Sweeping it away - sure, they likely made their lives easier. But what's the real outcome? The real freaks who get off on that stuff will go off to some horrible other site to ferment and radicalize away from the normalising influence of the more well-adjusted participants there, and regular people, who just might have been curious, have been deprived of whatever insights they might have found. I think it's a real shame.
And for what it's worth, I don't think The_Donald should be banned either. People have a right to speak, and we can ignore them if we want - or we can at least try to engage. I don't buy the "private company, they can do what they want!" argument. The age of the internet has introduced powerful network effects into where we can conduct our public discourse with any efficacy - Reddit is huge and there's no real competitor. It's basically a monopoly, in its niche. "Deplatforming" whole groups because of their political views, however nutty, is a very slippery slope. Unless you also support speech you don't like - you don't really support free speech!
Unlike Facebook and Google, which exert truly horrendous amounts of power over very significant aspects of people's lives, Reddit is, fundamentally, just another forum. It even has its older versions open-sourced.
In fact, There are reddit clones where these things are perfectly allowed.
And those clones are cesspits of schizophrenics, fascists, and deeply disturbed people.
the rest is filled with people accelerating the mentally unstable
try treating internet users like human beings first, maybe?
It started as a free speech reddit but it has just turned into a mob mentality with horrendous language and the like.
It makes me wonder if social media is a form of a sort of micro mob mentality. A lot of it really brings out the worst in people.
We all understand that there are people that have a negative influence on every network they participate in. The problem is that banning them is not a long term solution and in many cases it only make things worse. It is the easy one, but it makes impossible to build some difficult conversations.
There are also many different kind of communities and forums, HN is very special in this (no subcommunities, strong moderation clearly stated upfront) many are more like tumblr (as the FAQ put it: "Go nuts, show nuts, whatever").
Reddit is effectively used as a second life, with countless smaller groups, weird circles, and unusual communities. In this regard it is the social network most similar to real live.
Second, these are internet forums, not segregating society.
Third, if being around other people like yourself makes things worse, that isn't a problem that other people can solve for you.
Finally, check out voat, incel groups, the_donald, etc. and see if you think it is just a matter of 'difficult conversation'. There is no rationality to conversations in extremist toxic internet forums. People have an emotional investment and frustration that looks far more like mental illness than actual discord.
Agree, but not always in the direction we want or expect
> Second, these are internet forums, not segregating society.
This is an increasingly irrelevant distinction as we move more and more of our political debates over the internet (How often do people talk IRL with people of opposing view?)
> Third, if being around other people like yourself makes things worse, that isn't a problem that other people can solve for you.
Do you believe the same for addiction? Sorry for the strawman, but it is a silly statement.
>Finally, check out voat, incel groups, the_donald, etc. [...] there is no rationality to conversations in extremist toxic internet forums.
That is entirely the point, if you segregate the extremist and the moderate that is exactly what you get.
Yes, banning more people is the solution to the problem caused by banning too many people (the 'too' is important).
Without getting explicitly political it is important to point out that platforms ban people based on the consequences of not banning them. When you have strong external influences (like journalists asking loaded and threatening questions to create their own stories) platforms become a tool of political activists.
Democracy and eager banning people from political discourse (Reddit less, but don't tell me that twitter is not fundamental in that) do not work well together.
That is true, and also it is not what I argue for.
> If people are addicted to being toxic, they will have to accept the consequences of others' reactions.
Obviously, my problem is that I do not trust this use of toxic.
What I see is contempt for Trump supporters and in general for less mainstream opinion. What I see are journalist that blur the line between what their job should be and explicit political activism with call to actions.
You know what it is that I consider toxic? Actually claiming that a whole section of a demographic is toxic, or too stupid, or just wants to see the world burn.
I have my experience with this, as an Italian I still cannot understand why people voted Berlusconi, yet even worse than another Berlosconi would be being trendy to think "we know better than them, their opinion is second class".
They are a constant barrage of proganda with a steady stream of new people to hate and immediate bans for anyone who questions if something isn't right or if people are going too far. There is a reason that there is now far more right wing terrorism in the west than from any other group. If you think this is just about 'political opinions' then you are misinformed or severely downplaying the reality of what is going on.
