
Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content - mhb
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/reddit-violence-policy.html
======
KGIII
It's really, really not easy to stand up for the rights of Nazis. If you're a
Nazi, you can use voat.co as they are very free speech oriented. You don't
have to be a Nazi to participate, but it's a good idea to have a thick skin if
you do go there.

I go there and talk to the White Nationalists. They are pretty much Nazis.
They know I'm not white and that I don't agree with them. They don't scare me.
They are scared and powerless, looking for meaning in their empty lives,
easily swayed, and not entirely unaware of some of the ironies.

I've actually invited a few of them to my home, but no takers so far.

Point is, I'm not sure banning does any good. Reddit can legally do so. I
still think there's a better way to deal with the mentally ill and
disenfranchised.

~~~
briantakita
> I go there and talk to the White Nationalists. They are pretty much Nazis.

Nazi is a term loosely used today. Actual 3rd Reich Nazis commandeered by
America & the Soviet Union after WW2. Wernher von Braun was a committed Nazi &
was allegedly a willing participate in WW2 war crimes. See Operation Paperclip
for more info.

[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Operation_Paperclip](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Operation_Paperclip)

> They are scared and powerless, looking for meaning in their empty lives,
> easily swayed, and not entirely unaware of some of the ironies.

White Nationalism is the natural response to Identity Politics. In a sense, I
don't blame them for not taking the high road, since Identity Politics has not
been kind toward white people & the majority of white people think they are
discriminated against. Btw, every racial group thinks they are discriminated
against, so it seems like Identity Politics leaves nobody happy.

[http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-
am...](http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-
think-theyre-discriminated-against)

This leads to the real problem being Identity Politics. White Nationalism,
Black Power, La Raza, various Jewish groups, etc. are all entities that create
dissonance in the communities of America. Whether the members have valid
points or not, there is a sense of tribalism & the inherent backlash.

While it's healthy to promote heritage, legacy, & the positive aspects of a
cultural identity; Identity Politics sows division by redistributing
opportunity (which is unfair from a merit standpoint) & transferring wealth
via government policy.

If we are to have a society based on hard work leading to just reward, where
opportunity is given to all, then Identity Politics has no place in it. Even
if Identity Politics were to balance opportunity, the underlying issues within
communities are not addressed. Instead, the government manages opportunity
leading to a culture of entitlement, laziness, dispute, grudges, & group
hostility.

~~~
kstrauser
> Nazi is a term loosely used today.

Not by me. When I say Nazi, I specifically mean someone who publicly
identifies with that group, uses their words, wears their clothes, and carries
their flag: [http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/09/alt-
weaken...](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/09/alt-weakened-
dead-charlottesville-170920081948414.html)

If you show up to a rally carrying a Nazi flag, I'll unapologetically call you
a Nazi. It's only identity politics in the sense that I'm identifying the
politics someone espouses based on the symbols and words they're using.

------
kevinmchugh
Twitter has banned over 350,000 ISIS accounts in the last year or two, and
that's happened without Hacker News noticing, as far as I can tell. There's
not any stories about it that come up in HN search with as many points as this
has now.

How is this situation different?

~~~
Grue3
I'll tell you why. Nobody who isn't an ISIS member has ever been called an
ISIS member. However the favorite tactic of American left lately has been
calling anyone who they disagree with a Nazi. For example most people are
probably politically to the right to the likes of Anthony Fantano or Laci
Green. And yet both of them have been unironically branded Nazis, as a quick
Twitter search will confirm.

So yeah, if you haven't been already, somebody's probably going to brand you a
Nazi at some point and call for your banning from every social platform, no
matter how "woke" you think you are. It's just a fact of life.

~~~
thraxil
> I'll tell you why. Nobody who isn't an ISIS member has ever been called an
> ISIS member.

I do seem to recall a certain presidential candidate calling Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama _founders_ of ISIS...

