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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#781

Post by Bayart »

pedroma wrote: post #547
ekidd wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been on the Internet since 1994, and it has always been the case that if you made a sufficiently odious pest of yourself over a long enough period of time, that someone would contact your university, employer or ISP, and you would lose your account, or at least your access to Usenet. You were always perfectly free to go find a new account elsewhere if anyone would have you. But there was always a point where if…

This is why *chan websites have gotten so popular. Being anonymous in everything you post is refreshing. Short of posting illegal content, almost anything goes.

Are they popular ? They may be infamous, but I feel most of the brain matter has been evacuated from English-speaking boards a decade ago and they at best sustain their existing demographic.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#782

Post by pie_flavor »

davesque wrote: post #580

The way people blindly defend this simplified notion of Free Speech makes it seem as though they believe it is some kind of universally guaranteed right that is like a law of physics. No, we enjoy this luxury of debating the ethics of free speech because we live in a society that permits it. Right now, that society faces an imminent threat from violent insurrectionists. We need to prevent them from organizing and car…

Free speech is not the protection of the speech you don't mind. It is the protection of the speech you vigorously hate. The speech you don't mind needs no special protection. To borrow a quote from Scott Alexander: "But then someone else says “Well, if they get their exception, I deserve my exception,” and then someone else says “Well, if those two get exceptions, I’m out” [...] Civilization didn’t conquer the world by forbidding you to murder your enemies unless they are actually unrighteous in which case go ahead and kill them all."

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#783

Post by txsoftwaredev »

mullingitover wrote: post #251

Twenty years from now we won't talk much about Donald Trump. However, every time we do, the sacking of the US capitol will be the top thing we link to his presidency. Probably the only thing. For many of his supporters, the only thing they will be remembered for is their support of him. Reddit isn't stupid. This is still sinking in for many, and for those ahead of the curve they're doing everything they can to disass…

If that's all you believe he'll be remembered for then you are willfully ignorant. Under his administration he has:

1. Brought black and hispanic unemployment to record lows. 2. The DOW tied the record for the most consecutive all-time closing highs in a row. 3. Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. 4. United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957. 5. Reduced illegal border crossings. 6. Improved relations with North Korea. 7. Promoted equitable and fair trade deals with a host of countries like South Korea, Japan, and other Middle East countries. 8. Signed the Right-To-Try legislation that allowed for patients to explore experimental treatments that have not necessarily been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And many more...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#784

Post by jakelazaroff »

bra-ket wrote: post #687
jakelazaroff wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we should leave up ISIS recruitment videos, so users in liberal echo chambers can hear that differing opinion as well. /s This is not a new or exciting phenomenon. Censorship and “cancel culture” have rich histories on all sides of the American political spectrum.

[flagged]

There's a reason you're reacting to my comparison of these people to ISIS, rather than suggesting that ISIS recruitment videos be permitted. ISIS represents something "beyond the pale", so obviously bad that it's okay if we censor it because it's dangerous and seditious.

You object to the comparison because it's an attack. We all know ISIS is bad, so the only reason to comparing these people to them is to make it seem like they're bad too, even though they're trying to say a lot of reasonable things if someone would just listen with an open mind!

Obviously, not everyone on r/DonaldTrump is down to invade the capitol. I'm sure there are plenty of people who support ISIS that don't support their violence either. No group is homogenously made up of cartoon villains. But that doesn't mean we need to be fine with the recruiting grounds for their most violent sects.

To be clear, your rhetorical position is the exact same as mine. You're perfectly fine with the exact same censorship you're ostensibly criticizing. You just want the line to be drawn somewhere else.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#785

Post by [deleted] »

forserious wrote: post #686
beerandt wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's part of the point. The left was basically allowed to freely enter the Senate building, in an attempt to sway the ongoing confirmation vote of a scotus justice, and met little to no police resistance, and it was celebrated by the media. Replace "confirmation" with "certification", and "scotus justice" with "president," and what's the difference, politically?

I said this above. You are arguing in bad faith. "basically" is doing a lot of work in your argument. No one is compelled by this. It is clear that they are two completely separate events. One was dangerous. The other was not. Again, I'll say it directly to avoid confusion. You are arguing in bad faith.

[deleted]

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#786

Post by rglover »

FireBeyond wrote: post #628
zionic wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The end goal is cessation of real and specific incitements to violence against people and property, and planning thereof. So are we just pretending that March-September 2020 didn't happen in dozens of major cities across the US.

On what forums were specific plans discussed in public?

It didn't need to be. It was justified and encouraged and enabled by nearly every major corporation, media company, and high-ranking official.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#788

Post by edmundsauto »

bdamm wrote: post #176
Exuma wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't white people more likely to die by police? (seriously asking, I remember this data point but it's not in front of me).

Also, there are more white people than black people. So? Black people are something like 5x more likely to be arrested in a traffic stop. It's not the same at all.

Here's some data analysis that addresses your general concerns, by digging in to the data. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-cap...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#789

Post by Diederich »

razius wrote: post #598
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you asking, at what percentage DO the tolerant actually flip to become the intolerant? This is a good question, though probably impossible to answer with any precision.

I fear that it happens a lot more frequently than most people are willing to admit.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#790

Post by edmundsauto »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #585
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…

> " Even advertising companies! " Many national brands have been steadily advertising on Fox News throughout the current administration, contradicting your thesis.

It's hard to predict if continued advertising will hurt them. Building a toxic community, if you're trying to build something that will last, is going to hurt a company.
Post reply on HN