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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#811

Post by stale2002 »

sdwa wrote: post #807
stale2002 wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

> is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence.

Yes, they are more effectively able to censor it. Correct, thats my point.

> is the exact same thing

I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others?

For example, would you seriously argue that every single grocery store in the world, banning all people who want to raise their taxes, is the same thing as a random person kicking a friend out of their house?

Obviously, the two things would be different. Even though the grocery stores are private businesses, there would obviously be a problem with them making it so people who want to raise their taxes are no longer able to buy food.

The difference is quite clearly about power.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#812

Post by 0x1F8B »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #796
0x1F8B wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia (I know...): > Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days. They didn't seize and hold power for any time whatsoever. They had no plan. They had no organization. They did not execute a plot in any way. They were rioters. There was nothing close to what could be constituted as overthrowing of the government.

Not interested in a pedantic argument. The initial comment implied an overreaction to this incident. The president incited a mob to attack Congress. The mob was beyond anyone's control for several hours and there very easily could have been bloodshed. The president declined to condemn the mob (or did so with obvious winks and nods). What am I missing? Are you suggesting there was no reason for alarm?

I'm saying that the phrase "people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US." is hysterics. That is not what happened.

Also there was bloodshed.

I don't care about what this president does because he's a repulsive child.

Is there reason for alarm? Sure. The Capitol Police were negligent in planning and performing their duties. There was not a sufficient lockdown and security protocol for the physical items. Probably all sorts of other things. These people committed felonies and should be punished.

But this was not a revolution. Our government was not overthrown.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#813

Post by belorn »

Traster wrote: post #501
0x1F8B wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US. The hysterics in this thread are pretty rich.

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".

Out of the total number of demonstrators, how many was that?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#815

Post by AnimalMuppet »

umvi wrote: post #421
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pizza Hut isn't in the process of processing Electoral College votes for the next president of the United States. Disrupting the delivery of pizzas is not in the same category as disrupting the selection of the president. This wasn't just a riot. It wasn't just a protest. Wasn't just an attack on a building. It wasn't just some vandalism. It was an attack on the last step of the presidential election process.

The purpose of the protest was not to breach congress and stop the processing of the Electoral College votes. A small minority of protestors decided to do that. If we are going to do that and say the entire protest is bad if contained a few bad actors, then in order to not be hypocritical we need to condemn any BLM protest that had bad actors, including the one that resulted in CHAZ. Or, you can recognize the right t…

I note the delicious irony of saying "a small minority of protestors", though I suspect that the irony will be lost on those who would benefit from thinking about it.

Still, I see a difference that matters between a small minority trying to take over a police station or destroy a Pizza Hut (bad enough, and worthy of condemnation) and a small minority trying to interfere with the presidential succession (much worse).

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#816

Post by wnevets »

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…

>For the same reason that the government banning something is worse than when a private company does it.

What? Users weren't banned, the subreddit was disabled. A mod banning a user is banning and censorship.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#817

Post by camel_Snake »

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.

incompetence does not overwrite intent. They were gathered there and committed political violence for a specific reason - to halt the peaceful transfer of power to the next administration.

And they left after a lockdown was already in-force and they were removed from the premises by force.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#818

Post by hobofan »

jakearmitage wrote: post #375
hobofan wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you will find very few people defending free speech in the face of "actually planning crime".

Of course. But the problem lies in what constitutes crime. Few years ago, interracial marriage was crime. Should ISP's be shutting down forums where couples can find the social safety that they long for? Would you support the silencing if leaders of the Augusta Civil Rights Riot were using forums, or Reddit, or FB, to organize themselves? There is a reason why freedom of speech, without any limitations, is so valued…

Ah yes, the "free world" that is the USA. Sorry, as a German with "plenty" of limitations on free speech (from denying the holocaust, to "insulting") I can't empathize too much.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#819

Post by triceratops »

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…

> tell me how the right could possibly believe anything else.

On the one hand we have only the word of a known liar and his band of sycophants. On the other we have the sworn testimony and/or judgments of literally thousands of election officials and judges, including from states with Republican legislatures (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona). Maybe the "right" should get out of their bubble and join everyone else.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#820

Post by beerandt »

arolihas wrote: post #802
jtxxwl wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No.

When it comes to elections, the burden of proof should always be on those conducting the election that it was done fairly and transparently.

Especially if rules weren't followed to the letter of the law.

Moreso where procedures were changed by someone other than the legislature.

Post reply on HN