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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#801

Post by jakelazaroff »

ufmace wrote: post #775
mint2 wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except what you’re saying is false. Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the riots and violence during the BLM protests. But most protests and protestors were peaceful and they supported those ones. If everyone is going to knowingly twist facts like your post does, there is no point in even trying to debate.

[flagged]

Proud Boys and QAnon were both out in force. What's the story on them?

What's the story on all the people wearing Nazi regalia? The people carrying guns and zip ties?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#802

Post by arolihas »

jtxxwl wrote: post #542
neogodless wrote: post #114

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship > In general, sedition is defined as trying to overthrow the government with intent and means to bring it about; the Supreme Court, however, has been divided over what constitutes intent and means. > These acts made it a federal crime to speak, write, or print criticisms of the government that were false, scandalous, or malicious. It is frightening to me tha…

>Their sources include the content of speeches made by the President of the United States, news anchors and journalists of conversatively-biased news, and perhaps most importantly, peers they trust liking and sharing those same speeches and articles with them as a stamp of acceptance. Their sources also include the statements and behaviors of news anchors and journalists and politicians and political activists and ot…

The onus is on your side to show how this election was stolen. All of your rhetoric about the left hating trump is not evidence of any fraud. One could’ve said the same things about Hillary Clinton in 2016, who’s been reviled by the right for decades.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#803

Post by pie_flavor »

Miner49er wrote: post #772
pie_flavor wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an excuse for banning T_D and a bunch of other right leaning subs at the same time, and then blatantly ignored ban-evading r/ChapoTrapHouse2 for months . When they finally took them down for ban evasion, it was an excuse to ban another giant wave of right wing subs. EDIT: Original claim is left intact for posterity, but it is definitely wrong and I misremembered. Reddit has its moderation oddities but claiming the…

No, it was the other way around. T_D was already dead. The mods had already locked it and moved to thedonald.win. Banning it was meaningless, they just did it to make the /r/chapotraphouse ban look more fair. Here's a list of subs banned that day with active user counts: https://www.redditstatic.com/banned-subreddits-june-2020.txt Chapo was the largest by a large margin besides /r/darkhumorandmemes (edgy jokes). And…

I must have misremembered. They were flagrantly violating some rule for months, and the million variants of the sub name were part of it. But you misremember too. T_D had not been "locked", unless you're talking about the quarantine in which case you make it sound like the same people that did it as moved to thedonald.win. Meanwhile r/ConsumeProduct and r/GenderCritical were huge losses, with no actual rule violations to cause them, aside from a few AHS brigades.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#804

Post by koolk3ychain »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #779
2020swillbelit wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then to you, they are too far gone and are already enemies. I only see conflict arising through that perspective. I have too much to lose for that to happen. I hope you realize the implications of your line of thought, not to just yourself, but to society around you.

I'm African-American, US History is dripping with blood from the countless times whit supremacy has reasserted itself over and over again. This isn't anything new or special.

I don't really see how implicating "all white people" as complicit in modern day whit supremacy isn't basically the definition of a claim in bad faith? This kind of cryptic pseudo argument is what makes these people even more incensed.

Applying your logic to your own politics would lead me to believe that "all left leaning americans" are communists who want to take my property by force, just because I saw one hammer and sickle on a flag.

Vitriol doesn't sow peace my friend.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#805

Post by jakelazaroff »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #774
jakelazaroff wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like hearing someone at a bank saying they were scared a masked robber was going to murder them, and responding “were you scared of the customer who came in before them murdering you too?” The terrorists who stormed the capital on Wednesday have a history of violence and connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups. They came carrying weapons, zip ties and bombs. Don’t pretend there’s no di…

Your argument amounts to “When we do it, it’s okay.” It’s founded on the presumption of bad faith, which is bad faith in itself. The fact is that the only people who died during the 1/6/21 event were part of the protestors.

"Your argument amounts to, 'when a customer enters the bank, it's okay.'"

Just because two groups have opposing political aims doesn't mean they're equivalent. One attempted to take our nation's capital by force, the other attempted a sit in.

Show me literally one single source that indicates the Women's March people were out for blood. Were there any casualties? Injuries? Was there even any fighting?

Your fact is false, by the way. The terrorists murdered a Capitol Police officer. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-offic...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#806

Post by arolihas »

ng12 wrote: post #670
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".

The protesters left peacefully after a few hours. The senate isn't holy ground, nor are the people inside it divine. They work for us, after all. All things considered the events left me pretty unscathed.

4 people died.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#807

Post by sdwa »

stale2002 wrote: post #780
wnevets wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's another thing for social media to do it. Why? Removing a subreddit isn't the same as banning a user. A ban is a ban is a ban.

> Why? For the same reason that the government banning something is worse than when a private company does it. Because one party has way more power and ability to actually ban someone. Kicking someone out of my house is less powerful/effective at preventing speech than being banned by a subreddit, which is less effective than the website banning you, which is less effective than a bunch of websites banning you, which…

No, the government banning something is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence. Reddit admins banning a sub and reddit mods banning a user is the exact same thing, it's just moderation of a private forum. Forcing private companies to publish pro-genocide speech, for example, is anti-freedom, not pro. If we're going to force reddit to publish pro-holocaust speech then all moderation everywhere must be banned as well, including on this very forum, to be consistent. I for one think this forum benefits greatly from active moderation, however.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#808

Post by jaywalk »

kemiller wrote: post #538
jaywalk wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps it's fine as it is.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#809

Post by vsssk »

snowflake_ptr wrote: post #764
vsssk wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Georgia election officials intentionally deceived journalists and (Republican) observers into leaving a vote-counting event by lying to them and telling them that they were done for the night, then pulling out hidden containers of ballots and counting them[1] This is a joke, right? Did you even watch the video from the tweet you're citing? The video states that ballots were placed in containers because counters tho…

It doesn't matter whether the containers were "hidden" or not as long as they were counted without observers present. This is pedantry to the point of intentionally avoiding the point. You didn't read the other sources I linked, which contain sworn statements from two observers, as well as articles published by several news stations stating that observers (and news) were told to go home because they were done for the…

> It doesn't matter whether the containers were "hidden"

Then don't write hidden? Just write 'ballots'. Or write 'ballots that were sealed because the counting stopped, but then re-opened when the counting resumed'.

> You didn't read the other sources I linked, which contain sworn statements from two observers, as well as articles published by several news stations stating that observers (and news) were told to go home because they were done for the night.

Yes. Thats what the video in the tweet said. Thats basically what I wrote when I described what the video said.

> You aren't interested in holding a dicussion, just labelling. Typical anti-intellectualism coming from the political party that won the election.

The source that you cited contradicted your claim of 'hidden ballots'. You are a liar.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#810

Post by warkdarrior »

marcosdumay wrote: post #430
manfredo wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Passing your speech through an ISP is not the same as compelling the ISP to speak.

Hosting a website and facilitating their traffic are forms of speech, since the ISP chooses to do so.
Post reply on HN