Also still to be uncovered is what role Reddit (and potentially mods/employees) played in the election. It is no secret that Reddit was HEAVILY targeted by Russia (and still is). If I were a potential investor, I'd want to be much more confident in the accuracy of their user counts and growth. There's a LOT of fake accounts there.
- Cards Against Humanity buys plot of land on U.S./Mexico border to block border wall
- Sessions: I Can Remember Only the Parts of 2016 That Exonerate Me
- RNC cuts off Moore
- Secret Finding: 60 Russian Payments "To Finance Election Campaign Of 2016”
- Fox News' Shepard Smith hits Trump for 'inaccurate' claims on Uranium One deal
- Site Altered HeadlineJeff Sessions: 'Not enough evidence' for special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton
- Troll Smearing Roy Moore Accuser Stole Dead SEAL's Identity
- Senate GOP to add repeal of Obamacare insurance mandate into tax bill
- Roy Moore challenged Alabama law that protects rape victims, documents reveal
- If Republicans believe Roy Moore’s accusers, why not Trump’s?
- The FBI is examining why Russia transferred nearly $400,000 to its embassies 'to finance' the 'election campaign of 2016'
- Pence NFL Stunt Cost Indianapolis Police Department $14K
Let's look at r/worldnews:
- Australia's same-sex marriage postal survey: 61.6% yes, 38.4% no
- 'Tobacco at a cancer summit': Trump coal push savaged at climate conference: The US administration’s attempt to portray fossil fuels as vital to reducing poverty and saving US jobs is ridiculed in Bonn
- Russia tried to use computer game footage to prove that the U.S. is helping ISIS
- Trudeau says he raised human rights issues with Duterte after Trump didn’t
- Sessions changes statement about Trump campaign and Russia. “I do now recall”
- Russia used 419 fake accounts to tweet about Brexit, data shows
- Israeli police 'have sufficient evidence to charge Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with fraud and accepting gifts worth hundreds of thousands of shekels including demanded free cigars and champagne from associates.
- Trump Served Shark Fin Soup in Vietnam—A Delicacy Driving Sharks to Extinction: Shark finning is illegal in the U.S and regulated in 21 countries. It involves cutting the fins from live sharks for shark fin soup, and throwing the shark back into the ocean.
- Secret Finding: 60 Russian Payments "To Finance Election Campaign Of 2016”
If it were me, I'd be for more worried as an investor about the virtues of their founders (e.g. Ohanian sacking Victoria then backstabbing Yishan and Ellen, Huffman abusing site admin to edit user comments) etc and how it generally very much misaligns with their original grassroots pre-superPAC pro-Ralph Nader/Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders (before he turned into a Tom Perez mouthpiece) crowd that's its userbase.
Plus, it's a bit of an equivocation to suggest that today's top posts can be evidence that an influence campaign a year ago didn't work - the campaign was a year ago, not today.
There's a distinct shift in the tone of r/politics. There's a pre-DNC nomination / pre-CTR, pro-Jill Stein, pro-Gary Johnson, pro-Bernie Sanders, anti-Hillary, no-body-cares-about-any-Republicans-because-they're-irrelevant, Democrats-still-nominally-should-represent-working-labor, generally pro grassroots anti hegemonic aristocracy sentiment. A single dimensional left-right axis does huge disservice to clear political discourse but I guess you can say Reddit used to still be representative of the general coastal progressive crowd and it's left-leaning. That is, economically more left-socialistic than a center-right Obama, socially more progressive than a left-leaning Obama, very right-conservative than a very left-interventionist Obama foreign policy, very left-high-social-mobility vs a right-establishment Obama's balance of power.
Then there's a hard shift to a pro-Hillary/establishment or you're a sexist/racist/bigot/redneck/Russian spy/religious zealot/white/rural/non college educated strawman dichotomy. I definitely wouldn't say r/politics is left-leaning. See how far you'll get if you want to talk about leftist topics like DAPL opposition, Yemen bombing opposition, Keith Ellison support, Tulsi Gabbard support, single payer support, military budget increase opposition etc.
> efforts appeared to be focused on motivating the Republican base to vote for Trump, and to drive Clinton voters to apathy or complacency. Neither of these would be achieved by trying to convince Clinton's fervent supporters on r/politics.
Sounds like you're referring to something other than r/politics. What are you referring to?
No, 100% of it focussed on dividing and weakening America, guaranteeing that whoever won would be in a weaker position from which to counter Russian geopolitical efforts.
More than any high level official, Clinton has a sparkling track record of financial pliability towards Russian interest. A 0.5 million speech for Bill Clinton to a Russian bank was pretty much all it took for 20% of US uranium assets. With insiders like Tony Podesta, a Clinton presidency is like a Russian wet dream. Even Clinton campaign's internal self assessment of their own candidate's relative strengths and weaknesses highlighted her being pretty much a Russian agent as being one of her top vulnerabilities as a candidate.
Clinton has her share of hawkish tendencies but only to countries that are principled and didn't bribe her. Unlike the Republicans that are the original neocons and empire builders, Clinton wasn't ideological. Weapons, chemicals, anything was for everyone, Algeria, Egypt, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, anything was for grabs for cheap.
Another Republican would have been far more damaging for the Russians whereas a Clinton presidency would have been an extremely rare opportunity.
It has been confirmed by the intelligence community that a general theme of the interference was that they wanted to ruin Hillary specifically. I suggest you get up to speed on the official findings that have been declassified and released.
I also suggest you read up on the Uranium One situation as what you are portraying is very different from what the facts say, and follow a debunked narrative. In fact, in his Wednesday testimony this week, AG Sessions indicated it did not currently merit a special prosecutor due to lack of evidence.
If you'd like to continue this debate and making claims, I request that you back them up with credible sources.
> > Reddit's (POST-IPO) revenue model will make it the most profitable company in the world....
> > > Reddit's (POST - IPO) revenue model is LOOT CRATES.
So what is it that now makes it an IPO candidate presumably worth many magnitudes of what it was to Conde Nast?
Unless Reddit tanks completely, their shares must still be worth something!
Mine would be a system connecting multiple entities for the purpose of socializing... or something like that.
So I'd say yes, imo.
That being said, I do think the ability to create small communities and organize that way could just be considered a different way of modeling connections. Rather than peer-to-peer links, you have topic groups as the primary structure.
There's definitely a spectrum, though, and I would be willing to accept it if somebody made the argument that Reddit wasn't a social network.
Reddit exposed you to new ideas and people. Some good and mostly bad but it is much more "Social" in action.
They are completely redesigning and rewriting the website from scratch with the objective of turning into an actual social network. Look what the new user profiles look like: https://www.reddit.com/user/spladug
Microblogging platform that allows your to embed images and video. Has the same harassment, hate and political controversies that Twitter has. The only difference is community moderation, which can be seen as good or bad. It will be interesting what community moderation occurs after its a public company.
You can have free speech or you can have "hate speech."
Hate is an emotion, a label people apply to the way they feel. The way you feel is your choice. Emotions and feelings are variable and subjective.
Freedom is absolute and objective, something is free or it isn't.
it's exciting to imagine
What exactly excites you about such a scenario, from an open discourse and marketplace of ideas perspective?
I think tolerating hate speech will eventually cause all speech to become hate speech.
Are you sure? My country defines it in a legal sense, along with many others.