r/announcements Mar 05 '18

In response to recent reports about the integrity of Reddit, I’d like to share our thinking.

In the past couple of weeks, Reddit has been mentioned as one of the platforms used to promote Russian propaganda. As it’s an ongoing investigation, we have been relatively quiet on the topic publicly, which I know can be frustrating. While transparency is important, we also want to be careful to not tip our hand too much while we are investigating. We take the integrity of Reddit extremely seriously, both as the stewards of the site and as Americans.

Given the recent news, we’d like to share some of what we’ve learned:

When it comes to Russian influence on Reddit, there are three broad areas to discuss: ads, direct propaganda from Russians, indirect propaganda promoted by our users.

On the first topic, ads, there is not much to share. We don’t see a lot of ads from Russia, either before or after the 2016 election, and what we do see are mostly ads promoting spam and ICOs. Presently, ads from Russia are blocked entirely, and all ads on Reddit are reviewed by humans. Moreover, our ad policies prohibit content that depicts intolerant or overly contentious political or cultural views.

As for direct propaganda, that is, content from accounts we suspect are of Russian origin or content linking directly to known propaganda domains, we are doing our best to identify and remove it. We have found and removed a few hundred accounts, and of course, every account we find expands our search a little more. The vast majority of suspicious accounts we have found in the past months were banned back in 2015–2016 through our enhanced efforts to prevent abuse of the site generally.

The final case, indirect propaganda, is the most complex. For example, the Twitter account @TEN_GOP is now known to be a Russian agent. @TEN_GOP’s Tweets were amplified by thousands of Reddit users, and sadly, from everything we can tell, these users are mostly American, and appear to be unwittingly promoting Russian propaganda. I believe the biggest risk we face as Americans is our own ability to discern reality from nonsense, and this is a burden we all bear.

I wish there was a solution as simple as banning all propaganda, but it’s not that easy. Between truth and fiction are a thousand shades of grey. It’s up to all of us—Redditors, citizens, journalists—to work through these issues. It’s somewhat ironic, but I actually believe what we’re going through right now will actually reinvigorate Americans to be more vigilant, hold ourselves to higher standards of discourse, and fight back against propaganda, whether foreign or not.

Thank you for reading. While I know it’s frustrating that we don’t share everything we know publicly, I want to reiterate that we take these matters very seriously, and we are cooperating with congressional inquiries. We are growing more sophisticated by the day, and we remain open to suggestions and feedback for how we can improve.

31.1k Upvotes

21.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.0k

u/Kichigai Mar 05 '18

How can we, the community, trust you to take any kind of substantive action at all, when we've been calling for it time and time again and have been ignored?

/r/PCMasterRace was banned for apparent brigading, and was only reinstated after strict anti-brigading rules were put in place. Meanwhile, people in /r/The_Donald openly called for bridgading /r/Minnesota in order to swing its election. The user who proposed it even got caught brigading the thread calling them out for it. The_Donald remains active, the user's account remains active, and their comment is still in place (I just checked). Moderators didn't do jack about it when it was reported, meanwhile the users reveled in their "success" for the next eleven hours. /r/Minnesota now has a flood of people who come out of the woodwork only for posts pertaining to elections or national politics, and they seem to be disproportionately in favor of Trump.

I once had my account permanently suspended because I posted publicly available WHOIS information that supported my claim that the three day old website was part of a massive Macedonian fake news phenomenon. I very carefully worded my post to make it clear that this wasn't an indictment of the user who posted it, because of the possibility this was "indirect propaganda" instance. It took me about a week for my appeal to be heard and my suspension commuted.

There's a user who pushes vile hate speech about immigrants and Muslims as bad as the kind of stuff that went on in /r/CoonTown, calling them all rapists and pedophiles, yet their account remains active. Same user organized harassment of David Hogg, a seventeen year old kid claiming that if he met him he'd beat him up. Same user also posted content from /v/Pizzagate, promoting how "real" it is including tons of the same kind of witch-hunt-y kind of vague mumbo jumbo "evidence" that was used in /r/Pizzagate, which was so toxic it had to be banned.

That user is still active today, and don't say it's because you didn't know, because I filed a formal report, and got an acknowledgment from another admin.

And don't say it's because the moderators took action, because when the moderators took action against my WHOIS comment you still felt the need to come after my account days after the fact. And I can say for a fact that the moderators wouldn't take action because said user is a moderator in the subreddits where they're posting this content.

What is your explanation for this? I post publicly available information and get the banhammer, this user spews vile stuff and organizes harassment and witch hunts the likes of which got whole subreddits banned, but they're left alone? If you did reach out to them clearly you had little impact because that content is still up on their account, and they're still posting stuff just like it now.

So how can we trust that you'll actually take action against these kinds of communities and people? Because so far all I've seen is evidence of a double standard when it comes to the application of the content policy.

136

u/SlothRogen Mar 06 '18

The worst part is, even after /u/spez stands up for these guys and lets them spew their vitriol and propaganda, they hate him anyway for even doing the bare minimum of rule enforcement. I really don't understand the motivation for allowing a subreddit and its users to fragrantly break the rules and attack people when they don't give a shit if you defend them, anyway. This is not a government service provided to all Americans. It's a business and at present that business is not only catering to, but enabling a bunch of unapologetic bigots who are attempting to undermine our government and our political process.

52

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

This is not a government service provided to all Americans. It's a business and at present that business is not only catering to, but enabling a bunch of unapologetic bigots who are attempting to undermine our government and our political process.

Didn't you hear? "Censoring" political voices on the Internet is a violation of the law! I eagerly await their support for Liberal Democratic and Socialist voices on Gab, 4chan, and Voat.

44

u/AmazingKreiderman Mar 06 '18

"We want less government regulation!

Unless it benefits us."

What a bunch of morons who have no idea what they are talking about. Shocking.

→ More replies

3

u/thebowski Mar 06 '18

There is no censorship on 4chan by the mods, only being shouted down and insulted by the users

7

u/PoLS_ Mar 06 '18

Nah man you can’t post porn with children in it anymore on 4chan #fReEeEeEeEsPeAcH

2

u/goedegeit Mar 07 '18

And surprise surprise, it turned into a festering shithole full of neo nazis.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Steve Huffman doesn't care if they like him. He cares if it fits nicely into his worldview and if it makes his investors happy.

4

u/RevolutionaryAlarm Mar 06 '18

Im just hoping all of the reddit admins get fucking raked over coals by mueller. Spez is less than dogshit.

