401–410 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Performative anti-bigotry is just bigotry afterall.
Justify your statement, which is basically A & !A Please note that bias against bigots is not, actually, bigotry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t doxx a public politician by “revealing” their name...
You can doxx a reddit employee that way. The problem comes up when you've hired a politician as a reddit employee, and you're written an algorithm that only cares about if someone is a reddit employee.
It's pretty clear now what happened is that a completely innocuous post to an article in The Spectator contained this person's name. They weren't the subject of the article or any of the conversation.
This particular reddit admin then removed it and banned the person who posted it (long standing mod).
Not dystopian sounding at all: Please do not name this individual, at all. Doing so may result in your account being banned by the admins. Please do not ask further questions about this, as doing so may result in your account being banned by the admins. Please do not discuss this incident on Reddit publicly or privately (e.g. on private subreddits and/or in private messages, chat etc.), as doing so may result in your…
What did you expect? People fostered this environment, did you really think it was going to just stop at some arbitrary point? Now that there's a child abuse coverup involved now we all care about censorship? Give me a break. The sjw mob created this situation. Reddit is a known hive of ideological extremism.
If reddit were to become as "regulated" as say facebook (an identical platform from a philosophical perspective) it would be in very deep water right now
I don't get it - why are people angry with her over her father's actions?
They are angry that she hired her father as an election agent/campaign manager AFTER his actions came to light.
I don't get it - why are people angry with her over her father's actions?
People weren't angry with her until she began banning users posting articles in the mainstream press that happen to mention her name.
certainly not accurate. In the sub and nearby subs involved, it was not known that they worked for reddit. The posting of the article was incidental. The person who posted it had no idea why it was removed and they were permabanned
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you are trolling, but the article wasn't "dead naming a trans woman". It was an article in a mainstream uk magazine about a uk political party where her preferred name was mentioned
Mainstream UK press has serious problem with TERFs, so my question was genuine: is my understanding correct, that the issue stems from someone linking to misgendering, dead naming article?
Someone posted an article discussing some issues around women's issues specifically apropos The Green party. Actually a good article.
The article mentioned Aimee Challenor's name and the scandal around their deputy leadership bid.
This happened to be posted to reddit. It was removed by admin and the poster (a mod) banned. No one knew why.
Only when reddit made a statement to mods did it become clear that was the reason.
I think the unwelcome article is probably this one, since it is easily found with a Google search suggestion: "Aimee Challenor G[raham Linehan]". NB the final picture is Challenor dressed as an infant (dress + teddy bear). Most other images are cartoon drawings from fetish/furry sites. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/ashton-challenor-the-bo... (I'm posting this link as it seems important to the discussion. I'll…
Aren't like 10% of all sysadmins furries? People controlling internet spaces liking weird (legal) porn seems unsurprising and not something anyone should care about. Is there anything more damning against Aimee besides "she seems to have some unusual sexual preferences"? I find the idea that "this person likes cartoon animals in diapers" leads to the conclusion "and thus is a danger to children" seems like a stretch.…
If you had even some suspicion that this person could be compromised or maybe not be a great option for the ADMINISTRATOR of certain groups that could be easily influenced, wouldn't it be better to just decline them as not a great fit for that role?
This just seems like bad judgement given the fact that she was thrown out of two parties and just the association with her father at 21 (very much an adult mind you) seems like it would immediately disqualify her from working with children (note: nothing against them working for reddit, but in the capacity they were employed it seems incredibly irresponsible of Reddit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderators cannot see private message content.
Moderators cannot see private message content. Maybe ordinary mods but Reddit employees?
> Thanks for submitting this request! It’s been flagged for manual review (not a bad thing!). This might delay a decision by a couple weeks. In the meantime, please politely message the moderators of r/whatever and reply to this comment with a link to that message. Only you, the mods of r/whatever, and some admins will be able to view the message content. Including a link to this message will help speed the process along.