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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#971

Post by perl4ever »

neogodless wrote: post #964
perl4ever wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't trust Reuters, CNN, the NY Times, or whoever. I think people exaggerate and misidentify the source of their beliefs, but being honest about why you take a side is a better way to convince. What I trust is that if Trump had serious allegations with evidence, that Republican election officials in Georgia would treat them seriously rather than debunking them in the midst of death threats. Or that some Rep…

I don't really spend any time on CNN, and NY Times requires me to jump through hoops sometimes to read articles, as I do not have a subscription. I'll take Reuters and AP News at face value unless there's something spectacular that needs investigating (which would not be the norm.) So unless there's a claim such as that all across the nation, poll workers, election officials, appointed judges, etc. are all coordinati…

I don't see any news source as having blanket credibility. In a wider context, I feel like the cycle of building and then strip mining a brand has been accelerated. As soon as there is credibility and trust, it's exploited. But also, I don't see all the different people who write for an organization as having much if anything in common. My favorite general news source at the moment is Bloomberg, but I remember one or more people who used to bring up a particular article as evidence Bloomberg was not to be trusted.

I choose things to read based on my perception of their average reliability, but I don't assume that something is true because it comes from a good source. If I did, how could I know the source was good in the first place? The causality goes from good articles -> good source, not the other way around.

I just don't think you can give anyone any benefit of the doubt. If you're not forming your opinions bottom-up, you risk getting drawn into a divergent reality like so many people these days.

I'm also reminded of how some people on HN like to mention the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect". You can't expect that smart people automatically know about any random thing, if it doesn't impact their life whether they are right or wrong.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#972

Post by gnopgnip »

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…

If you allow for all speech without limits, eventually the ability to be tolerant will be destroyed by the intolerant. This is the paradox of tolerance. A society that will remain tolerant, needs to be intolerant of those who would take that away.

The law in the US for exceptions to free speech, incitement of imminent lawless action, fighting words, true threats is very narrow. In the case Gooding v. Wilson while being arrested and saying to police "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you. You son of a bitch, I'll choke you to death...You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I'll cut you all to pieces" was found to be protected free speech by the supreme court, not fighting words.

Another example of what is legal free speech and not incitement can be found in Brandenburg v Ohio. A Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally. Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them ... announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.

Virginia v. Black goes into more detail on true threats, citing the relevant cases that preceded it.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#973

Post by niyrjczs »

dang wrote: post #958
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…

We've banned this account. Creating accounts for political flamewar is not allowed here, regardless of what politics you're for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thank you for your hard work, Dan.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#974

Post by pfdietz »

beerandt wrote: post #968
pfdietz wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule changes weren't reason to toss out votes. That quibbling that was shot down by judges. In particular, the rule changes were neutral with respect to any candidate. Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.

The constitution clearly says the election shall be held via methods as prescribed by the state legislators. Disagreements between branches of state government should have defaulted to the legislature, but didn't in most of the states in question. Especially true in PA, where the legislature specifically voted against implementing the same rules that the court then imposed anyway. Even worse, they ignored Alito's cou…

That's nice. It doesn't mean the results were fraudulent. And it doesn't mean tossing out the results was legally justified.

The judges properly disagreed with your absurd conclusion that it was "a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election." That was far too large an ask.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#975

Post by notdonspaulding »

ModernMech wrote: post #387
elefanten wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This doesn't explain why the Governor of Maryland was prohibited from moving its troops into DC by the Pentagon while Senators were begging for backup; and why it took Pence, who was in the middle of the siege, to make the call.

IDK anything about the pentagon, but as for why Pence's call would have more gravity than Senators is fairly obvious: he's the second-in-command of the executive branch of the government. Emergency military mobilization is much more the prerogative of the executive than the legislative branch.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#976

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

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…

People crying out loud: Facebook made us stupid! - is a bit disconcerting to me.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#977

Post by triceratops »

jtxxwl wrote: post #953
triceratops wrote: post #950

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that people should not believe they happened. Sure. But in this case, a known liar with a lot of motivation to lie is alleging the crime. And there's no evidence, even though you'd need thousands of mostly ordinary people to coordinate the crime and subsequent coverup. If even one of them breaks ranks, everyone else is going to jail. Look at it completely objectively: taking…

>they'd be 100% convinced the election was fair is if had Trump won. Maybe some would. But I'll tell you, if the democrats wanted it to look like they were running a fair election despite their vitriolic hatred of Trump, they could have done quite a few things differently. For one, the measures they put in place to reduce the spread of the coronavirus were an absolutely unprecedented obstruction of the ability of obs…

> the measures they put in place to reduce the spread of the coronavirus were an absolutely unprecedented obstruction of the ability of observers to watch the process.

The mask isn't supposed to over the eyes, only the mouth and nose. Do you have any concrete examples of "unprecedented obstruction" and their effects? Or evidence that it didn't affect both sides equally? These are just random insinuations.

Also there's a bit of karmic justice here, because if Trump had taken the pandemic more seriously in the first place maybe there wouldn't have been all these restrictions. Or maybe he deliberately sabotaged the response so he could blame the restrictions for affecting the result later. (See? It's so easy to make up accusations).

> An election observer should be able to see everything every election worker does as closely as the election worker sees it.

Do observers generally get closer than 6ft to workers? Even under normal circumstances that's considered personal space.

Also this would require a conspiracy among hundreds if not thousands of election workers to have any effect. Without a single person blowing the whistle.

> How could anyone have known he was going to lose,

The polls had him losing WI by a far larger margin so that was a hint. The WI race being so close, and the history of the Republican party's treachery in that state is more an indicator of a failed Trump steal. I don't believe that is the case either - it's more likely that it was bad polling.

> Can you answer the actual question I asked?

You haven't presented any facts - only vague accusations. What is there to answer? You're a concern troll. I'm done responding to you.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#978

Post by athms »

disown wrote: post #966
stjohnswarts wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An yet in 20 years, no one has presented any proof of actual election fraud. However there are tons and tons of evidence that foreign powers like Russia and China troll and spread millions of fake stories to fool more gullible Americans. I don't recall a single democrat saying "the dominion voting machines are fake data!" And yet here we are with a President seeing election fraud everywhere with not one solid piece o…

> An yet in 20 years, no one has presented any proof of actual election fraud. And yet the media, academics, politicians, etc all bring up over and over. I wonder why? > However there are tons and tons of evidence that foreign powers like Russia and China troll and spread millions of fake stories to fool more gullible Americans Tons? Where? > I don't recall a single democrat saying "the dominion voting machines are f…

Why are you confusing fraud with disinformation?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#979

Post by bavila »

creatorbytes wrote: post #854
Barrin92 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, like a lot of other people, confuse free speech with "but mom, the other kids won't let me play with them!" . Actually the only threat to freedom is trying to imply that a company or any other association or institution ought to be compelled to host someone else's speech. Being able to kick the idiots out and not compelling other people to amplify their nonsense is a basic mechanism of any society that wants to…

An underlying issue is the formation of the digital world - what once was a town square is now a (ex.) Facebook page, or network of Twitter followers. The mechanism of communication exchange have changed so rapidly, that compelling companies to abide by free speech is a tough legislative decision. Yes, they’re corporations and can decide who to have and who not. But an emergent phenomenon are people using these servi…

> Let people decide what they want to see. If I want a censored Twitter, or Wild West Twitter, let me choose.

Nobody is stopping anyone from building a Twitter clone for anarchists. By all means, if you build it, they will come.

Post reply on HN