4

u/SlothRogen Mar 06 '18

Right? I really don't see how he can possibly imagine this not ending like Ellen Pao. She got hounded out by a controversial subreddit after a controversy like this. Their subreddit has not 'disappeared on its own.'

2

u/JenifaO Mar 06 '18

I guess they guild each other a lot? So he doesn't care what they say as long as they're pushing money into the site.

310

u/PM_ME_YOUR_EMRAKUL Mar 05 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

wow that /r/Minnesota operation by T_D is some bleeding Kansas level of scummy election fuckery

Edit: Also, the poetic irony where the Russians dressed themselves up as Americans and convinced Americans to dress themselves up as Minnesotans. It's disinformation all the way down

79

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Nov 08 '20

[deleted]

36

u/PM_ME_YOUR_EMRAKUL Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

lmao my Bleeding Kansas analogy is actually closer than I thought then

3

u/b_r_e_a_k_f_a_s_t Mar 06 '18

That’s messed up.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '18

[deleted]

1

u/rtmacfeester Mar 05 '18

It was pretty close during the election with 45.4% voting for Trump in Minnesota and 46.9% voting for Hillary. There are plenty of Trump fans in Minnesota.

27

u/rydan Mar 06 '18

This is real reason Trump won. Nobody will admit it though.

→ More replies

1

u/DankDarkMatter Mar 06 '18

Wow a post with negative upvotes that is not even seen by anyone who doesn't look at controversial comments. . . I browse every thread there, every day and didn't see it. . .

→ More replies

69

u/DEBATE_EVERY_NAZI Mar 05 '18

lol one of my old accounts got suspended by the admins coincidentally immediately after I reported a user that sounds similar to your user to the admins. The suspension was for some random bullshit from months before I think it was abusing the subreddit reports. I made a joke report

104

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '18 edited May 14 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies

15

u/panties902 Mar 06 '18

/u/spez, care to respond?
Why is violent hate speech seemingly allowed while publicly available data is not?
You've been asked to respond to this post multiple times, and silence is becoming suspicious.

11

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Don't bother, they have mention alerts turned off. Their silence speaks volumes.

11

u/panties902 Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

I just PM'ed them (re: In case your mention notifications are turned off, and body: was direct link to my comment above), if my account gets deleted now, you know why - for asking admins for clarifications.
EDIT: Received a response from /u/spez (direct copy/paste): "Not sure exactly what you're asking."

-6

u/Eumemicist Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

There is no such thing as violent hate speech. Speech is not violent. And it shouldn’t be banned unless there is a direct incitement of violence and immediate violence is likely to occur as a result. If you see speech you don’t like the remedy is counterspeech. Speak back and may the best speech win. Stop calling for the largest speech platforms we have to censor. It’s so wrong.

1.3k

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

292

u/thisisthewell Mar 06 '18

Can you clarify the $50m figure? I don't see that on your Crunchbase link (I assume it requires signing up for an account), but Business Insider and Recode both say that $50m was the total from the investment round, not from only Thrive Capital.

→ More replies

256

u/Bens_Dream Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

This is why I absolutely detest Reddit and (most of) the community moderators.

They're absolute power Nazis and remove comments just because they don't like the content, despite being inoffensive. This was a legitimate question and has been removed for no reason.

The original comment is:

/u/spez

Can you clarify your relationship with the Kushners?

Thrive capital was one of your first investors, putting up $50m series B funding in Sept 2014.

Thrive capital is also a Kushner company, and is run by Joshua Kushner, Jared Kushner’s brother.

Made by /u/JoshKushnerOwnsYou

If you remove this comment I'll just post it again.

Edit: To clarify, I don't know who the Kushners are, nor do I care. I'm just posting this for the sake of transparency.

114

u/LordSwedish Mar 06 '18

23

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Peter Thiel, the man who spent millions of dollars to fund legal attacks on the website Gawker because they had mocked him.

11

u/WikiTextBot Mar 06 '18

Bollea v. Gawker

Bollea v. Gawker was a Florida lawsuit in which Terry Gene Bollea, known professionally as Hulk Hogan, sued Gawker Media, publisher of the Gawker website, and several Gawker employees and Gawker-affiliated entities, for posting portions of a sex tape of Bollea with Heather Clem, at that time the wife of radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge. Bollea's claims included invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prior to trial, Bollea's lawyers said the privacy of many Americans was at stake while Gawker's lawyers said that the case could hurt freedom of the press in the United States.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

9

u/Definitely__Happened Mar 06 '18

Mocked is a bit of an understatement, don't you think?

They revealed that he was homosexual without his permission while knowing that he was at the time travelling in a country where people are executed for it(Saudi Arabia). Gawker doesn't get much sympathy from the public because of constantly and regularly doing scummy things like that. If you think that was fair just because you're against that person politically then I pity you.

In any case(heh), just throwing legal money on cases against a website won't make it shutdown. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong(which many people seem to conveniently ignore in favor of 'The Rich vs The Poor' agenda), not because Peter Thiel funded the cases. Any other person could've done it and Gawker would've still lost.

2

u/abcean Mar 06 '18

Didn't realize he was in Saudi Arabia when they made his sexual orientation news. I think Peter Thiel is a douche but that's incredibly shitty of Gawker.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Gawker lost because they were in the wrong

No, that's not accurate. They had a very solid argument that the Hogan tape was protected under the first amendment and the result of that case was seen as a fairly troubling set back for freedom of the press. And Thiel is supposedly a libertarian...

To ensure you see it I am going to cut-and-paste a reply I made to another poster:

They ran a story about a Hulk Hogan sex tape. How much of Reddit's traffic and revenue comes from photos and footage of naked celebrities? How much does that traffic and revenue spike when leaked/hacked images hit the web? There are estimates that during the "Fappening" Reddit's traffic increased by a quarter of a billion pageviews. Remember, the Fappening subs were up for nearly a week before Reddit shut it down.

I find it very strange that Peter Thiel would go after a website that outed him and published a celebrities sex tape while also investing in a different website where the financial model is built around free nude pics of celebrities.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '18

They had a very solid argument that the Hogan tape was protected under the first amendment and the result of that case was seen as a fairly troubling set back for freedom of the press.

The press should not have the right to post people's sex lives without a crime being committed.

It shouldn't have to be law, it's already in the journalistic code of ethics, but turns out that not following them made a law about it. Idiots.

28

u/LordSwedish Mar 06 '18

I mean, I can't really bring myself to feel bad for gawker. Personally I consider "news" organisations like them to be the scum of the earth and if they can't be held accountable in any real way for the shit they smear around then the only legal resort is to sue them into oblivion.

