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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#591

Post by gfodor »

daniel957 wrote: post #523
gfodor wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bubble are you referring to? Saying it was obvious now doesn't say anything about having good predictive ability. My recollection is up until about Monday, most people were asleep on this. And then around Tuesday the zeitguest was this was going to be a dumb clown show. The number of people claiming that violence was inevitable and the capitol was going to be stormed, outside of the obvious circles, was in my ex…

I wasn’t trying to offend you. Everyone lives in a bubble or several. My timeline consists mainly of 80% American minorities and 20% graduates from elite US universities (with some overlap between the two groups obviously). What about yours? No one on my timeline was surprised. And if they were, they were privileged white people (no offense just being honest when talking about Harvard/MIT grads). These insurrectionis…

I live in the US. The specific thing I am talking about here is a) the expectation the protest would turn violent and b) the expectation that the protestors would storm the capitol. This thread is already too deep and I'm getting a bit burned out on responding to everything here, but in general my own bubble (point taken, no offense intended) implied the former was unlikely (through the eyes of centrist Republicans) and the latter was a fever dream but never actually could manifest in reality.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#592

Post by davesque »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #574
davesque wrote: post #537

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 b…

> 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? How is this relevant? We don't have a Trump-led dictatorship in the US. And since when is "Well it's not as bad as a " a well thought out argument?

> How is this relevant? We don't have a Trump-led dictatorship in the US.

Precisely what would we have gotten if those insurrectionists had succeeded in neutralizing the legislative branch?

> And since when is "Well it's not as bad as a " a well thought out argument?

It's an argument that is sufficiently well thought out when we are literally faced with a choice between A and B. We can do whatever we can now to prevent this movement from continuing to gain momentum or we can allow ourselves to be overrun by the movement.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#593

Post by zionic »

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…

But social media has their cake and eats it too.

They're granted immunity from lawsuits from the government because they're a dumb pipe, but then they censor/promote as if they are a publisher.

A business can't sue facebook for allowing a BLM riot to organize on its platform that destroyed their storefront, and similarly they have no recourse when said business gets a facebook page deleted because they complained about it.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#594

Post by threatofrain »

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…

But on other side of free exchange of ideas we have this idea of cancellation, which results from freedom of speech + freedom of association. As part of freedom of speech, we can also use that speech to narrate moral perspectives of whether some speech is good or bad.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#595

Post by 88840-8855 »

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…

WOW, I love the design/UI of theDonald.win

It is clear, simple and harmonic.

Kudos for the design. I wished reddit would like that way.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#596

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

cultus wrote: post #127
justaman wrote: post #16

I'm generally against the idea of banning subreddits because they just move elsewhere. However, if this is going to be the official stance of Reddit admins, I encourage them to take a look at /r/sino and a few other communities that regularly violate the rules.

Deplatforming works. A few people follow to other sites, but most don't. It also becomes harder to attract new cultists if one is shut out of major services. https://gnet-research.org/2020/05/11/weighing-the-value-and-...

As has been so often quoted on HN, "The 'Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." I see no reason for things to be different this time.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#597

Post by commandlinefan »

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…

> words have power

Words start out with power - until they're overused to the point of banality and lose it.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#598

Post by razius »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #579
razius wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of political governance doesn't take kindly to any opposing views and doesn't tolerate debates?

Authoritarianism in general. However, the paradox of tolerance fully applies.

I always see the paradox mentioned, at what percentage the tolerant actually flips to become the intolerant?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#599

Post by lanfeust6 »

JasonFruit wrote: post #568
slothtrop wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The bulk of the right wing doesn't

Look at the parent I responded to. This is a question of extremes, not mere left/right spheres. The far right / alt-right is fascist, racist and violent by definition: that's what makes them far-right. No one said being a conservative is violent.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#600

Post by null0pointer »

jedberg wrote: post #455
bythckr wrote: post #315

This is not an original idea/thought that I have, but feel repeating it is vital: This whole censorship crusade that the Facebook, twitter & now reddit is on is a dangerous precedence we are setting for our society. Whatever they call it, this is censorship. Already due to AI suggesting similar contents on services like Facebook & Youtube and the design of sub-reddits on reddit, we have living inside echo chambers. A…

> Whatever they call it, this is censorship. By definition it is not. Only governments can censor. This is just a private entity making a decision. You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to let you into my living room to say it.

Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it.

You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendment.

Post reply on HN