And once again, this is just a forum that isn't going to be linked to internally as much. It wasn't even banned. Why would Reddit activly promote a forum like this? They should have done it a long time ago.
My claim is exactly that the situation is as bad as it is exactly for this reason! You can argue this way with everything, if you let a problem fester enough it become easier and easier to claim there is no solution.
> There is a reason that there is now far more right wing terrorism in the west than from any other group.
On the other hand Antifa, who routinely attack minorities and passerby, is often heralded as the defender of justice.
The difference in banning policies for the left and the right is obvious and with non trivial effects.
Honestly I am more worried about how mainstream media is fueling this point of view and turning a blind eye to people calling for political violence.
I do not think I will be able to better communicate my point. There are many factor at play and I must admit that I am not good enough to adequately order them into a coherent argument with enough evidences.
On this topic I rather trust Tim Pool, he is a journalist that often cover this kind of topics.
Here is a random video from some months ago:
If you care to send me a link to kind of resources that can help me see your point I promise to take a look :)
As someone who has dealt with close family members struggling with this horrible affliction, my first thought was to contact Dang and demand your lynching.
Instead I’ll take a breath, live and let live.
How? I've been banned from their subreddit by trying to engage with them (ironic isn't it?).
If anything, this is great, now they have a huge warning on their subreddit that tell pretty clearly that violence is unacceptable. If this is the only way to engage with them, then so be it.
They aren't being deplatformed, the subreddit is still there, they still can post on it (while I still can't ;) ). There's plenty of conservative subreddit not quarantine too if that's really something they consider an issue.
I'm pretty sure too that if they can show that violent speech is now under control, that they'll remove the quarantine.
The real freaks who get off
on that stuff will go off to
some horrible other site to
ferment and radicalize away
from the normalising
influence of the more
well-adjusted participants there.
If the internet truly shaped thought in the way that remark suggests, or nevermind the internet... If it were possible for people to influence one another in that way, by expressing opinions, all opinions would eventually homogenize into a placid average.
What really happens is people stick to their guns and never back down, but sometimes they lose, go quiet, and bottle up their controversy and stew in it until better opportunities come along.
The difference the internet makes is that a wider diversity of opportunities are made available to jump into. The people don't change. They find comfortable places where no one tells them to stop or shut up, even if there's no "censoring" (banning, moderating, deleting or otherwise silencing) of the riff raff.
Here and there, the subsequent outcome to that, is that as birds of a feather flock together, some flocks reach a critical mass. Their noise and biomass becomes big enough that it ruffles the feathers of rivals, and you get collisions. The gang violence then spills out into the open, and the revolting conflict of contrasted polar extremes disgusts all of the outsiders.
But really, these different sorts of people were always running around, it's just that they never joined forces. They never wrote letters, had phone calls, visited, ate lunch together. They were all two towns apart, and total strangers, unknown to their subculture and often unaware of a potential for subculture.
Edit: another commenter mentions HoldMyFeedingTube, which is basically all WPD material and regularly makes the front page
Perhaps I can get a serious answer here since I have yet had anyone explain to me the difference when I ask elsewhere (and rarely is it relevant to bring up here).
Why do we treat videos of murders different than videos of more prurient crimes? Why is it acceptable to host/download/share/watch a video of a murder as long as no sex crime takes place during it? Even videos devoid of any crime except being videotaped can be far more illegal and socially unacceptable than a video of a murder made by the murderer.
And I don't mean those watching it for political/reporting/policing/etc. reasons, but the ones who do so for entertainment.
Even still, I think the question can be applied to either type, though I think the applicability to purposefully recorded videos of murder is stronger.
What I can't understand is how the r/HoldMyFeedingTube shows up frequently for me on the front page. At least with the other two I had to specifically go there to see that kind of content.
It is rather messed up to just be looking at the front page not knowing what that subreddit is and clicking on a silly video only to find out you're watching someone sustain serious bodily injury.
I agree with others that this ban on r/T_D only has to do with the recent media attention.
