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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#831

Post by triceratops »

ng12 wrote: post #631
jakelazaroff wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your bookshelf doesn’t analyze your reading habits and recommend other books specifically to drag you deeper into the rabbit hole of extremism. Your bookshelf doesn’t allow you to instantly connect with thousands of likeminded people to incubate terrorist plots.

> drag you deeper into the rabbit hole of extremism This is what banning /r/the_donald and now /r/donaldtrump did. It doesn't stop the users from believing what they believe, it just further isolates them in an echo changer while simultaneously reinforcing the belief that the liberal media is "out to get them".

> simultaneously reinforcing the belief that the liberal media is "out to get them".

These people are brainwashed. No concrete action normies take can convince them. They have to decide to get better and ask for help. And we must help them, without judgment or scolding, when that happens. But at some point, you have to stop a policy of appeasement because it doesn't work. They'll just keep pushing and taking more and more.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#832

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#833

Post by cygx »

kuzimoto wrote: post #752
cygx wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the heavy left leaning media bias Note that Fox News remains the most-watched cable news network - though online, it ranks after CNN and NYT (and possibly others, depending on the metric).

Because Fox is the primary "mainstream" news source for conservative viewers. There are many more left-leaning news networks so their viewers are more divided. The majority of remaining news channels/networks/etc. have liberal bias.

Viewers have various options to choose from (eg CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Newsmax, ...). The divion CNN+MSNBC vs Fox (in terms of, say, viewership or ad revenue) seems to be roughly comparable to what you'd expect from voter demographics.

If, say, Newsmax rose to prominence and we'd see more fragmentation on the 'right', or CNN and MSNBC were to merge, and we'd see less fragmentation on the 'left', what would that change?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#834

Post by rdist »

bra-ket wrote: post #769
dfxm12 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they may have changed their mind I disagree. There's no way they would have changed their minds. It's just an excuse. A thin veneer of plausible deniability while they willingly keep their heads in the sand. The simple explanation is no one is that stupid, that fascist, but, maybe they are. Maybe this is the effect of a decades long campaign by conservative politicians & pundits to constantly gaslight America & try t…

>maybe they are or maybe liberal propaganda is very effective.

s/liberal//

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#835

Post by jakelazaroff »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #829
jakelazaroff wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Show you a source that says the people who murdered someone were out for blood? You say he died due to a blood clot in his brain, but the police statement says that he died due to injuries sustained while physically engaging with protestors, and a homicide investigation is open.

Not literally everyone was there to take the capitol, obviously. But that was the point for many people. This was entirely predictable. See [1] [2] or especially [3], wherein someone back in December describes exactly what ended up happening.

Why bring guns and zip ties if you're not there for violence?

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-st...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/extremists-made-little...

[3] https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1341016471795843080?s...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#836

Post by lostmsu »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #512
lostmsu wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Russian government does not dictate FB and YouTube (which it does not own), and they would have to force ISPs to block these sites if they wanted to ban the content. I doubt ISPs would ban them themselves.

Do not be so fast with 'not true' claims. Russia has at least three social networks, each with audience bigger than russian audience of Facebook and Twitter combined . All three remove anti-putin groups, etc.

AFAIK, VK does not yet remove anti-putin groups.

Also, VK, OK, what's the third one?

YouTube is prevalent over all of them regardless.

I found data here: https://russiansearchmarketing.com/10-key-statistics-social-...

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#837

Post by mbg721 »

manfredo wrote: post #828
zionic wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 war…

If you carefully remove the half of the news you don't like, and your users are most of the country, sure, you deserve antitrust scrutiny. Why are we pretending that Facebook is some slack-jawed Ohioan that doesn't know exactly what it's doing?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#838

Post by lukifer »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #634
lukifer wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T_D === /r/The_Donald. It's since migrated to thedonald dot win; however vile the content, one of the virtues of the censorship-resistant open web is that we're able to keep tabs on what they're discussing. They were extremely unsubtle regarding their plans for the 6th; if anything, we're lucky that it didn't result in even more violence. I agree, that it's unfair to (a-priori) castigate free-speech-absolutist platfo…

Ah, okay, thedonald.win. I have read some of their stuff and I didn't see anything "vile", nor did I see anyone calling for violence, but I haven't read the site in the last few weeks. I will agree that "Voat" is a nasty place, but I'm not comfortable with shutting them down either, or cutting them off from pay processors and certificate authorities. This kind of game tends to come back and bite one in the ass. It's…

I recommend digging back into TD.W posts from the 4th and 5th; while most content wouldn't pass a strict test of an explicit threat, their clear intent was not to protest or express dissent, but to prevent vote certification from taking place, along with the usual invectives about "helicopter rides" and "Day of the Rope", etc.

The line is very tricky, as to what constitutes colorful metaphor, vs. explicit calls to violence. (My favorite satire on this dilemma: https://youtu.be/eg3_kUaYFJA) Regardless, the emotional energy and goals of that community on Jan 6th was extremely clear: to alter the due process of law by threat of force.

All that said, I'm quasi-absolutist on free speech issues, for the slippery-slope reasons you describe. Free speech doesn't end at 1A: it's a cultural value as well. Yet, it's also a tall order to enforce that value proactively: if a newspaper is not obligated to print every letter, should Twitter be obligated to let everyone have an account? There's a good argument for a "digital commons", and regulating tech giants as utilities; but the balance between an individual's freedom to share offensive views, and the freedom of service providers to choose to whom they offer service, is extremely murky.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#839

Post by umvi »

edmundsauto wrote: post #799
umvi wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. Could you directly address that time back in June when armed BLM protestors stormed Capitol Hill in Seattle and kicked out all the police for a month?[0] Why does that event get a pass in the context of this conversation? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

CHAZ was awful, a complete failure for everyone involved. Police escalated during protests, then when it got too hot, they pulled a LA Riots style retreat. Protesters became violent and undercut the moral fiber of their message, going from patriots to criminals very quickly. My understanding was the police decided to withdraw from the area due to the intensity. It looks like the Seattle people rejected law enforcemen…

I was in agreement with you until the final paragraph in which you basically attempt to rationalize why protestors breaking into the congress building are somehow much worse than the protestor behavior during CHAZ. A bunch of protestors kicking police out of your city block for a month is an affront to democracy every bit as much as protestors disrupting a congressional meeting for a few hours. In a democracy we obey laws and protest peacefully if we don't like something. Breaking down rule of law is never acceptable.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#840

Post by throwawaysea »

mudil wrote: post #765
throwawaysea wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please provide evidence for the President inciting violence? I would also say that there are leftist politicians who are encouraging and inciting criminal acts. See this recent tweet from AOC ( https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080 ), where she excuses activists acting illegally because the "polite language policy game" (her words) didn't work for them. This is no less an act of incitement than T…

Exactly. Remember when this was OK? https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136?s=19

I totally forgot about that one - it's almost an exact fit for what happened here.
Post reply on HN