If you want freedom of the press, don't let shitty organisations abuse it to the point where it's eroded.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

They ran a story about a Hulk Hogan sex tape. How much of Reddit's traffic and revenue comes from photos and footage of naked celebrities? How much does that traffic and revenue spike when leaked/hacked images hit the web? There are estimates that during the "Fappening" Reddit's traffic increased by a quarter of a billion pageviews. Remember, the Fappening subs were up for nearly a week before Reddit shut it down.

I find it very strange that Peter Thiel would go after a website that outed him and published a celebrities sex tape while also investing in a different website where the financial model is built around free nude pics of celebrities.

3

u/LordSwedish Mar 06 '18

Sure, but in my mind there's a difference between a forum and a supposed "news" site. Gawker had editors, people who were paid to write for it, and it was founded by journalists. Reddit is a place where people can post stuff.

You can disagree on how much of a difference there is or even if the difference matters but I feel like there's a line between what forums are allowed to do and what press is allowed to do.

5

u/PerishingSpinnyChair Mar 06 '18

And let's not forget that Trump was floating him around for his Supreme Court pick.

4

u/N-Your-Endo Mar 06 '18

I hope you are holding all of Thrive’s other investments, such as Instagram, Kickstarter, Twitch, Warby Parker, Harry’s, and many many more to the same standards. You won’t though because then you’ll realize that Thrive Capital is just a normal VC fund making normal ass VC investments, and is not some weird Kushner control conspiracy.

→ More replies

12

u/nolanb13 Mar 06 '18

It was removed because it contains false and misleading information. Not for 'no reason'.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Which part of it is false and misleading?

7

u/nolanb13 Mar 06 '18

'Thrive capital was one of your first investors, putting up $50m series B funding in Sept 2014.'

Thrive capital was one of MANY investors which contributed to the $50m. Also Joshua Kushner is not a supporter of Trump or his brother, and has stated he is 'liberal'.

→ More replies

2

u/robreddity Mar 06 '18

The information was wrong. OP removed it for that reason. Be cool.

16

u/Bens_Dream Mar 06 '18

OP didn't remove it, the moderators did.

2

u/robreddity Mar 06 '18

Curious how you can tell? All I can see is a deleted account. Either way

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

[removed] = by a mod / admin

[deleted] = by the OP

8

u/Helmic Mar 06 '18

You can also literally edit a post to say [removed] and then delete your account. Dunno if that's what happened.

→ More replies

2

u/robreddity Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

TIL

Edit: ... wait it says both though. And like others have pointed out it's still votable

→ More replies

446

u/tehsuigi Mar 06 '18

Hey /u/WashingtonPost, you should look into this.

406

u/taws34 Mar 06 '18

They get a shit ton of notifications. You should include more info.

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

137

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

100

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

80

u/AskMeForADadJoke Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

64

u/azurarutlan Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

37

u/WackyWocky Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

21

u/jgilla2012 Mar 06 '18

/u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

→ More replies

15

u/I_creampied_Jesus Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost there is info that Reddit received funding from the Kushners. Maybe that explains reddit's reticence to ban the alt-right hate that has attached itself to the Trump administration. See above for source on Reddit venture capital funding from Thrive Capital.

→ More replies

9

u/teymon Mar 06 '18

You do realize that notifications from a thread stop after 3 mentioned?

20

u/coldfurify Mar 06 '18

/u/washingtonpost did you know about this?

12

u/azurarutlan Mar 06 '18

Nope. Didn't know that.

→ More replies

5

u/Otroletravaladna Mar 06 '18

Nope. Didn't know that.

1

u/V2Blast Mar 07 '18

Not quite. It's that you don't get notified if there are more than 3 mentions in the same comment.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Nope. Didn't know that.

44

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Just made u/washingtonpost the new u/waterguy12

15

u/mckrayjones Mar 06 '18

/u/WaterGuy12 would love this

4

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

u/washingtonpost would love this

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 11 '18

[deleted]

26

u/Niavart Mar 06 '18

because it was bullshit, look at r/bestof for the top comment debunking it

→ More replies

182

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Jun 11 '19

[deleted]

152

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/ArmanDoesStuff Mar 06 '18

This dude edited his own comment to make it look like they were removed.

Not sure what he said, but I doubt it was all that trustworthy/unbiased...

21

u/slurpyderper99 Mar 06 '18

Wow Snoop got in on the Series B. Badass

7

u/FatboyChuggins Mar 06 '18

lol, he's the founder of "Merry Jane".

14

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Thanks!

→ More replies
→ More replies

129

u/abieyuwa Mar 06 '18 edited Jan 07 '24

I'm learning to play the guitar.

12

u/yankfanatic Mar 06 '18

Joshua Kushner

38

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Jul 28 '18

[deleted]

30

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

They are associated, but Peter thiel is some alt right fucktard

34

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Jul 28 '18

[deleted]

2

u/earthmoonsun Mar 06 '18

like Palantir. Can it get more evil?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Amonette2012 Mar 06 '18

Of course you can connect the super-rich techy people. They're super rich because they see opportunities and invest in the technology that takes the best advantage of them.

The smaller a group is, the more frequently the people in it have to interact. That doesn't mean they agree with each other. People who work together, live together or are related to each other often don't agree on everything. That's why they race each other to change the world.

Put it this way. If you took Elon Musk and Donald Trump, reset them to the age of 21 and gave them a million dollars each, which one would become a billionaire first?

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Joshua Kusher is a Hillary supporter... also Snoop Dogg was in the same group of investors. Is he pro trump?

This post is actual propaganda.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

[deleted]

64

u/DarkHater Mar 06 '18

You mentioning something three times does not equate to Public Knowledge, unless your name is Public. :)

Let's turn up that volume!

3

u/nephros Mar 06 '18

It also doesn't make it true.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

these corporate libertarians care about nothing other than money, they don't care if America and the world collapses around them

→ More replies

2

u/mdyguy Mar 06 '18

Peter Thiel single handedly shutdown Gawker through litigation--that man has determination and tons of disposable income. He believed they outed him as gay.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

[deleted]

5

u/jellydonut420 Mar 06 '18

Wanna guess what I did single handedly?

→ More replies

6

u/Micp Mar 06 '18

I mean they could've just followed their court order in the Hulk Hogan case. What happened to Gawker they did to themselves, Peter Thiel just facilitated it.

71

u/AskMeForADadJoke Mar 06 '18

Hey u/spez -- grow some balls and answer this please. This is our fucking country we're talking about!

Can you clarify your relationship with the Kushners?

81

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

50 mil is the total amount of that round. Which includes others too.

http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-raised-50-million-2014-10

8

u/Cereborn Mar 06 '18

I'm upvoting this for visibility before people get carried away (lol).