Painting all Muslim or even brown people as ISIS or terrorists is a pretty
common rhetorical tactic of the right.

~~~
slededit
> I do seem to recall a certain presidential candidate calling Hillary Clinton
> and Barack Obama founders of ISIS...

The clear and obvious intent of that sentence was to imply their policies
allowed ISIS to exist, and that they would not exist had the power vacuum not
been created. This new literal reading of everything is just another part of
the decline of our political discourse.

~~~
thraxil
When Hugh Hewitt suggested that Trump only meant it that way, Trump objected:
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most
valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too,
by the way, Hillary Clinton."

Trump then explicitly disagreed with that "clear and obvious intent" re a
power vacuum:

HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They
created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but
they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.

DT: Well, I disagree.

[http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-
visit/#m...](http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-
visit/#more-31501)

------
keepper
Amazing ( well, more like sad ) that the first comments I see are "well, we
can agree that nazis are bad, but this is a slippery slope, what about BLM,
and antifa"

Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term
that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK )

BLM - The belief ( on experiences of some in society ), that Black people are
not treated the same in their interactions with the government. Main vehicle,
in your face protests.

Antifa - an aggressive anti-hate group ( whose tactics, in the view of some,
seem to make them a violent group ). The anti-nazis if you will.

Really? Do these things seem REMOTELY equal?

cue in the nitpicking about my definitions...

PS: to be perfectly clear/blunt, since it seems as I suspected people started
nitpicking... One group calls for the extermination of HUMAN BEINGS.. the
other calls for the extermination of IDEOLOGY... now see the difference?

free speech DOES NOT and HAS NEVER given you the right to call for the
extermination of others... that is as clear cut case of "not protected by free
speech" as there is.

and yes.. if you take on the name of "nazi" or "national socialism", well, you
don't get to redefine those terms in a "wink wink" manner.

~~~
wccrawford
Of course people are going to question your definitions when you've gone
overboard in making one absolutely wrong and the others absolutely right.

There's bad in both sets, which is why banning 1 group could have an effect on
the other 2, eventually.

~~~
celticninja
Well to be fair, one is entirely bad, jut to be clear thats the Nazis. There
may be some rogue elements in the other groups who perhaps would use violence
to further their cause but it is not their fundamental belief. Whereas Nazi
ideology specifically calls for the extermination of others, neither of the
other 2 groups are anywhere remotely near that position.

There are no good Nazis. Sure there were some Nazis in WWII that were Nazis
because they were German soldiers and not necessarily because they wanted to
exterminate Jews and gypsies, so some of them did good things (not in the name
of the Nazis but because they were not entirely evil people) but anyone
claiming to be a Nazi today is doing so because they believe in Nazism
ideologically and everything that goes into with it.

~~~
glenstein
This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an
attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech,
abstracted from the contents of any particular ideology.

And yet, part of what makes you "wrong" to oppose speech of particular groups
is that you are just as bad as them. That's a judgment of the "wrongness" of a
particular ideology, being directly appealed to, to justify a position on free
speech.

For some reason that's supposedly _not_ a slippery slope toward widening the
scope of "free speech" to include things destructive of democracy.

~~~
uoaei
Funny how the "slippery slope" argument seems to only get used by people
resorting to false equivalencies immediately upon commencement of discussions
on this topic.

~~~
glenstein
Right, this is precisely my point. I can't count how many times I've seen
people defending hate groups resort to slippery slopes and false equivalences.
If you don't give hate groups unrestricted access to audiences, they claim
1984 is supposedly right around the corner.

But if you confront them with the slippery slope of equal logical validity
which supports the opposing argument, suddenly they're mindful of the dangers
of slippery slope arguments.

------
blfr
Why has free speech fallen out of favour with SV? Ironically, it happened
rather silently.

It's not just an Eternal September-like phenomenon. The very same people who
used to support it not only don't any more but pretend they never did in the
first place.

 _Speaking of the founding fathers, I ask him what he thinks they would have
thought of Reddit._

 _" A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it,"
he replies. It's the digital form of political pamplets._

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-c...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-
co-founder-alexis-ohanians-rosy-outlook-on-the-future-of-politics/3/)

~~~
lobf
There's no shade of gray here? Either you host nazi propaganda, or you're
"anti-free speech?"

~~~
blfr
Reddit, Twitter and others have banned a much wider selection of posters and
communities than nazis. Of course they lead with NAZIS! but then it's anything
from r/coontown to voting in the wrong thread.

To answer your question, you're not running a bastion of free speech if you
ban people for their political opinions.

