Reddit’s CEO edited comments that criticized him (2016)

Any sub I mention you will find a way to justify a ban for.

> why do you think a specific company should have to make it as accessible as possible?

The bullshit about "private companies can do what they want, it's not censorship" goes away when - it's actually not private companies but the gov/political parties are involved as well (evidence by twitter files but that was obvious well before). - they claim to allow discussion and debate and then it's clear that it's all about US centric politics being a driving censor.

On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest. On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK. Why? Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence".

It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you".

> The fact that you won't mention a single one or give an example is telling. In your other comments you are upset about r/The_Donald

Nah. I know the likes of you. You're a dishonest person who will use ad homs and distract from the point. I have no intention of arguing about each sub. TD is a very obvious one but you could just as well talk about other subs, there's plenty, who were slowly muzzled. This includes balcan subs, lefty subs, feminist subs... Just as long as they weren't playing a specific tune. Obviously there's more towards US right leaning but not limited to.

TD was just an impressively obvious example. NNN was another one.

> Companies don't want to host and broadcast threats of violence and hate speech.

They do. Happily. Just have to be against the right targets. Around 2001 it was Muslims. Today it's Christans. I defended both. I can criticize their faith or culture without wanting to deplatform or hide them from view.

> The mistake here is what you think of as 'politics' a lot of other people would think of as stochastic terrorism

Yeah. Yeah. 2001 called and said stop the "terrorism" bullshit. It's not an argument. It's your own bs definition ripe for abuse. To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs.

> There are plenty of places where you can give your opinion backed up by evidence. There are even plenty of places where you can say anything you want (like voat) regardless of how awful and disgusting it is. The problem isn't that you want to be able to say what you want, the problem is that you want your toxicity broadcasted to a wider audience and no one has to do that.

Nah. That's bullshit. You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas than you by virtue of having political or economic power. They did this to people against the war of Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine. They did it if you opposed Israel's apartheid or if you opposed covid policies. They did it calling you extreme left or extreme right but it's always some bs authortiarian pretending to have a moral standing when all they have is a lever to shut you up.

It's not even that the majority agrees. It's literally aggressive deplatforming by political maneuvers. Politicians routinely squash news articles too, with the same absurd reasoning.

You're the problem.

Reddit let it go for a long time until they couldn't any more.

On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK.

Where is your evidence for this?

Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence".

Putin is a war criminal committing genocide. No one on an internet forum is going to be able to threaten him, but most of the world hopes he dies. This is a bizarre stance to take.

It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you".

No one has to claim it, people are putting it in writing and leaving it on forums instead of deleting it.

use ad homs

Show me one. An ad hominem would be something like 'you're fat' instead of addressing an argument. I don't think you understand what it means.

To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs.

Threatening violence against people is terrorism.

Me explaining reality to you is not terrorism.

A company not wanting to broadcast threats and hate speech is not terrorism.

You aren't entitled to everyone hearing what you have to say.

You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas

I'm not doing anything, I just explained to you why you can't say whatever you want on reddit.