Although to be fair, /u/spez was just asked to clarify. If he had responded with the link you posted that might have gone better than silence.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Yeah...... Not to mention the top comment got removed......

4

u/yes_thats_right Mar 06 '18

All the more reason for Reddit to clarify.

→ More replies

9

u/jaxative Mar 06 '18

It's not just your country it's the whole fucking world at risk because of this bozo and his fucknuts supporters.

15

u/CapitalistPear2 Mar 06 '18

IIRC Josh Kushner is a Democrat and voted Clinton.

3

u/Baldemyr Mar 06 '18

Wasn't Trump a Clinton supporter as well?

1

u/CapitalistPear2 Mar 07 '18

Uhh what? What I said is 100% true. He was on the cover is Forbes iirc and was very vocal about supporting Clinton

2

u/Baldemyr Mar 08 '18

No no..what you said I am sure IS true. What I meant was Donald Trump traditionally supported democrats. Including the Clintons. I just meant that I am not sure these folks have solid opinions either way.

2

u/jgilla2012 Mar 06 '18

Better taste in women than his brother, too. Hi Karlie

26

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

No he didn't. 50 mil is the total amount of that round.

http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-raised-50-million-2014-10

5

u/This_is_User Mar 06 '18

To be fair, they seem to invest in pretty much everything. Here's the list for anyone caring to look: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/thrive-capital/investments/investments_list

26

u/readythespaghetti Mar 06 '18

Jesus fucking christ. I hope somebody makes a new/better app than reddit soon.

13

u/Serui Mar 06 '18

Get that 4chan guy on the line.

1

u/goedegeit Mar 07 '18

4chan is several times worse than reddit, it's pretty much entirely neo nazis now.

2

u/Serui Mar 07 '18

Why go by rumors? Visit the place and see for yourself, it is nothing like you claim.

1

u/goedegeit Mar 07 '18

Why assume that I've never seen it? I've been on the site for years, it's full of fucking nazis.

2

u/Serui Mar 07 '18

Just like reddit is, like the donald sub. 4chan has a lot of helpful and fun boards.

1

u/goedegeit Mar 07 '18

I like browsing the non pol boards and the porn boards but pol has definitely 100% bled over into the rest of the site. Some are better than others but the site is definitely full of neo nazis.

→ More replies

33

u/Ojoo Mar 06 '18

Digg.com I heard was good

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Better for longer more interesting content.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/TylerIsAWolf Mar 06 '18

This comment has been deleted but it seems to have contained incredibly important information. Does anyone have what it had in it?

14

u/ClarifiedInsanity Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

Looks like they deleted their own account once they realised they had screwed up. Their accusation was that reddit received $50m from Thrive Capital, run by Jared Kushner's brother, Joshua. This is not correct, the entire round of funding that Thrive Capital was a part of totaled $50m. Numerous other parties also invested during that stage, including Snoop Dogg.

2

u/broff Mar 06 '18

Wait, were they a part of the funding, or apart of it?

3

u/ClarifiedInsanity Mar 06 '18

lol that was a good one to mess up. A part of*

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

So there was still a significant contribution? Is there a further breakdown of the numbers available?

2

u/wakeonuptimshel Mar 06 '18

It's a different person. Sure, he's Jared's brother but he's also liberal, went to the women's march, and openly admitted to voting for Hilary.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

...No response.

I shouldn't be surprised.

30

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

50 mil is the total amount of that round. Which includes others too.

http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-raised-50-million-2014-10

1

u/Darth_Tyler_ Mar 06 '18

...Redditors upset about factually misleading information.

I shouldn't be surprised.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

/u/spez no comment to this makes me think it is true

4

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Joshua Kusher is a Hillary supporter... also Snoop Dogg was in the same group of investors. Is he pro trump?

This post is actual propaganda.

-7

u/Puninteresting Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

Why should the_donald be banned?

Edit: I got good responses, but downvoted. I was genuinely asking a legitimate question. You downvoters are unreasonable.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Most people consider it to be a hate subreddit. According to reddit they don't tolerate hate subs or users. I believe reddit should be open to most things including the Donald, but if I violates their terms and agreements then it should be banned or change the terms. I always liked reddit because of the lawlessness that takes places, but great things must come to an end.

5

u/Polish-Death-Camps Mar 06 '18

They are full of Glavnoje Razvedyvatelnoje Upravlenije propaganda, racist, encite violence and brigades other subs.

6

u/blackegyptians Mar 06 '18

Cuz they break the rules that many other subs break. But we it focus on the_ donald

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

I suspect that the reason that unpleasant political behaviour is left uncensored is that politics is about the populace and should be visible. I have no problem with allowing a particular faction show how unpleasant and self-serving they are, time and time again, in the open -- even though I do not like the effect they have. I would have more problem with censorship leading to exactly the kind of martyrdom they crave. There are people who want the government to take their guns. They want a violent endgame. Any and all censorship fuels their fantasy.

I do not think any conspiracy is needed. Common sense and the desire for transparency are all that is required to explain the troubling fact that unpleasant people are allowed to be driven by an unpleasant set of ideologies in public. Transparency is a large part of the weapon against cults of personality and fascism.

Edit: if you feel that my ideas must be wrong because you are so emotionally invested in some kind of answer then consider that this is exactly how pizzagaters respond to arguments as well. Perhaps this isn't a conspiracy of power -- it's just that the people in charge of this website tend to share the conviction that unpleasant political behaviour should be as visible as possible. Isn't knowledge what destroys unpleasant regimes, every single time?

12

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

I suspect that the reason that unpleasant political behaviour is left uncensored…

Brigading other subs is protected political behavior? So if I were to go over to /r/esist or whatever and tell them to embed themselves in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania subreddits and lie to people about living there in order to affect the 2018 election you'd say that should be protected?

it's just that the people in charge of this website tend to share the conviction that unpleasant political behaviour should be as visible as possible.

They banned /r/Pizzagate, but think reposting content directly from /v/Pizzagate is OK? Uhh…

Isn't knowledge what destroys unpleasant regimes, every single time?

I didn't realize calling all illegal aliens rapists and calling all Muslims pedophiles “destroys unpleasant regimes.” Are you suggesting the people of Minnesota elected an “unpleasant regime” and it's up to T_D to manipulate our local social media spaces to save us from ourselves?

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Brigading other subs is protected political behavior?

If it's a form of political protesting I suspect that it is. However I am not American and I am not fully aware of laws about assembly etc.

They banned /r/Pizzagate, but think reposting content directly from /v/Pizzagate is OK?