~~~
lobf
Fortunately reddit is banning communities that advocate violence, not
communities with certain sets of politics. It just so happens that there's a
major overlap of political views to inciting violence.

Even the first amendment recognizes that there are limits to free speech-
namely when they infringe on other people's rights.

~~~
jquery
Which political views would those be? Most of the politically-incited violence
of the past few years has been left-wing. From Antifa, to the Berkeley riots,
to the BLM riots (and BLM-inspired cop executions in Houston), and the
"Bernie-bro" attempted assassination.

~~~
libertyEQ
It was Dallas, not Houston.

>Most of the politically-incited violence of the past few years has been left-
wing.

Is this claim based on data or anecdotes?

~~~
jquery
From the WITS - [https://imgur.com/a/nE1of](https://imgur.com/a/nE1of)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Incidents_Tracking_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Incidents_Tracking_System)

If you know a good replacement, please let me know. That's worldwide data, but
even using worldwide data, there just aren't that many violent Nazis out
there.

~~~
libertyEQ
This is going to take me a few minutes...

WITS was discontinued 5 years ago.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/theories-
mean...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/theories-meaning-
trump-many-sides-remark.html)

[https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-
hol...](https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-
monopoly-on-political-violence/)

[warning, pdf]
[https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/MurderAndE...](https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/MurderAndExtremismInUS2016.pdf)

[2015 study; warning, pdf]
[https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Schanzer_...](https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Schanzer_Law_Enforcement_Assessment_of_the_Violent_Extremist_Threat_final.pdf)

I'm actually quite certain that antifa has either been infiltrated by agent
provocateurs or is populated by useful idiots. I say this as a life long
Republican (until March '03).

Edit: Am I supposed to summarize these 4 articles in order to be considered
adequate response to a wiki link of an org that was dissolved 5 years ago?

------
mschuster91
Hmm. This is going to be interesting. I mean, nearly everyone should be fine
with banning Nazis. After all, they're vile and in my opinion don't deserve
any place on the world except the inside of a jail cell...

The problem is: where will the line be drawn? What about Black Lives Matter?
The more, uh, militant parts of the Antifa movement? Militant animal rights
groups (which actually are treated as domestic terrorist groups in some
countries!)? All advocate, tolerate or embrace violence in some degree, and as
there has been the precedent case of Nazis getting banned, it's going to be
difficult.

Of course one can say "we simply don't like Nazis, so we're stricter on them",
and I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure if a new (or, for what it's worth,
also _current_ government) can't more or less force providers like Reddit (but
also Cloudflare and the others who booted Daily Stormer off the net) to revive
the "good old Red Scare"...

edit: to clarify, for BLM I don't mean that BLM promotes violence - but there
are certainly supporters who believe violence or, in one case, murdering cops,
being legitimate
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers)).
I don't like it myself that the right wing was able to frame BLM as "taking
part in the murder", but that image is not going to be corrected soon.

~~~
vaishaksuresh
>The problem is: where will the line be drawn?

Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance. If BLM, PETA, Antifa want
people of other race/class/sexual orientation harmed in any kind of way, sure
go ahead and ban them. If on the other hand they want fair treatment, equality
or reprieve from targeted brutality, listen to them and see how we as a
society can address their concern. If they resort to violence, arrest them and
treat them like you would treat a criminal.

It is not really that hard. Right to free speech does not really mean right to
say anything anywhere without any consequence.

The irony in this whole thing is, the more tolerant you are to an inherently
intolerant ideology like white-spremacy, the less tolerant we become as a
society.

~~~
yodsanklai
> Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance.

Not that simple! "Intolerance: unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or
behaviour that differ from one's own".

