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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#561

Post by mrguyorama »

slothtrop wrote: post #520
young_unixer wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If service providers want to deplatform centers of radicalization, I think that's ok. The thing is: left-wing radicalization is tolerated by the platforms, but right-wing radicalization isn't.

The day the bulk of far-left idealists advocate violence and racism, they won't be tolerated either.

Indeed. On reddit, r/chapotraphouse was also deleted a while back because it was (AFAIU) a casual tankie forum that didn't mind calling for violence, or at least insinuating it

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#562

Post by Miner49er »

young_unixer wrote: post #440
gbrown wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which, it probably goes without saying, should scare the shit out of anyone who cares about the principles of the free Internet. I worry more about Google et. al. killing the free and open internet by creating centralized walled gardens. I worry more about legislative attacks on encryption, about the overzealous use of copyright law and the sorry state of intellectual property generally. If service providers want t…

> If service providers want to deplatform centers of radicalization, I think that's ok. The thing is: left-wing radicalization is tolerated by the platforms, but right-wing radicalization isn't.

Not remotely true. /r/ChapoTrapHouse was banned a while back too. If anything, they target the left more.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#563

Post by slothtrop »

disown wrote: post #279
MereInterest wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> a man who is a known fraud, morally bankrupt in business and personal life, and who has shown himself to be incompetent in office. Are you talking about donald trump or joe biden? > People who voted for Donald Trump should be ashamed of their vote. Using your logic, those who voted for corrupt biden should be ashamed as well. > That said, reading what people are saying in an effort to understand and to de-radicaliz…

Virtually no one who voted for Biden is excited about him. They're just voting out Trump.

The false equivalency narrative you're spewing is tiresome. Trump's record is an unprecedented disaster. There is no equivalent.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#564

Post by gfodor »

baumandm wrote: post #539
gfodor wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, so what about if you are hosting public conference calls they can join about how much their company sucks, and they cut your phone service? Analogies are a stupid form of argument, but I'm trying to surface the problem here somehow. (In this analogy they're not the conference call provider, they're just the phone service provider which enables you to use the conferencing service over their lines, if that wasn't obvious. They're a pipe.)

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#565

Post by typon »

gnulinux wrote: post #545
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…

> Also, please don't judge me, I just have a morbid curiosity to see what these people are talking about and how they think. I read thedonald.win daily too. It feels like r/watchPeopleDie, some sort of morbid curiosity. Currently they're claiming Trump's concession video yesterday was deep faked. Very entertaining and scary at the same time.

Did you see his neck move weirdly though? Totally not a morbidly obese man just struggling to fit inside a collared shirt.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#566

Post by Spivak »

minikites wrote: post #197
edmundsauto wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be shocking, but sometimes companies try to make decisions that benefit them in the long run. Even advertising companies! It makes sense that a toxic environment will turn off people in the long run, and most well intentioned people (ie the majority of Reddit, Google, or FB employees) want to run a platform that adds value and is not a cesspool. The realities of staying in business sometimes override that. I d…

>It makes sense that a toxic environment will turn off people in the long run, and most well intentioned people (ie the majority of Reddit, Google, or FB employees) want to run a platform that adds value and is not a cesspool. I don't think this is supported by the evidence. The evidence: the current state of Twitter, Facebook, etc. None of them have the necessary level of moderation and until they do, they will cont…

Which is pretty much the reason that my use of Twitter and Reddit is pared down to super specific niches because once you leave your bubble and go to #general it’s an absolute dumpster fire.

If they could actually rein that shit in I would use it more. Just having the tools to filter that stuff out of my feed would honestly be enough. TikTok is pretty much where I go for discovery now because it learned really quickly to not show me any political content.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#567

Post by davesque »

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…

> Somehow, we seem to be forgetting how free speech benefits us all

In normal times, I would agree. Philosophies and ideals like this effectively discourage people from taking action. That makes a lot of sense during times of peace when our asses aren't actively on the line.

However, these are not normal times. We are facing a threat that might just overwhelm our society and rob us of our way of life. We must act now to neutralize the threat or risk going extinct. We can sort out the ethics of it all later.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#568

Post by JasonFruit »

slothtrop wrote: post #520
young_unixer wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If service providers want to deplatform centers of radicalization, I think that's ok. The thing is: left-wing radicalization is tolerated by the platforms, but right-wing radicalization isn't.

The day the bulk of far-left idealists advocate violence and racism, they won't be tolerated either.

The bulk of the right wing doesn't, either. Your bubble is showing. If the right wing weren't so frequently excised from the public sphere, it might be easier for you to see the saner parts of it — but the private censorship we've been seeing cuts with a blunt scalpel. I think it's better to expose the worst of it to public contempt, rather than isolate them and let them fester together.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#569

Post by PNWChris »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #300
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #36

I just checked out http://thedonald.win/ and it has gotten a lot more extreme since it was moved off Reddit. I think it would have not gotten as extreme if it were in the Reddit ecosystem still.

As I've been saying here in HN. The political divide is the democrats. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-d... Put your finger on the Median Republican line and it either moves left or stays put. The political divide has not been the republicans. In the last year that changed for many reasons. The republicans have now moved. That political divide is now much larger. That 'more extreme' that yo…

I dispute this assessment, it’s a drastic simplification and the comparison only starts in 1994, which is after a heavy swing in America to the right throughout the 80s and 90s. If anything, what the article shows is a regression to the long-term political mean, not a move left.

A great example I happen to have favorited on YouTube, check out the healthcare debate in 1971 [0]. It’s essentially Medicare for all (D) vs practically Obamacare (but from an R).

[0]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eBFJ7vv8vDU&feature=youtu.be

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#570

Post by dfxm12 »

neogodless wrote: post #257
germinalphrase wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From my perspective, every article on Reuters included the phrase "claimed without evidence" in regards to election fraud. For me, trusting Reuters, that is sufficient information. From a believer's perspective, articles mentioned affidavits, eye-witness testimony, court cases being filed, and important, trusted people saying something along the lines of "there is evidence the courts are not even considering!" Presum…

they may have changed their mind

I disagree. There's no way they would have changed their minds. It's just an excuse. A thin veneer of plausible deniability while they willingly keep their heads in the sand. The simple explanation is no one is that stupid, that fascist, but, maybe they are. Maybe this is the effect of a decades long campaign by conservative politicians & pundits to constantly gaslight America & try to keep the electorate uneducated.

Either way, people clinging to these obvious falsehoods are seditious at worst or useful idiots at best.

Post reply on HN