The thing is, with The_Donald, I don't think anyone could reasonably actually try to engage. Their subreddit has and had some of the most heavy-handed moderation. Read their rules on "concern trolling"  to get a hint of what kind of things they regularly removed. If you read their full rules, you quickly realize that not being a Trump supporter is a top level rule as well. They were a self proclaimed endless rally, and anything that doesn't fit their narrative was removed.
In my opinion, how notoriously heavy handed their moderation was probably amplified how upset the admins were that they had to regularly step in and clean up content. Anti-trump comments are almost always removed within minutes, and so the idea that they were incapable of moderating away things which violated the site guidelines is easily busted.
> "Deplatforming" whole groups because of their political views
But it's not because of their political views, it was because of how they ran their community. There's a huge difference here. There are plenty of conservative communities that remain on Reddit today. The difference is that those communities have chosen to cultivate and moderate a different environment. T_D cultivated a community that produced problematic content on the regular. They amplified the visibility of that problematic content by hiding downvote buttons and making it more difficult to report. They prevented any sort of self-policing in the community with heavy handed moderation that removed any dissenting opinions on almost any topic. For all the cries about censorship, censorship was at the heart of how T_D was run. Any hopes that you had of interaction with better adjusted individuals providing a counterbalance to the predominant content were removed.
In short, T_D is quarantined because they have intentionally developed a toxic echochamber that amplified content that the reddit administrators view as objectively bad enough to ban site-wide. It's not a matter of political views, it's a matter of views on how to run a healthy community, and a true community T_D is not.
That community is definitely for protesting the police, but I haven't seen anything calls for violence like this get upvoted or past the mods:
TD has the population of a midsize city. Of course there are a few violent comments if you look hard enough.
This is like quarantining Hollywood because a few celebrities made death threats in 2017.
Also, if it's now the case that these cop-violence-inciting comments are hidden everywhere, then why does it matter if /r/politics has them too in the first place?
> Just do a 180 turn on gun reforms. They’ll take an armed population more seriously.
> It's because protests don't achieve anything. ... Riots on the other hand...
I think you're doing some motivated reasoning.
Again, that's not the same as just talking about the effects of riots, and at this point I think you have cognitive bias by thinking these things are the same.
And similarly that comment about riots was a suggestion to riot.
This ban wasn't about an isolated instance of calls for violence slipping through. It is the culmination of years of cultivating a community and moderation practices that have made the admins have to interfere a disproportionate amount relative to the rest of reddit. You can find examples of bad behavior from individuals on any subreddit, but can you find a pattern of behavior that breeds and incites it driven by the moderators of a community itself?
It no longer understands what the center is.
Considering Trump won close to 50% of the vote - regardless of that silly electoral college - I don’t see this ending like they think it will.
Perhaps worse, this quarantined state -- which really doesn't accomplish or do anything of substance -- just creates a sense of martyrdom in the already extremely active userbase there. I suspect this will energize them 10-fold.
However, because of this, Reddit is becoming increasingly sterile, single-minded, and most importantly ad-friendly to the point where its fairly difficult to have an honest discussion about anything remotely controversial.
Unfortunately their selective banning of communities that I would associate with the "far-right" has seriously hurt any attempt to migrate away from Reddit (specifically Voat.co is unbearable for me trying to participate).
I don't know if there will ever be a straw to break the camels back, but I have been actively searching for reddit alternatives for years and have not found a truly viable replacement.
Like most media companies, reddit wants to promote its political agenda. It's natural and common (and expected of the traditional media), but since reddit doesn't pay for their own content, can only be done with censorship.
So they're making it difficult to have an honest discussion about anything they have an opinion about.
That's particularly concerning because reddit seems to be a natural monopoly, having operated for years with no successful competition. Perhaps this censorship will be the impetus that finally allows some competition to break through.
Still some possibility there, the leadership is open to fairness and free speech. It's the user base that has rotted.
It’s not the only subreddit with large bot populations, I’m just saying it’s one of the more toxic influential ones.
I guess an alternate explanation is a 10x inflation in the advertising interface, but that would be defrauding the advertisers.