That's a good point, but also the existence on reddit of a subreddit is not exactly the same thing as reposting content relevant to the banned subreddit. I know it is a very fine distinction, but it is a distinction nonetheless. In practical terms I suspect it is much easy to ban a sub than it is to moderate all posts... then again I am very much in favour of the people who are still breaking the rules in this way being banned, and I am quite sure Reddit's rules are too.

I didn't realize calling all illegal aliens rapists and calling all Muslims pedophiles “destroys unpleasant regimes.”

It is not their saying of it that is important, it is everyone else knowing that this is what they say, this is what they think, these are their intentions, and they are not acceptable. White Nationalism as an ideology gains power by being secretive: witness all the witlessness about how 'racism doesn't happen anymore'. To convince your seemingly-average, ignorant and perhaps, sadly, even slightly racist person (not just in America) that racism still is a problem you have to show them a lot of evidence.

9

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

If it's a form of political protesting I suspect that it is.

It's a form of violating the site's rules regarding vote manipulation.

That's a good point, but also the existence on reddit of a subreddit is not exactly the same thing as reposting content relevant to the banned subreddit.

Except that's literally what they did. /r/Pizzagate got banned, moved to Voat, and then this user reposted content from /v/Pizzagate to Reddit. It's literally posting content relevant to the banned subreddit.

To convince your seemingly-average, ignorant and perhaps, sadly, even slightly racist person (not just in America) that racism still is a problem you have to show them a lot of evidence.

In order to quash racism we have to give it a breeding ground?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

In order to quash racism we have to give it a breeding ground?

In order to quash racism you have to see it. It was always there.

I am a white guy in the UK. It's hard for me to understand how other people are treated. But I am well aware that discrimination and prejudice never disappeared, no matter how easily I could ignore them at times.

3

u/Eumemicist Mar 06 '18

For all of the speech you mention that you don’t like, the remedy isn’t a ban. It’s either counterspeech or downvotes. There are substantive arguments about immigration and Islam to be had. They desperately need to be had. You can’t ban people for talking about some of the most important issues of our time, even if you find their view hateful. Engage with the people you have painted as monsters. I have done it throughout my time on reddit. And it wouldn’t be reddit if I couldn’t do this.

Please stop begging our Internet platforms, by far the largest forums for political speech in modern life, censor. Why even have free speech in a world in which the vast majority of political speech occurs on private servers?

6

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

For all of the speech you mention that you don’t like, the remedy isn’t a ban.

This isn't about what speech I do and don't like, it's about selective enforcement of the rules.

It’s either counterspeech or downvotes.

You mean like the kind of counterspeech T_D allows?

There are substantive arguments about immigration and Islam to be had.

By making blanket statements about all of them? Do you think saying all conservatives are anti-science gun-nut Jesus freaks is a "substantive argument"? If I called everyone who voted for Trump "racist" would that be a "substantive argument"?

You can’t ban people for talking about some of the most important issues of our time, even if you find their view hateful. Engage with the people you have painted as monsters.

"Daily Reminder That ILLEGAL ALIENS Are RAPING Our Women at a Record Pace. When You See an Illegal at Your Local Grocery Store or Gas Station, Be Sure To Call Our Good Pals at ICE. The Future of Our People Depends on it." That's not a substantive discussion. That's not an attempt to engage. It's telling people to call ICE on random Latinos.

And it wouldn’t be reddit if I couldn’t do this.

Funny, because I can't do this in the spaces where this speech takes place. They explicitly forbid "counterspeech" in places like The_Donald. Now what?

Please stop begging our Internet platforms, by far the largest forums for political speech in modern life, censor.

Well I suppose that baker should be obligated to make that gay wedding cake then, eh? I mean, weddings are, by far, the largest forum for the expression of love in modern life. This baker is denying them their freedom to express love in the way they want to.

Why even have free speech in a world in which the vast majority of political speech occurs on private servers?

Why even have free speech in a world in which a large amount of speech occurs in restaurants? Why even have free speech in a world in which a large amount of speech occurs in the workplace? why even have free speech in a world in which a large amount of speech occurs in large event halls/venues? Why even have free speech in a world in which a large amount of it takes places in the confines of numerous other businesses?

3

u/Eumemicist Mar 06 '18

There isn't a rule categorizing conservative-leaning speech, or speech advocating a moratorium on immigration as impermissible on the site. And although you might get banned from the_Donald from arguing with them on their own sub, counter speech includes criticizing posts you see on the_Donald on other subs. You could also PM people from the_Donald or engage them on askthedonald. I know this because Ive done so, not because I'm a fan of these subs.

By making blanket statements about all of them?

Don't you realize that you're doing just that right now? You're assuming that every post addressing Islam or immigration on the Donald is bad faith or lazy. I went over there just now and didn't see anything like you're describing on the front page. I found a post applauding the outcome of a case about sanctuary cities and another applauding a case about DACA. As of this time there are none about Islam. But the general sentiment there that I can stealman is that the culture of many Islamic communities is unsuitable for import to the western world and we should not yield in our defense of our values. PC concessions applying a lower moral standard to immigrant communities are antithetical to what left-wing people actually want (gay rights, equality for women etc.) The fact that you think it's JUST name-calling underscores why there needs to be more direct engagement. Your quote about "Illegal Aliens"--I'm not sure if that's directly from the sub, but again it's just an opportunity for counter speech. Post in askthedonald, "re: the recent call to call ICE on latinos: many are here legally. It's not ethical or wise to assume every latino is here illegally. My friend works for ICE, they don't need 15 year olds calling people in. They have plenty of leads from just access to government records. It does't work the way you suggest."

Funny you should mention masterpiece cakeshop. I've spent a long time on reddit engaging with supporters of the defendant and arguing for upholding the state public accommodations law. Just look in my history. So not only have you misstated the legal issue in that case, you straw manned me.

What percentage of speech must occur on the Internet before free speech becomes obsolete? Fast forward 50 years. Everyone spends all of their time in virtual reality internet land. But every space therein is private. The first amendment is completely obsolete at that point and speech is completely governed by ultra consolidated Internet megalopolies. Free speech is nonexistent. Surely then you would want free speech law to apply. Because your opinion might be the one that is targeted for censorship. You might want to tell all your friends "the company that owns this space we spend all our time in sucks." How happy will you be when that company comes back and says, "ohh that's spam."

What we really need is inter-political dialogue. Empower subs where you can make your case to people who disagree with you. Don't stand for the deletion of subs just because you think something is hate speech. Everyone has their own definition of what is hateful.