Does unwillingness to accept Nazi ideology make you intolerant?

~~~
vaishaksuresh
>Does unwillingness to accept Nazi ideology make you intolerant?

Yes, Intolerant to intolerance.

------
alexanderstears
It's going to be interesting to see how the rights of free association evolve
as platforms kick more and more people off of them.

On one hand, most people agree that platform owners get to make the rules for
their platforms.

On the other hand, some bans might amount to discrimination based on protected
classes.

The most interesting thing imo is that political activities and affiliations
are protected classes in California, theoretically political bans are
violations just like bans on religion / race. We'll see how it pans out.

------
glenstein
What tends to happen when toxic subreddits get banned is people who liked them
and supported them start whatabouting about edge cases and claim the ban
wasn't done "consistently," eagerly pointing out instances of mistaken bans.

It reminds me of the fable, though I forget exactly what it was (edit: Loki's
Wager), where someone sought to avoid being beheaded not by claiming innocence
but by endlessly disputing where their neck ended and head began.

------
tripplethrendo
Antifa subreddits will be removed?

~~~
tripplethrendo
So they banned Far_Right but
[https://www.reddit.com/r/farleft/](https://www.reddit.com/r/farleft/) is ok?

What a cool place Reddit is! /s

~~~
KirinDave
Maybe take it as a mark of grim respect.

Far left and anarchist groups are generally considered to be unsuccessful in
the arc of modern history, with even China partially adopting western aspects
of governance to remain competitive. Their successes are almost entirely in
appealing to moderates and with heavy appeasement of capitalism. One of the
most famous attempt at true communism ended spectacularly, with a bulk
victimization of many marginalized people who had been coaxed out of the
shadows by a regime that failed to hold power to protect them.

Far right groups are taken much more seriously, because a conflict they
started and escalated blighted an entire continent.

If it seems unfair that it's okay to make a video game (admittedly: a very
fun, enjoyable game) about killing nazis by the dozen is pop culture but games
about killing antifa can't even get news coverage, maybe that's true. It's
because the victors of the last conflict against organized fascism accept
violence as a constant reaffirmation that the binding substrate of
civilization is democracy. You're "in-tribe" if you're on that train. If you
seek to subvert or destroy democracy, that triggers violent a rejection by
most of the western world.

A topical example: It's generally regarded as somewhat funny that Richard
Spencer gets punched. Technically, it's illegal and we accept violence is no
way to treat citizens in principle. Yet a lot of people in the US do hold
racist views even if you take a very narrow definition of racism, and we don't
see mass punching at scale. Spencer's singled out because he's publicly part
of the ideology proposing the subversion and destruction of democracy. This
turns off many of the typical restraints we'd exercise. Bannon and Yarvin
probably need to be cautious of punch sqads as well as their profile raises.

Perhaps unsurprisingly (and imo, justifiably) so. As a general rule, America
bends its own rules when it perceives something taking advantage of said
rules. That's not a new thing, and it explains a lot of the legislative
dithering that we have seen over the decades and a lot of the political
rhetoric we see playing out today.

But I really do want to stress how much fun it is to have pop cultural license
to go back and play a mindless game like Wolf2 for a bit.

~~~
zanny
I had to do a double take that the KirinDave talking about politics on HN is
the same one I watched years back play and manage a Minecraft server with the
Yogscast. What a small world!

~~~
KirinDave
Yeah I used to make modpacks for them. It got boring. But I do still stream
Minecraft irregularly.

------
coffee9
[https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/78p7bz/update_on_s...](https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/78p7bz/update_on_sitewide_rules_regarding_violent_content/dovlpdb/)

Though Nazis have taken over the conversation, they did ban a bunch of fetish
subreddits too.

------
timthelion
And yet this is still online:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/73h7mx/i_fuck_sjws...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/73h7mx/i_fuck_sjws_for_fun/)

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
While shitty and mean, they aren't advocating for violence in that post.

Do you think mean posts should be outlawed?

------
kakarot
Clearly the solution is to corralle all fascists onto one big fenced-in echo
chamber. What could go wrong?