Usually a pretty reliable sign of botism. You see it on corporate driven posts on movie promotions a decent amount too. (Along with some pretty lame top voted comments)
It implies it's unusual traffic, but it does not imply it's inhuman traffic -- doubly so because the difference has already been explained in a way that doesn't require invoking bots.
Somewhat amusingly, after r/the_donald discovered it could push pro-Trump memes onto r/all by making every post on the subreddit about upvoting content, some other subreddits managed to pull off the same stunt in protest.
I'm not backtracking, you're the one who brought up that reflexively upvoting might be indistinguishable from botlike behavior. It's a feature (cultural value), not a bug.
In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views.
I'm talking about private property and the right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
When a group of people create a business this doesn't magically go away.
> In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views.
Certain protected classes are legally protected from discrimination, yes.
To my knowledge "advocating violence" is not a political view; this is what the r/The_Donald is being quarantined for.
Featuring comments with as few as 1 point.
Those are just an excuse to further restrict a community they've restricted several times in the past, without admitting it's for political reasons.
Those are comments from a few fringe users, buried so deep that most people never saw them.
Is that a reason to punish a community of hundreds of thousands of people?
That's like quarantining an entire city because a few people there are violent. That's not a good solution in the real world or online.
What's your criteria for that? You're being pretty slippery right now by dodging questions.
Now will you answer a similar question? I spent a couple minutes looking through a single post on r/politics and found a couple of violent comments:
Do you think r/politics should be quarantined because of those two posts?
Unless that was an extremely unusual post, there are undoubtedly many more. How many more would make you want a quarantine?
You're basically saying that Reddit should never ban subreddits, which means that you don't even have a burden of proof for banning a subreddit. This means no matter what you're always against banning a subreddit on a privately owned website, yet you fawn at other reasons to justify it (fringe users, not enough data points, etc.)
Your proposed solution instead is that admins should police every user, when mods fail to, which just isn't scalable. Especially when the barrier to just creating a new account to bypass the ban is so low.
We've allowed privately owned companies to control the means of communication, without regulation.
It's time to bring back the laws that limited the phone companies and big three TV networks interference in politics, updated for the Internet.
For the most part, yes they are.
For instance, every online business has a Terms of Service detailing many situations in which they will or will not do business with you.
Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. are specific situations in which governments/society have decided that its worth restricting this freedom for the greater good.
The existence of these relatively few exceptions does not negate their overall freedom to do business with whomever they please.
Those aren't representative of the sub. What's the real reason?
R_TheDonald is a forum on someone’s product, there’s a low barrier erected here, they could go buy a url and some servers and continue their speech.
Maybe, but it's a very common demand.
The government is not guaranteeing that they will rebroadcast whatever you want to say, they are just not giving you consequences for saying it.
Businesses aren't imposing consequences of violence on speech, they just are choosing not to be a part of it.
Someone not listening to you is not censorship.
Insisting a private business promote any and all content from anyone whatsoever, no matter how abhorrent or anti-social, in a specific way, seems like a bigger step in the wrong direction.
Content is removed from Reddit every day for violating various subreddit policies; the only thing changing here is the way /r/The_Donald is presented with the rest of the site.
> Since you believe in the paradox of tolerance do you agree that the US shouldn't let Islamic migrants come due to their belief in vile things such as throwing gays off roofs?
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Fascism implies censorship, but censorship does not imply fascism.
That's the first definition I found when I googled the word. Reddit, a private institution, considered the content harmful. Seems to fit the definition.
I would also point out that the_donald has a very aggressive moderation policy where most comments critical of the president are removed, so I don't think there is much room for them to complain about censorship.
Brand new accounts posting trollish or flamebaity stuff get treated differently. Software filters some of those, and we shadowban some of them, especially if there's evidence that this is someone we've banned many times before. The converse is also true: if software has filtered out a new account that's not posting trollishly or flamebaitily, we restore their posts and mark the account legit so it won't happen again.
I think this is a reasonable balance between transparency and defending the site against abuse. If we tried to give every banned account the same high-effort attention that we give established users, we'd do nothing else all day and still not get through them all. That would just be a new vector for people to DoS the moderators. A small number of abusive users can create a large number of disruptions.
