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

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#581

Post by kstrauser » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #517

kstrauser wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve yet to see a single right-leaning voice that was silenced for being right-leaning. Without exception, every one I’ve seen silenced was for calling for violence, using ethnic slurs, or otherwise violating the site’s ToS. It seems possible to me, even likely, that if more right-leaning accounts are being banned then it’s because more of them are breaking the rules. Also, I find the idea of classifying FB as left-l…

> otherwise violating the site’s ToS Your list was pretty narrow in scope until this one. ToS could contain anything and be used to censor speech for any reason.

Because I respect the rights of private property, I have to allow social media sites to post rules at the entrance explaining what you’re allowed to do. As long as they enforce those rules evenly, then you know what you’re signing up for when you register an account.

I’ve not heard any legitimate, evidence-backed claim that any of the major sites are enforcing their rules unfairly. Instead, the claims are usually along the lines of:

“I got banned for saying we should do violent stuff! And yet they allow this other ideologically opposite person to have an account!”

“Can you point to a specific post where the other person is saying we should be violent?”

“No, but everyone knows they support it!”

Well, “everyone knows” isn’t evidence.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#582

Post by d1zzy » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #470

d1zzy wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see if that attitude changes once the US has a one or two ethnic/cultural genocides that was preceded by a lot of hate speech against said ethnic/cultural groups. That is to say, the US attitude towards free speech is not somehow the result of some very wise collective, it simply hasn't had the history to affect its attitude towards it in the same way that European countries have.

We'll see... Ask a Native American (or one of dozens of other groups whose vilification enabled their oppression and murder), or maybe read a history book? We Americans aren't less experienced than Europeans; we're just more committed.

How many Americans today are aware they (well, their ancestors but that does carry responsibilities to younger generations) are guilty of mass murder and ethnic cleansing? And how much of that genocide was preceded of much hate speech? (how much were the free speech protections a factor in said genocide)

I think you may be right that ethnic genocide alone may not be enough to change a whole population's opinions around free speech rights, that there may be additional factors required such as general awareness of how bad it was to engage in such acts and what contributed to those acts.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#583

Post by tomatocracy » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #170

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…

I worry about all of that as well, but the problem with your last point is you are opening the door for network providers to be the arbiters of what is considered radicalization or not. They shouldn't be the decider of that, our laws should. If the FBI tells them to shut something down with a legal order, and our society has concluded it is just, so be it. In the limit what you would get is a world where speech is ba…

The big historical problem with this approach isn't "the arbitrary CEOs of a few large corporations" making unfair decisions (not to say that this couldn't be a problem now or in future). It's that governments (both good and bad) have pressured those companies behind closed doors to censor content governments don't like but which they haven't (or can't) go to the trouble of making illegal. This creates a huge accountability gap - these are government decisions in reality but can't be challenged in the same way they could be if out in the open.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#584

Post by jakelazaroff » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

lldbg wrote: post #423

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…

Your bookshelf doesn’t analyze your reading habits and recommend other books specifically to drag you deeper into the rabbit hole of extremism.

Your bookshelf doesn’t allow you to instantly connect with thousands of likeminded people to incubate terrorist plots.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#585

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #138

simonswords82 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but they also sacrifice eyeballs and revenue.

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…

> "Even advertising companies!"

Many national brands have been steadily advertising on Fox News throughout the current administration, contradicting your thesis.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#586

Post by JasonFruit » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

vdnkh wrote: post #122

gfodor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I've long worried lurking there was going to cause more harm than it's worth (for example, by letting me inadvertently slip into extremism) but the ability to predict what happened this week so easily and warn people about it who considered going was well worth that risk. Also I read there they are losing their SSL cert or something, so that might be how centralized, non-legal authority manages to shut them dow…

>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.

> domestic terrorists

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you don't have a lot of exposure to terrorism. A bunch of idiots breaking into the Capitol and… mostly wandering around taking selfies? Not really very effective terrorists. It was a stupid, pointless move, and illegal — but a long, long way short of terrorism, except possibly on the very fringes of some three-letter organization's idiosyncratic definition.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#587

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #555

Traster wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> I don't know how many people need to storm the capitol under the instructions of the loser of a recent election Not OP, but I will stop thinking people are hysterical if they can provide a single shred of evidence that the people who stormed congress were "under the instructions of [Trump]". A tweet, a video, anything that proves the storming of congress was a pre-meditated move by Trump to stop the electoral count…

He consistently encourages violence and when his followers do something bad he usually refuses to say it was bad. So sure he only specifically said to march on the capitol while the election was being stolen inside, but his response to the storming was not "this was bad, go home" but "we love you, go home".

The man knows how to guide a crowd. He has responsibility here.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#588

Post by ravenstine » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #394

jakearmitage wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a textbook example of a straw man.

How is it a strawman, it literally just happened a few days ago.

They may be referring to the first statement, which in my experience doesn't seem true. I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. That may be my failing, however.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#589

Post by nicky0 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #463

andybak wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a centrist by instinct and by UK standards. Unfortunately that would probably put me in the "radical leftist" bracket according to current US discourse.

if a centrist in the UK would be halfway between current Labour and Conservative policies, that would probably make you close to a mainstream Democrat. Labour is left of the Democrats and the Conservatives are right of them (primarily economically), but neither by a huge margin.

I agree with you. I would go so far as to say that the Conservatives are to the left of the Democrats, even economically. Look at the extent of public borrowing funding all the furlough schemes etc. Not to mention both Labour and Tories are fully behind free public healthcare, which Democrats are having to be dragged kicking and screaming towards. Although that is rather a special case.

Come to think of it I can't think of any policies on which the (mainstream) Democrats are to the left of the Conservatives, but maybe I'm not thinking hard enough.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#590

Post by blisterpeanuts » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

MauranKilom wrote: post #479

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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-li…

> You mean, the things a tiny handful of people post there. Most posters are center-right and don't advocate violence. Do they also condemn or apply moderation to violence being advocated? Or is it condoned? Honest question, I have not even remotely invested enough time (nor do I plan to do so) to understand this facet. > I've reported lots of such tweets and sometimes they're taken down, other times, not. I agree th…

I'm saying that violence is not condoned on the Parler platform. I was a moderator for a while and this is quite specific. You can get on there and say Trump is an idiot or Trump is a saint and you will not be silenced. But you can't say "so-and-so should be killed" that's a total violation of TOS and will get you removed from the site.