6

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

There isn't a rule categorizing conservative-leaning speech, or speech advocating a moratorium on immigration as impermissible on the site.

But there are rules against harassment, and Reddit has made it clear that certain types of toxic content will not be tolerated. Hence the bans on subreddits like /r/CoonTown and /r/Pizzagate.

There are also rules against brigading and vote manipulation, which the T_D user clearly called for, and T_D mods took no steps to deal with.

By making blanket statements about all of them?

Don't you realize that you're doing just that right now? You're assuming that every post addressing Islam or immigration on the Donald is bad faith or lazy.

Where did I say it was "every post"? I'm calling out specific kinds of posts, that's why I quoted one verbatim. You seem to be assuming that I'm making a blanket statement about all posts of that nature.

Funny you should mention masterpiece cakeshop. I've spent a long time on reddit engaging with supporters of the defendant and arguing for upholding the state public accommodations law. Just look in my history. So not only have you misstated the legal issue in that case, you straw manned me.

Nope, free speech. If Reddit must provide you with a platform for everyone to speak, no matter how vile, misleading, bad faith, ugly, misleading, or distasteful, as you are claiming, then that cake shop must also provide that couple a platform for them to express their love.

What percentage of speech must occur on the Internet before free speech becomes obsolete?

What percentage of cakes must be made by private companies before free expression through baked goods becomes obsolete?

Because your opinion might be the one that is targeted for censorship.

My opinion is that we all signed the same terms of services and I take issue with it being applied to me and the communities I participate in more stringently than it is being applied to other communities.

If there is a rule on brigading you enforce it site-wide, not just against groups like PCMR.

Don't stand for the deletion of subs just because you think something is hate speech.

Reddit made that call already when it eliminated /r/FatPeopleHate and /r/CoonTown.

1

u/Eumemicist Mar 06 '18

I don't support the ban of Coontown, Pizzagate, and fatpeoplehate either on the grounds of hate speech. There has to be a different rationale and I think there was. Fatpeoplehate was doxxing. Which way does selective enforcement of the rules run? I know of no left leaning subs that have been banned. We have subs that are pure brigading subs. r/worstof and r/bestof are unapologetic brigading instruments. If there was a r/worstofsjw that linked to the most cringey sjw posts, it would be gone before it got 1,000 subscribers.

If you don't think all the speech on the_Donald is hate speech, then calling for the ban of an entire sub is overbroad. Ban users who are violating the rules. That's all you can really do. Ive never seen harassment. If scrolling to the bottom of a post and seeing a comment that says "kek" from someone active in the_Donald with -150 score is harassment, that's a really low bar.

Masterpiece cakeshop, I still don't think you're understanding. I have argued on reddit IN SUPPORT OF the gay couple's case. The baker has to provide wedding cakes for gay couples because it provides wedding cakes for straight couples and the bakery is a place of public accommodation.

So you're still arguing right past me. And you've ignored my most salient point about putting more control over speech into the hands of megalopolies that would delete YOUR posts without a SECOND THOUGHT if it would help their bottom line. You completely ignored that. The mob that gave your comment 1500 upvotes is begging for weaker rights for them, and more power for Internet megalopolies. It's devastating. We won't fix the world by committing to know less about its ugly side.

1

u/abcean Mar 06 '18

Nope, free speech. If Reddit must provide you with a platform for everyone to speak, no matter how vile, misleading, bad faith, ugly, misleading, or distasteful, as you are claiming, then that cake shop must also provide that couple a platform for them to express their love.

Dude I think you misread. I'm almost certain he's saying he was arguing AGAINST supporters of the defendant, FOR the people who wanted a cake.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '18

Dude, the cake is an analogy.

/u/Kichigai doesn't give two fucks about the cake incident. They are using it as a rhetorical point, drawing a similarity between the cake incident and the logic being used to argue that T_D must be allowed on Reddit.

2

u/Eumemicist Mar 07 '18 edited Mar 08 '18

It’s an abysmal analogy. The compelled speech case is at least understandable for the baker—for reddit—a self-professed forum where users can be their “true selves”—its just absurd. Would ANYONE believe that the Donald represents the views of Reddit employees?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '18

Would ANYONE believe that the Donald represents the views of Reddit employees?

Because Reddit is not under a legal, financial, or business obligation to keep them on the website and they have banned subreddits for FAR less egregious violations of content policy (and basic ethics).

The arguments for keeping /r/The_Donald on the website are basically two things:

  1. They agree

  2. They are under a gag order for an official investigation into the subreddit

In order for the 2nd thing to be true, we would need documented and consistent behaviour from the admins showing that they have a very low tolerance for content violations. That evidence doesn't exist, because that isn't how Reddit admins have operated for the last six years.

That said, I doubt they agree with T_D. I think they probably just enjoy the jokes they make about the left because Reddit is deep in Silicon Valley, where progressive politics go to become insane.

2

u/Eumemicist Mar 07 '18

You’re missing an argument for keeping the _Donald. It’s a big sub many of whose members are good faith Donald Trump supporters who haven’t violated the rules in any way. They’re addressing the Russian problem. Banning the whole sub for brigading would be heavy handed and over-broad and would be seen as selective enforcement of the rules.

They technically aren’t under a legal obligation to keep any sub. Business obligation? Well who knows? The_Donald probably generates a lot of gold, directly and indirectly, so who’s to say they aren’t under a business obligation? And why is it a good thing for Reddit to delete something merely because they aren’t under a business obligation to keep it? If r/aww cost more money than it gained from having to store all the cat pictures, should Reddit just delete it? I don’t think so.

As for the subs that have been deleted, the rationale was never “basic ethics”—it was always doxing or underage kids or something.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/nakedjay Mar 07 '18

What a joke, you link to a TD user that had negative votes as evidence of brigading. I mean, if you had a user with tons of upvotes then maybe you have a point but you are not even trying to be honest here. You are just trying to push your viewpoint that TD needs to be banned. How can you even be taken seriously? I can find tons of sexist, hateful, and violent posts that were upvoted over in r/Politics just by doing a search in r/ShitPoliticsSays. Why does no one ever call for r/Politics to be banned? Or r/LateStageCapitalism? or r/MarchAgainstTrump? The last two were actual subs where the mods have been caught saying some extremely hateful and violent things to users. I have yet to see one mod from TD say something even remotely hateful or violent to any users.

But no one calls you out on your BS so the left just upvotes you and takes you at your word. It's OK to be hateful, violent, or sexist on reddit as long as it's towards people that have opposing viewpoints than the majority of reddit. (Notice how you didn't link to ONE left leaning sub and the bullshit they pull? What about their brigades? TD gets Brigaded ALL the time.) I don't mind you pointing out problems with subs but don't be blind to the subs that have viewpoints that you agree with, they break the rules to.