Get out of your bubble, arm yourself with some compassion, and go try and understand what motivates people to disrupt the status quo. Most trump supporters hate fascism. You are deluding yourself by tossing a mr. yuck sticker on people you don’t understand.
- Nobody here is saying trump supporters are fascists.
- Nobody here is even saying that the_donald subreddit represents all of Trump supporters.
So why are you playing that card?
GP is talking about the effectiveness of the deplatforming of hate speech in context to a subreddit that has been reported as inciting violence. The same subreddit that supported the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally that resulted in a Neo-Nazi murdering Heather Heyer.
Whether or not you think that extends to all Trump supporters, and are disappointed by that, is your own inference. Don't attack GP because of it though.
Because of the following comments:
>>“On the contrary. Deplatforming fascism works. This removes a small number of tools that they use to recruit. It is step in the right direction.”
I regret engaging in this discussion. I guess it’s time to give up on trying to understand each other’s point of view, because disagreement is currently seen as a personal attack on HN.
This article is probably what triggered it.
What if those two posts referenced in the article were written by the same person, and generally downvoted?
'A worldwide community supporting the violent threats of local militia backing their civilly disobedient politicians efforts to evade the government use of police force to mandate participation and speech' is a super interesting power dynamics story. Whos the oppressor in this story, government use of police force, militia chaos, insubordinate politicians holding process hostage? Is the use of police FORCE to strong arm their votes itself violence? Shouldnt people be banned for supporting police force?
To Godwin's law this topic, would reddit choose to ban advocating prisoner violence towards auschwitz guards, in their efforts to escape? Would the rebels be banned for advocating destruction of the empire and violence towards storm troopers? It doesnt seem like there is a line drawn anywhere, it does appear arbitrary, or biased against violence they disagree with. The actual policy seems more like "ban what gets us bad press." If the rules were enforced consistently, rap music would be banned. I'm not pretending there are easy answers, even the supreme court has been looking at whether rap music is artistic or a credible threat, maybe they arent mutually exclusive. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court...
You are complaining about phrases that are purposely under contextualizing what's going on, but then go on to commit the same thing in your third paragraph by contextualizing it to the holocaust.
I brought up two similar but different types of speech, observers advocating violence towards oppressive authority. If this were an elementary school analogy, prisoners would be the militia not the reddit commentators. The guards and police are both blindly following government orders, whether those orders are right or wrong. Is advocating violence wrong regardless of if the target of said violence is behaving morally or immorally? The topic at hand is where reddit does (or doesnt) draw the line of acceptable speech regarding advocating violence.
- 'get a rope'
- 'So, firing squad time right?'
- 'If he is not fired for this then wtf do we do next? Take matters into our own hands?'
What was Reddit supposed to do? Tolerate death threats on its platform? Then get sued if the person gets murdered?
And this isnt an isolated example.
Probably treat the situation the same way they do in other subreddits. The whole “taking matters into our own hands” and calls for violence against politicians happen in other subreddits, and yet they don’t get quarantined (looking at you, r/politics). Either quarantine them all or none of them.
Meanwhile, r/LateStageCapitalism, a sub whose premise is to induce lust for the guillotine, has been quarantined before because one user was running around yelling about Guillotines in the comments. This would happen periodically.
So the admins changed up the mod team. They kept the Anarchist/Communist asthetic, but Social Democrats run the sub now. And they keep the space guillotine-free.
Of course I am not referring to the worst stuff on that subreddit, there is shit there, and much more than average, but if a sizeable part of the population has views like this is banning it really fair? I worry that banning public speech by a large segment of the population fractures the population that makes things even worse. And once fully separate it leads to even more echo chambering and divergent realities and more problems, not less.
But again that is assuming it is genuine and not trolls or foreign interference and it is truly sizable and not fringe.
I don't think reddit is the measure of acceptable discourse. If the_donald was banned it would just mean that its users would have to find another subreddit or site to use, it says nothing about what type of discourse is generally acceptable. Further, I think it's pretty obvious by now that reddit's problem with the_donald is not related to their political ideas since there other subreddits supportive of the president that have had no conflicts with the site admins (e.g. /r/conservative, /r/republican).