~~~
KozmoNau7
Possibly, hopefully a very impressive implosion.

------
hberg
There goes /r/The_Donald/

~~~
oh_sigh
No, they're still there, and no, everyone who disagrees with you isn't a Nazi.

> we will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites,
> or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of
> people

This also means that people who encourage you to "punch a Nazi" or that
there's nothing wrong with punching a Nazi/racist should also be banned.

~~~
pknopf
That place promotes violence and hate on a daily basis.

~~~
arkona
Care to give some evidence for your claims?

~~~
pknopf
Go to the sub and click the first post you see.

Evidence provided.

edit: Here is the first non-stickied post I found.

[https://g.redditmedia.com/lWzOghJ9C76p2rMmU3CDWhHTtojbXJ9vlu...](https://g.redditmedia.com/lWzOghJ9C76p2rMmU3CDWhHTtojbXJ9vlulE__NUm6s.gif?fm=mp4&mp4-fragmented=false&s=e27a80f2e8636072fb9889757af2e8d6)

> Here is Hillary Clinton shitting herself on 9/11

> Did PETA publicly complain about the handling of that cattle?

> THE SIDE OF BEEF MARRIED A RAPIST!!!

> Hope she had her shitting pants on

~~~
oh_sigh
First post seen at the top of the front T_D page is this:
[http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/the-last-time-hillary-
had-...](http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/the-last-time-hillary-had-a-
birthday-she-thought-she-would-be-president-slideshow/)

Which is making fun of a HRC tweet from last october which said "Happy
Birthday to this future president".

Doesn't seem very hateful to me.

edit: Basd on your edit, I'm curious what you find hateful about this? HRC
passed out on 9/11/16 and was dragged into a waiting van. There is a
longstanding meme (in meme-years) about HRC being thrown into the van "like a
side of beef", which explains some comments.

Yes, the comments are crass, but is being crass the same thing as "promoting
violence and hate"?

~~~
pknopf
There was a T_D user who faked a knife attack. He said it was a black person
who did it because "he was white". He immediately posted his bloody hand on
T_D and said "apparently I look like a NAZI".

It was later found out that he made it up. He cut himself.

He did it intentionally to stir up hate for black people. The entire sub is
effectively 4chan. Crass jokes, fake news, subliminal degenerate brainwashing.

It is a breeding ground for people to hate blacks and brown people.

~~~
googlryas
Do you have a link? I can't find anything after some cursory googling. Also,
how did T_D respond when the hoax came out?

Also, do you see a problem with one person doing something bad, and then
blaming a whole group?

~~~
pknopf
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/neo-nazi-
sta...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/neo-nazi-stabbing-
fake-colorado-joshua-witt)

I remember seeing the user post the image on T_D immediately. Can't find it
now, he likely deleted it. It was highly upvoted.

I don't remember seeing a "we are sorry about the fake story" post.

> do you see a problem with one person doing something bad, and then blaming a
> whole group?

I am not saying everyone is lying. I am saying the sub exists to find
incredibly colorful stories that center around white people being attacked and
victimized to stoke hatred against all non-whites.
Muslims/blacks/mexicans/etc.

~~~
googlryas
Here's some threads I can find about it:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6wn655/remember...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6wn655/remember_the_man_stabbed_for_his_neonazi_haircut/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6wp8p6/what_a_l...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6wp8p6/what_a_loser/)

Upvoted quotes: "What a fucking idiot.", "What an Imbecile.", "Did he just
commit self-harm just to get attention? What a retard.", "That's pathetic.
Disavowed.", "On the bright side, someone stabbed him."

If you think that is what T_D is about, you obviously haven't spent much time
there.

------
stronglikedan
I'm sure these bans will be totally fair and unbiased.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Reddit can ban whoever they way from _their_ site, and people will simply
either have to accept it or move to another site.

~~~
stronglikedan
Well of course they can.

------
KGIII
I know it is flagged but I want to thank the mods for not truly killing it. It
was mostly civil. The mods were pretty decent, and deserve our thanks.

For the most part, the comments were pretty good too. I read them all. ;-)