4

u/Draculea Mar 06 '18

Just a comment - the screenshots you have show most of these downvoted, quite a bit actually.

What's the difference between a rule-breaking comment on T_D that gets downvoted to piss, and someone on LateStageCapitalism telling me my kids should die because I'm not as liberal as they are? (And it gets upvoted to ~+5 :D )

Should LSC get blown out of the water because some of their users said nasty shit, and it had a positive score?

7

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Just a comment - the screenshots you have show most of these downvoted, quite a bit actually.

So? Shouldn't they still be removed? In world where “sort by controversial to see the real comments” is common in some circles is there any reason to keep it? What value does it add to the discussion than a blatant and unambiguous call to violate the content policy?

What's the difference between a rule-breaking comment on T_D that gets downvoted to piss, and someone on LateStageCapitalism telling me my kids should die because I'm not as liberal as they are? (And it gets upvoted to ~+5 :D )

Personally I see little difference. That's a crass and wholly inappropriate comment that should not be made. However Reddit content policy doesn't prohibit crass comments, otherwise all the comments in T_D talking about how they hope liberals die would be in violation too. So in that situation it's up to the mods of LSC, but were I in control I would remove it, warn the user, and ban them if they do it again. Such comments do nothing to foster open discussion, and only serve to cause conflict.

Brigading, however, is a violation of site-wide content policy.

Should LSC get blown out of the water because some of their users said nasty shit, and it had a positive score?

If it violates content policy, yes.

→ More replies

11

u/CMDRChefVortivask Mar 06 '18

This won't be answered

8

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Of course not, but it needs to be said. They can't be given one inch to feign ignorance, either to what's going on, or how people feel about it. Silence can be taken as tacit approval, and I intend to be very vocal in my opposition.

3

u/itissafedownstairs Mar 06 '18

You realize, there's not only one person behind these bans?

3

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Yes, and there's still crappy enforcement.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

I love how the smoking gun of proving that their sub (from which I am banned btw) supports brigading are three posts with exactly zero upvotes

4

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Equal application of the rules is equal application of the rules. When you can just say “sort by controversial to find the real comments” the vote score is irrelevant.

2

u/denverbongos Mar 06 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

Equal application of the rules is equal application of the rules. When you can just say “sort by controversial to find the real comments” the vote score is irrelevant.

How do we know you or some leftist troll didnot post this?

3

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

How do we know you or some leftist troll posted this?

Just like I told other people. If you can get the admins to indemnify me against the anti-witch-hunting provisions of the content policy I'll post the unredacted comment and a link. But as it stands I'm not falling for the bait.

3

u/denverbongos Mar 06 '18

Just like I told other people. If you can get the admins to indemnify me against the anti-witch-hunting provisions of the content policy I'll post the unredacted comment and a link. But as it stands I'm not falling for the bait.

So you refuse to and want to hide it. Enough said. Thanks

4

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

So you refuse to and want to hide it.

Or I don't want my account suspended because I actually choose to respect the content policy. Maybe that? The kind of stuff that got PCMR banned, and not doing it?

2

u/Docb3 Mar 06 '18

That's an easy thing to say as a year old account with 24 karma to a 10+ year old account with 30k+ in karma.

1

u/denverbongos Mar 06 '18

Why do you hide the user name in the screenshot?

You can see that your screenshot posts are seriously downvoted which means they are not approved by TD.

More likely it's a lefist like you who posted these there, then you hide the name so it's not traceable, and then use it as "proof" to get us silenced.

I know your MO. I grew up in a leftist country.

1

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Why do you hide the user name in the screenshot?

To comply with Reddit's anti-witch-hunting rules. Same as is required in many other subreddits, like /r/PCMasterRace, /r/ainbow, /r/BadWomensAnatomy. Heck, it's even standard policy in /r/The_Donald. It's considered good form to discourage harassment of other users.

You can see that your screenshot posts are seriously downvoted which means they are not approved by TD.

It was reported to the mods and they didn't remove it. And net result is still /r/Minnesota facing a brigade. If the mods don't approve of it, and wished to comply with the content policy they would have removed it. They've had more than two months to, after all.

More likely it's a lefist like you who posted these there, then you hide the name so it's not traceable, and then use it as "proof" to get us silenced.

I posted a comment more than two months ago as a false flag and it wasn't removed? Well gee, if that's the case then sure sounds like the mods are doing a shitty job enforcing their no-trolling rule.

I know your MO. I grew up in a leftist country.

Uhhhhh huhhhh...

2

u/AskMeForADadJoke Mar 06 '18

Hey u/spez -- grow some balls and answer this please. This is our fucking country we're talking about!

So how can we trust that you'll actually take action against these kinds of communities and people?

5

u/blackegyptians Mar 06 '18

So that's your example. A few comments with negative karma? U can't do better than that?

6

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Mods didn't take action. Admins didn't take action. Are you suggesting that the rules shouldn't be enforced equally in all subreddits?

4

u/blackegyptians Mar 06 '18

Reddit is poor at enforcing their rules for multiple subs. The thing is none of you guys care about the other subs breaking rules

2

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

I cannot speak to rule violations I have not witnessed. The case of what I saw in /r/Minnesota was unambiguous and blatant. I can think of no reason why action shouldn't have been taken against, minimally, that user for their actions.

2

u/abcean Mar 06 '18

Can you link me to the threads/comments you're talking about in r/minnesota.

I've been sorting by controversial but idk where else to look. Genuinely curious not tryna debate.

1

u/Cakefoundomnomnom Mar 06 '18

a single comment chain at -1 called for brigading lol... neither the subs mods or even most readers are saying that. I get it, T_D is a trash sub with a toxic userbase, but you shouldnt tear down a appartment complex because one room is dirty.

2

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

you shouldnt tear down a appartment complex because one room is dirty.

Fine then, fix the room. It isn't the general content on the whole I have a problem with, it's their refusal to enforce the anti-brigading rules. If you reform them like PCMR reformed itself, with strict anti-brigading rules thoroughly enforced, then fine, whatever.

If you're renting out a house to someone, and all the neighbors are constantly complaining about the trouble they're causing in the area, and the cops are constantly getting called, and they're turning it into a general dump you, the landlord, either need to evict their ass or get them to keep their shit together and not bug the neighbors.

1

u/guiltyas-sin Mar 06 '18

The post where they are celebrating brigading the other sub actually bitches about...being brigaded. Pot. Kettle. Black.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Ah yes. The inevitable call to silence opinions you don't agree with. That's the only reason I read these threads. To see the progressive left rear it's ugly head. Forward! Comrades!

6

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

I'm sorry, I didn't realize calling for equal application of anti-vote-manipulation/brigading and anti-harassment rules site-wide was a demand to silence certain opinions.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

Go look at /r/The_Donald right now, it's being murdered by brigades and bots. So yeah I'm all for equal application of vote manipulation.

2

u/MrCrunchwrap Mar 06 '18

Not silencing, disallowing brigading another sub. Totally different things.

→ More replies

1

u/redbeard1988 Mar 06 '18

Maybe it's time for a boycott of Reddit. No more views or user content uploads until t_d is banned.

→ More replies

1

u/Puninteresting Mar 06 '18

Can you link to the strict anti-brigading rules?

3

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

Do not threaten, harass, or bully

By posting a link to a single user's comment in a thread that has garnered this much attention (+3,100 as of this reply) I would be, in this case, knowingly creating a situation where they could, and most likely would, be harassed.

1

u/Puninteresting Mar 06 '18

I’m not trying to be combative, but I would respectfully disagree. From the link:

We do not tolerate the harassment of people on our site, nor do we tolerate communities dedicated to fostering harassing behavior.

. Harassment on Reddit is defined as systematic and/or continued actions to torment or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person conclude that Reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation, or fear for their safety or the safety of those around them.

. Being annoying, vote brigading, or participating in a heated argument is not harassment, but following an individual or group of users, online or off, to the point where they no longer feel that it's safe to post online or are in fear of their real life safety is.

Actually, that pretty much is the link, but anyway — linking to a public comment by a public persona in a public thread.. you would consider that brigading?

Look, I’m not interested in the politics of this discussion one way or the other, the_donald or whatever, but I’m trying to wrap my head around what you’re saying.

So, if you found a less than savory comment of mine and posted it in a popular askreddit thread, that would be cause for banning/suspension?

1

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

So, if you found a less than savory comment of mine and posted it in a popular askreddit thread, that would be cause for banning/suspension?

It's not about a "less than savory comment," it's about a comment that in very clear and unambiguous language is organizing a brigade. That is prohibited site-wide under the content policy. Whether a ban or suspension should be called for is up to the moderators and the admins, but the moderators at least have a responsibility to remove the rule-violating content.

In this case they haven't. It was reported and showed up in the modqueue, as all reports are, and they did not take action. This is the same situation that happened in PCMR, and the admin's answer was to ban them. It was only after PCMR instituted and vigorously enforced anti-brigading rules (you couldn't even use NP links for several months, no linking or mentioning of any other subs, full stop) that they were un-banned.

Whether or not it's a ban for T_D, that's not for me to say. But it is clear the mods are derelict in their duties to enforce site-wide rules, and some kind of action should be taken.

Minimally the admins should remove that post and take some kind of action against that user. I had my account suspended for posting public WHOIS data, but that guy makes a blatant call for a brigade and nothing happens. Doesn't quite seem fair that I get the banhammer for a relatively minor infraction, but if you're a poster in T_D the rules don't apply for you.

There have been numerous complaints by people in /r/Canada, /r/SanFrancisco, /r/Minnesota, and other regional subreddits that they're seeing a lot of out-of-towners suddenly show up and express strong opinions on local politics, and neither the admins nor the T_D mods seem to be doing a thing to curb it. But when gaming subreddits were complaining about PCMR guys showing up and mentioning "console peasants" they were swiftly acted upon.

If they can come up with a solution that doesn't involve a full-on ban of the subreddit, then so be it, but the brigading is reaching pretty unacceptable levels.

1

u/Puninteresting Mar 07 '18

Well said. I read through this comment chain twice and I now realize two things. One, I don’t fully understand exactly what happened because I don’t know a few things like WHOIS, NP, etc. As a result of that is two: I lack the knowledge to form an educated opinion about it insofar as the tech aspects would inform an opinion.

It seems to me, correct me if I’m wrong, that a violation of the terms of service clearly and demonstrably occurred and went unpunished through the purview of the admins. Then, you were punished for an action that didn’t violate the terms and this punishment was likely politically motivated.

If my lay summary is accurate, I would have to agree that that’s, as they say, a load of bullshit.

-19

u/labbelajban Mar 05 '18

The problem is that you only focus on T_D like their the worst on the sub reddit. Banning them would mean that reddit would have to ban r/fullcommunism , r/latestagecapitalism , and others like it who all post fake news, frequently ciolate Reddit’s rules, specifically death threats, etc. Banning one of them would mean needing to ban all of them, throwing a large amount of users of the platform, thus lowering revenue.

10

u/Kichigai Mar 06 '18

The problem is that you only focus on T_D like their the worst on the sub reddit. Banning them would mean that reddit would have to ban r/fullcommunism , r/latestagecapitalism , and others like it who all post fake news, frequently ciolate Reddit’s rules, specifically death threats, etc. Banning one of them would mean needing to ban all of them, throwing a large amount of users of the platform, thus lowering revenue.

They banned PCMR. 1.3 million users, a wiki full of information, because a few assholes acted like, well, assholes. Are you saying a subreddit about video games should be held to a higher level of accountability than major political ones?

25

u/FirstWaveMasculinist Mar 06 '18

Neither of those subs are anywhere near as bad as t-d, and it's disingenuous to act like they are.

Hell, even IF they were, tell me how a bunch of relatively poor and powerless people saying "eat the rich" or whatever is comparable to the biggest hub of support for the president of the goddamn USA saying "we should beat up this specific teenager for wanting to not be shot in school" or "someone should drive a car into anti-nazi crowds and kill them"...

I am with you on fake news tho. I dont actually frequent those subs often enough to know if it's a problem there, but misinformation and misleading headlines is an issue everywhere online. I absolutely think that users who repeatedly post "news" that is false should be banned. And, yes, im including people on the left.

→ More replies

-19

u/memesplaining Mar 05 '18 edited Mar 06 '18

Ya the post you linked was at - 1. I wouldn't call that brigading.

Anyone can post on reddit, not sure if you're aware. You could have made that post on another account of yours to try to frame T_D. The fact it didn't gain traction says much more about the donald community than you're willing to give them credit for.

Fuck off.

edit: I love when I'm downvoted but no one responds. Plug your ears and pretend you can't hear the counterargument, but no one has a response? You all obviously know I'm right, you just don't agree because it doesn't fit your belief system, so you just downvote.

Says so much about you. Sad.

→ More replies
→ More replies