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

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#821

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

elefanten wrote: post #341

Ericson2314 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact the capital got stormed has more to do with the Trumpist sympathize of the Police, then the protesters themselves. If the were a "normal" police reaction (say midway between BLM and this, like in Hong Kong), they would have never gotten inside, and this would be a non-story. Going after Trump fans is just center-left back-slapping, and all the worse because ignoring the police partisanship is extremely reckl…

The evidence more supports the thesis that security was underprepared and blundered into this outcome rather than a conspiracy to allow it. Have you not seen the videos of officers swarmed and overwhelmed, being attacked and beaten? Are you saying the police pulled a "false flag" on themselves? Seems like a Trumpist argument.

I think their argument is there's no way in heck that security would have been underprepared if it were some other group protesting. Maybe they were lulled into complacency because this is the "Blue lives matter" group, maybe it was sheer incompetence. Hard to say.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#822

Post by dang » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #23

Exuma wrote: post #6

What else is new, censorship is OK as long as only one side is doing it.

Censorship of what? Tell me specifically the content of the speech being censored, so we can have a reasonable discussion about if there might be a rare but valid reason to censor said speech. Also, go fuck yourself. [EDIT: Lets get to the heart of it. If you refuse to accept the results of the election, you are promoting treason. If you want to play second-grade word games to explain why President Trump isnt respons…

This and other comments you've been posting (like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688419) have been breaking the site guidelines egregiously. That's dismaying and disappointing. We ban accounts that do this kind of thing, so please stop doing it.

Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and only post when you can keep that standard. Yes, we tell everyone else (including ourselves) the same thing. There's no exemption for being right, or feeling strongly. Nor does it depend on how badly other people behave.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#823

Post by majewsky » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

warent wrote: post #330

germinalphrase wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One difference, of course, is that despite there being a significant number of ‘trusted’ sources claiming extensive election fraud - there has been near zero evidence presented by these same sources to defend the claims. That alone should be a red flag that the claims are mere assertions rather than statements of fact.

I found the confirmation hearing on Wednesday to be very informative on this. There were countless objectors attempting to invalidate the Pensylvannia vote, all echoing each other on a variety of reasons including voter fraud. Republican house members made very convincing arguments on the floor that caused me to wonder what information I was missing. The democratic house members who argued against the objections easi…

If you want more details on the various court cases, I can recommend the "Legal Eagle" channel on Youtube, run by a trial lawyer from DC. This video is specifically on the minutiae of many election fraud court cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M (Not affiliated, just a fan.)

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#824

Post by camel_Snake » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #811

sdwa wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the size of influence of the entity limiting speech is the issue, then would a mod of a very large subreddit banning a user be worse than a comparatively smaller, private social network de-platforming a user?

I guess my point is more so where do you draw the line? Legislatively-speaking? By the size of the community?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#825

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

> I am not sure what other options are there, but censorship is the worst option.

Really. That's the "worst" option? You can't think of worse things than that?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#826

Post by majewsky » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

peteradio wrote: post #643

Rebelgecko wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resign in the last 2 weeks of his presidency when their jobs don't really matter, make the transition process marginally more complicated by leaving, avoid having to take a stand on the 25th amendment, and they can start trying to rehabilitate their images by pretending they were shocked by the administration they've been a part of for 3.9 years

*3.99

*3.96

  (365-14)/365 = 0.9616...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#827

Post by arolihas » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #820

arolihas wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you are claiming an election was conducted illegitimately then you are accusing multiple election officials of fraud. This requires evidence, something the Trump legal team didn’t have.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#828

Post by manfredo » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #593

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…

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 abo…

Yes. If you were running a news stand, should you be sued if one of the magazines you're selling ends up inspiring a riot? If you refused to sell a certain magazine should people be able to sue you or otherwise force you to stock their paper?

Freedom from compelled speech is the default. Requiring people or organizations to host speech is the exception, and is limited to things like utilities and cigarette health warnings.

Making Facebook or Twitter a utility is very coarse grained. They would have to allow all legal speech. They wouldn't be able to ban users for nudity or porn, or explicitly espousing Nazism (actual Nazism, not the much more expansive post 2016 definition of "Nazi"). Both of these things are legal in the US, and a utility would have to permit them. If social media is made a utility, then social media is going to become 8chan.

That's why I think it makes the most sense to apply utility status at the infrastructure layer not the application layer. Social media companies can still moderate, people on the fringes can spread their message on niche applications or on sites they build themselves.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#829

Post by CyberRabbi » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #805

CyberRabbi wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

Show me one source that proves that the trump supporters were “out for blood.”

The point of the protest was not to “take the capital by force.” That’s cartoonish and unrealistic. The point was to express disapproval of the election results. Where do you get your information from?

Sicknick died as a result of a blood clot in his brain. His death was not the direct result of any protestors actions.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#830

Post by arolihas » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

camel_Snake wrote: post #817

ng12 wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It left him unscathed though, so it’s fine.