that is hard/expensive, but it is a path forwards to some level of discourse between the people using these subreddits and everyone else. Driving these communities to different sites means that people get in much stronger filter bubbles, that's probably not a go…

A problem that has demonstrability arisen with even neutral moderation is that, no matter the moderation criteria, a vocal subset of those who are affected by that moderation will still complain loudly about being censored. This applies even to moderators removing death threats and calls to violence. There are many examples of complaints that doing so is censorship even though it is hard to make a good faith argument…

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"?

I'm not claiming this is a perfect solution, I'm sure you're right there would be complaints, and I'm also sure that no perfect solution exist. It's just not that easy to deradicalize people, and it's just not that easy to deal with people actively attempting to deceive and radicalize the public. I do think it would probably be a superior solution to what is being done right now, where there are even more complaints, and you get increasingly "strong" filter bubbles.

Post reply on HN