That's the problem though. The mods were repeatedly hostile to any attempts by the admins to handle the more egregious rule violations. The admins have treated them with kid gloves for years now. They were historically one of the worst sources of brigading of other (much smaller) subs. For instance, /r/legaladvice had huge problems with them in the past.
Even the chapo mods complied with the admins when they were asked to crack down on calls for violence... Even though those calls for violence were about _dead_ slave owners... Hard to kill someone already dead.
Edit: Found where I read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/stopadvertising/comments/85vdwo/gro...
Edit 2: my comment was moved from a different thread that was on a TechCrunch article on this. TechCrunch claimed that this quarantine would mean that ads would no longer run on T_D.
This source also shows T_D wasn't on the whitelist, since it was on of the subs being protested by /r/stopadvertising.
The result was that after the banning of the just as toxic "fatpeoplehate", admins were loathe to interfere with t_d. Any administrative response was met with charges of politicization, "liberal bias", and more rule-breaking.
I'm surprised it's taken this long, but it appears that Reddit's staff waited until they had an obviously non-partisan reason for doing it. In this case, threatening police officers. I think they wanted to wait until they had a reason that would be difficult for people to turn into a partisan brawl that would give Reddit bad publicity.
Imagine if you will the difficulty conservative sites may have in threading the needle that t_d is simultaneously being persecuted here for their conservative, pro-Trump political views, and that the particular views they were banned for were making violent threats to law enforcement.
Scroll down and read the screenshots. It doesn't quite matter what the subreddit praised before when they still broke the rules.
A lot of those screenshots are "1 point, 11 minutes ago" or "2 points, 17 minutes ago". If that's being expanded to cover an entire subreddit, then no sub would be safe when applied consistently.
You're making a textbook No True Scotsman.
- 49 votes, 9 hours ago
- 27 votes, 7 hours ago
- 53 points, 1 day ago
- 66 points, 1 day ago
Go do a sockpuppet and do the same! That won't last long and you'll get down-voted heavily.
"None of this gets fixed without people picking up rifles."
- 49 votes, 9 hours ago
"The only way to get it back is to burn Portland and Eugene to the ground."
- 27 votes, 7 hours ago
"No problems shooting a cop trying to strip rights from Citizens."
- 53 points, 1 day ago
"Where is the militia to help protect this man?"
- 66 points, 1 day ago
They were quarantined, not banned. I honestly doubt they'll get banned at this rate, it was headlines like  that got it quarantined.
I think if other subreddits behaved similarly to t_d, they would have been banned, and much more swiftly.
As evidence of that bias, consider their curation of r/popular, where they choose what to show.
They actively promote posts from the left and actively hide posts from the right. For example, this 18 hour old Democrat talking point  with 10k net upvotes is displayed before numerous posts that received 3x to 8x as many net upvotes in less time.
And extreme left wing subs continue to be featured on r/popular (many brigading and harassing right wing subs) while reddit restricts right wing subs.
So first you claim that any other popular subreddit would have as much admin intervention, but then you say that we shouldn't actually investigate this claim because even if we found that you were wrong, you're still right?
Also the "net upvotes" that Reddit displays are not literal net upvotes. Those numbers are fudged in order to prevent conveying too much information. Reddit skews liberal, this is no surprise. The height of a post depends on what subs you are subscribed to, and on r/all it depends on the preference of everybody else. Which skews liberal.
It's clear that TD suffers much more scrutiny and restriction from the admins.
I was simply refuting your "tens of thousands of subreddits" comment.
> One of reddit's most active subs would naturally demand more than most of those ten thousand mostly niche subs.
This clearly implies that the amount of admin intervention in r/The_Donald is highly correlated with its popularity rather the relative toxicity of the subreddit, no?
Now you're changing the subject to "any other popular subreddit" which was not in the comment I replied to and thus was obviously not what I was talking about.
