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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#901

Post by arolihas »

jtxxwl wrote: post #897
arolihas wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow you have means, motive, and opportunity. Now all you need is this pesky little thing called evidence of any such fraud occurring. It’s a big roadblock though, understandably, no one has managed to produce anything of note that could be accepted in court or any reputable investigation.

If I were arguing in court, you would be absolutely right. The only thing you are missing is this pesky little thing called me arguing in court. I don't have any reason to believe it would be possible to prove in a court that election fraud took place at this point, outside of confessions. That doesn't mean it didn't take place, or that it isn't reasonable to believe it took place.

It turns out there are places outside of court that care about actual evidence. Like in science, history, or reputable journalism. I know you don’t care about that though, so I wish you good luck in life.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#902

Post by marcosdumay »

warkdarrior wrote: post #810
marcosdumay wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a form of initiative, not speech.

Democracies usually protect the freedom of initiative too, but it's a different protection, with very different exceptions, and companies usually have it much more restricted than speech.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#903

Post by Swenrekcah »

dfxm12 wrote: post #570
neogodless wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective, every article on Reuters included the phrase "claimed without evidence" in regards to election fraud. For me, trusting Reuters, that is sufficient information. From a believer's perspective, articles mentioned affidavits, eye-witness testimony, court cases being filed, and important, trusted people saying something along the lines of "there is evidence the courts are not even considering!" Presum…

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…

I don’t think most of them are fascist or extremely dumb.

People generally don’t like to change their minds on deeply held beliefs, and all the falsehoods Trump and Qanon are spreading have become deeply held beliefs for many of those people.

They end up supporting fascists but they won’t realise it until too late.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#904

Post by vladTheInhaler »

kr99x wrote: post #319

I've been having this argument more and more lately. People keep coming around to "surely, we must prevent *THIS* content?" and every time the answer is no. Somehow, we seem to be forgetting how free speech benefits us all , but only when it is categorically FREE and there are not exceptions "just this one time" Why just the other day, I had friends blow up on me for daring to suggest that a particular type of bigote…

We're so used to communicating online that we can't even see how absurdly powerful the tools at our disposal actually are. Posting on social media isn't like chatting with your friends at the bar - it's like shouting into a colossal, ear-shatteringly loud megaphone aimed directly into the ears of billions of people. A system like that probably shouldn't even exist, let alone be put in the hands of every person above the age of thirteen [1].

You wouldn't say I was being censored because MSNBC decided to air Morning Joe instead of my hour-long documentary about how the moon landing is fake. They simply aren't obligated to grant me the power of their massive communications network if they don't like my content. In what I can only call a massive failure of judgment, Twitter, Facebook etc. have outsourced their editorial decision-making to algorithms designed to maximize their profit.

This is not the same as making speech a crime. You still have the right to speak your mind, with your own voice, on any street corner you want. You can even print out fliers if you can convince anyone to take them from you. That was true before Facebook, and it will be true after they're gone. Now if the government tries to threaten this form of communication, I'll be right there with you protesting.

[1] The Simpsons - Bart's Megaphone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf_jKzB3SLY

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#905

Post by seppin »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #872
seppin wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you don't know that 60 Capital Police were seriously injured, 15 remain in the hospital, and one is confirmed dead from the attack. Maybe you don't know that of the 4 rioters that died, one had a heart attack (unconfirmed), one was shot and the others were trampled (by the mob). Maybe you didn't know that congresspeople from both sides of the isle hid in closets and under desks, terrified and afraid for their l…

You’re making a lot of assumptions about me for someone claiming I’m arguing in bad faith. Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot. Not as a direct result of any action by the protestors. Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries. Was law enforcement deployed on the women’s March protestors?

> Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries.

"The Bank security guard would have never been hurt if they just let people steal the money and take hostages."

> Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot.

This is beyond bad faith, this is insulting. And i'm not going to participate anymore. I just hope people like you die out before this country is irrevocably harmed, and your children don't carry your sickness to a new generation.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#906

Post by ksk »

srveale wrote: post #856
ksk wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you seriously claiming Trump won because of Russia? Or do you agree that the ridiculous Russia narrative pushed by Dems was total BS? Here is a nice article on the whole situation: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... >Totally different than something like "the election was rigged", which was tested and failed in court, but still gets shouted from the rooftops, leading to dangerou…

> are you seriously claiming Trump won because of Russia? That Russia helped Trump is generally agreed upon. Was it the only factor in his win? Of course not. But your whataboutism here doesn't hold water. Sure, there are subreddits that commonly exaggerated the truth about the Russia thing. Should they should get banned, since r/donaldtrump got banned for supporting violence? The two issues are so very different. I…

>That Russia helped Trump is generally agreed upon.

It is only agreed upon when you don't talk to people outside of your own echo chamber. In 2016, people were just shocked that so many people could vote for a loathsome person like Trump. Dems were unhappy and looked for someone to blame, except themselves for running such a weak candidate. 2020 was just as fair an election, and Trump got even more votes than 2016.

>Sure, there are subreddits that commonly exaggerated the truth about the Russia thing. Should they should get banned, since r/donaldtrump got banned for supporting violence?

What is the standard? Misinformation is OK? Anyway, I don't think an argument here will change anyone's views. People will eventually realize that the Dems have been conning their supporters for quite a while now.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#907

Post by ufmace »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #801
ufmace wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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?

Why not pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who came to DC to protest but had nothing to do with the storming of the capitol? Here's a picture of the massive crowd:

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1346855168063778816/...

If your side wants me to pay attention to the actual peaceful protestors and legitimate complaints in the BLM movement instead of the riots and looting, why do you focus on a few hundred people who do something that's dramatic but fairly harmless at the end of the day (to anyone but them) when ~500x more people were there peacefully and didn't even know about the capitol storming until they saw it on the news?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#908

Post by ksk »

camel_Snake wrote: post #863
ksk wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you seriously claiming Trump won because of Russia? Or do you agree that the ridiculous Russia narrative pushed by Dems was total BS? Here is a nice article on the whole situation: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... >Totally different than something like "the election was rigged", which was tested and failed in court, but still gets shouted from the rooftops, leading to dangerou…

This article was written clearly before the Mueller report was disseminated to the public, and quotes William Barr's letter of the report which we now Mueller took great exception to. I don't think it's a great resource at this point in time. Here is my money quote from the report: > If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we w…

Of course there was obstruction from Trump - he has the personality of a mob boss. That doesn't shock me. I'm talking about owning up to the fact that he legitimately won a fair election in 2016.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#909

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

gfodor wrote: post #494
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just yesterday HN had a link to an article on plaintext HTTP for the modern era. I'm not condoning illegal/dubious attempts to silence dissent, but loss of an SSL cert doesn't really suppress anyone's ability to communicate. Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong to the degree SSL becomes a requirement burned into browsers, which seems highly likely and is partially true already for certain domains. Unless you're going to argue that being forced onto the non-web is not suppressing your ability to communicate, but if so that's a tough argument to dig into here. edit: I should add here the thought exercise is that you are participating in speech that is legal and e…

as noted by others, you do not need an SSL cert to be on the web. You need an SSL cert to use https, which is something entirely different.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#910

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN