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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#531

Post by sidlls »

Exuma wrote: post #66
sidlls wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Tu quoque doesn’t change what Trump did.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#532

Post by zwily »

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 just browsed that site for a couple minutes, and content aside, it’s amazing how much better it is on mobile than Reddit.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#533

Post by Tokkemon »

umvi wrote: post #367
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…

> 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

It's not the most important government building in the entire nation. Don't be stupid, this is not at all comparable.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#534

Post by njudah »

razius wrote: post #399
vdnkh wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>free Internet A private company choosing who to allow on their platform? Seems like the freedom to me. And in the absence of any government action against these domestic terrorists (they have been planning exactly this violence for weeks), it's great to see private companies step in and take action.

> A private company choosing who to allow on their platform? Seems like the freedom to me. I wonder when people stopped thinking. By the same argument, should they be allowed to block all black people?

As reprehensible as it is, legally they absolutely are. Remember how country clubs didn't / still don't allow woman, african americans or jews? Common carriers (stores, hotels, etc) are treated differently, and is very much debated. (ie can a bakery deny service based on sexual preference.)

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#535

Post by ddingus »

mr_coleman wrote: post #149
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 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.

Electronics for me. Highly recommended.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#536

Post by throwawaysea »

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 don't think ISPs should be in the business of deciding what content is allowed or disallowed. If there's illegal content, that's a different thing. But politically disagreeable content? Infrastructure and utility services should not be permitted to make decisions about that even if they are private entities. And I extend this to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. since they all are so big that their ability to censor and control speech is comparable to a government's power. And if you can't exercise speech on those platforms, which are now the public town square, then you effectively don't have that right. Put another way, they are utilities and should be regulated/treated like a public entity.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#537

Post by davesque »

Unfortunately, it seems we've literally run out of options at this point. Social media companies can either act to silence violent insurrectionists (and hopefully prevent them from organizing) or they can turn the other cheek and risk allowing them to overthrow our government. And do we really believe that a Trump-led dictatorship would be more friendly towards dissenting views or permissive of media platforms that broadcast them?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#538

Post by kemiller »

jaywalk wrote: post #507
kemiller wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, perhaps that should be revisited, given that there's history and precedent.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#539

Post by baumandm »

gfodor wrote: post #379
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I see. So if, for example, the phone company were to spy on your private conversations, and determine you are not a person they want to be associated with (say for example, you talk trash about their CEO) - if they were to terminate your phone coverage, we should just accept it in light of their property rights? It's not an analogy to imply ISPs are exactly the same, but property right supremacy when it comes to infr…

The problematic part of your example is your phone company spying on your private conversations, not them choosing not to do business with you.

It's wildly different from a website company running their public business on another companies infrastructure.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#540

Post by wtf_is_up »

tharne wrote: post #56
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.

Companies don't have morals, they have interests. You're just being realistic.

Historically, that's true. However, ESG factor has taken hold and corporate leadership understands this.

I suppose having positive ESG profile is still an interest. So your statement stands.

Post reply on HN