To make that clear, I'm saying there's a correlation between popularity and number of interventions, but that's not the only factor. Admin bias is another factor, and I'm sure there are others I can't think of at the moment.
As for "relative toxicity", TD isn't any more toxic than other political subs on reddit. The whole place is a cesspool. Unless you fit in perfectly with the group on any political sub you'll be treated badly. But right wing subs suffer additional toxicity from the admins.
This claim that "other subs are just as toxic" seems to be a common refrain among TD supporters (as well as white nationalist hate subs). Do you have any evidence to support this?
So I spent a few minutes yesterday reading part way down the comments on a single post in r/politics and found similar comments advocating violent resistance to the government.
If someone were as motivated as Media Matters I'm sure they could find much, much more. If you doubt that I encourage you to investigate a bit yourself.
Interpreting these actions as site admins intentionally making it more difficult for moderators of that subreddit is cognitive dissonance.
He posted about it in advance on r/The_Donald. People cheered him on.
There are a few other subreddits like this and they all appear to work in a similarly ephemeral way. It's odd to me how they use the system. It's similar to 4chan in the ephemerality but it's more like IRC.
On the contrary, at least one study found that what you describe does not happen. Rather, a quantitative reduction in hate speech was observed when Reddit banned a number of toxic subreddits in 2015.
Inhabitants either moved off the platform entirely (accounts that frequented those subs ceased to be active) or those that stayed appeared to modulate their behaviour to conform to the norms of less-toxic subs.
Among social sciences a single study has very little weight. Given how often it is quoted despite this signals a flaw in popular cultures relationship with the field.
Sure. "I feel like ..." has absolutely no evidentiary weight, though, so in this case, a little weight is strictly preferable to nothing.
> Given how often it is quoted despite this signals a flaw in popular cultures relationship with the field.
I'd say rather it signals a blind spot in the social sciences, where researchers are failing to investigate emerging online phenomenon wrt communities and moderation in significant numbers.
More studies confirming or disproving the results of this one would, of course, be preferable. But we should hardly apologize for turning to what little study and evidence there is rather than pulling "this will cause X to happen" assertions directly from our asses.
Apologies, it appears I wasn't clear. I meant the extent that psychology and sociology studies in any part of their fields are quoted when there is only a single study, not just in relationship to internet/social media.
>But we should hardly apologize for turning to what little study and evidence there is rather than pulling "this will cause X to happen" assertions directly from our asses.
The difference is in the latter case we are well aware of the origin, while in the former case many can mistaken think there is the full weight of science behind the findings comparable to the theory of gravity or evolution. They shouldn't make the mistake, but I've seen it made enough times.
They may be, they may not be. So far we have evidence that, in general, banning a sub doesn't result in it simply diasporaing into other subs. "Something different will happen this time because I feel like it will" isn't a terribly compelling counter-argument in and of itself. Absent new evidence, and given the evidence already in hand, this seems like a reasonable move to me.
> Political-related speech won't disappear from Reddit, especially with an election year coming up.
I don't think Reddit is attempting to "eliminate political-related speech" in general so much as the "I'm ready and willing to put a bullet in an Oregon cop's skull" speech that was being given free-reign in this subreddit?
But again, that's probably not what they're trying to do so much as get people to give up on talking about organizing ad-hoc assassination squads of law enforcement officers
For reddit, that's their specialty. That's a solved problem. In their specific case their subreddit user groups don't act as filter bubbles. By some miracle they largely act as intended... As communities for like minded individuals to share their interests and largely in a positive context.
The money and advertising and focus is always on the "front page" and the jockeying for position to make headlines and drive traffic to affiliates but this is a huge distraction.
Reddit should focus on investing in the positive and great communities that are built on the site. Build tools to help these communities do what they do even better and use more front page real estate to drive people to these positive experiences since they already exist today. That's the real value of reddit.
Some censorship is inevitable, some bad actors need to be expelled from the site, but ultimately you need to lift up the good examples, not just play "bop a troll"
> While they can be offensive and antagonistic to the rest of Reddit, we have not found them to be in consistent violation of our content policies.
Representative quote: A user wrote, “Rifles are the only way we're going to get any peace in our lives ever again,” adding, “It's either war and we get rid of these guys or a lifetime of listening to this shit over and over again start getting yourself ready.”
Of course I am not referring to the worst stuff on that subreddit, there is shit there but if a sizeable part of the population has views like this is banning it really fair? I worry that banning public speech by a large segment of the population fractures the population that makes things even worse. And once fully separate it leads to even more echo chambering and divergent realities and more problems, not less.
That's a great and concise way to describe what those people have done, or are trying to do. I've seen it on several old forums or games, like the Something Awful Goons invading Eve Online with the stated aim of ruining the game for everyone else.
It's this weird immature streak of "everyone pay attention to me" that these hateful vandals thrive upon. They have to be the only ones making noise, and everyone must listen to that noise. If things don't happen exactly like they want, they throw fits, threaten, and whine as a group so much that people give in just to shut them up. And since it's just attention that is being sought, any actions are valid, good or bad. Appeals to admins/moderators, spamming, arguing in bad faith, harassing others, defacing the site or simply breaking as much as they can. How that attention seeking validates these people, I have no idea.
/r/politics is only left-leaning because of how heavily skewed right american politics is. Most of their opinions are centrist at best. Their obsession with trump is a bit annoying, but it's only annoying, not actively harmful.
This seems like it would be easy to replicate this on any subreddit, doesn't it?
Get a group of people and deliberately target subreddits in various hours of the day with calls for violence, and then report them to the admins of reddit.
Wouldn't this, in theory at least, quarantine any subreddit?
Something doesn't add up here.
During 2016 on Facebook, similar spamming tactics were used to shut down many pages promoting Bernie Sanders.
If it really were something orchestrated by users of T_D, then why would they report it to reddit? It's more likely that outside forces had a hand in this.
I was merely commenting how easy is to do this to other subreddits, so any subreddit can get banned etc.
So maybe Reddit should reconsider their position on banning solely because of this, if this is in fact the only reason they quarantined T_D.
What part of my post do you find it to be 'conspiracy' ?
That's the reason they stated for the quarantine - that's official and confirmed. I quote: “encouragement of violence towards police officers and public officials in Oregon” 
Since they remove all such posts from there (also can be proved by searching through the subreddit), that must mean that the speed of removal was the ultimate reason, right?
The mods said something similar I believe: “It would seem they’ve set up an impossible standard as a reason to kill us before the 2020 election.” 
I think "impossible standard" means that nobody can delete the posts faster than that.
If you accept all of this on face value (guy posts on subreddit, mods don't react "quick enough", subreddit gets quarantined - end of story), then good for you!
I've got a bridge to sell you :)
 - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/26/reddit-the-d...
TD has always been toxic, racist, and bigoted, it was just a matter of time before this happened. I think it happening near an election cycle is just coincidence, I think more the civil-war inciting of the current events in Oregon is at play here.
that is not true
> Trump began his reelection campaign unusually early for an incumbent President. He began spending for his reelection effort within weeks of his election, and officially filed his campaign with the Federal Election Commission on the day of his inauguration.
> He began spending for his reelection effort within weeks of his election, and officially filed his campaign with the Federal Election Commission on the day of his inauguration.
> On June 18, 2019, Trump held an official campaign launch event at the Amway Center in Orlando, Florida
Years from now, controversy will still roil. Historians will have a colorful character to teach about.
Is the Millenial generation just so indoctrinated that they can't see how destructive what they are doing is? When you side with the left, you are making a very clear statement about the value of individual human lives (zero). Try having a little self-worth.
An estimated 262 million people were murdered by their own governments between 1900 and 1999. That toll is a silent testimonial about misplaced trust and idealism. It is real, it is reality--bodies stacked like cordwood, piled by the thousands, mass graves, misery beyond comprehension. Are we doomed to repeat that? If so, in the next conflagration it will be billions.
Selfishness is the root of it. Can you imagine giving up your place of superiority so that someone else gets a chance? They can't.
We don't want a world where opposition groups are regularly trying to astroturf calls for violence in the other group. This guarantees escalation; some of these calls will be carried through.