Reddit's biggest pro-Donald forum disappears from the website's most popular page.

[Deleted]

If you were trying to open a forum for ALL views, then yes, that would be hypocritical.

Reddit, however, has clear terms of use; https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement/
https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy

Things that are banned include anything that;
- encourages or incites violence,
- threatens, harasses, bullies anyone, or encourages such
- any kind of personal info (doxxing)

and a note that their rules are meant to be followed in spirit, and that looking for loopholes to get around them is pointless. Reddit was never the free-for-all you people claim it was. There's no hypocrisy at all.

It's a subversive act of censorship after building themselves up on the premise of free speech.

[Daelak]

And you would be wrong. Fascism is predominantly a right wing ideology. But thanks for playing.

Not even predominantly. It's literally neo-confederacy Deep Southern authoritarian society; he worships it, look at his avatar.

[Fahrenheit]

I'm kinda surprised they a didn't shut it down a year ago. All politics aside, it's the most toxic sub I've ever seen and I suspect a quarter or more of the posters are paid Russian propaganda trolls.

[Orbitus]

Not even predominantly. It's literally neo-confederacy Deep Southern authoritarian society; he worships it, look at his avatar.

I know. It is kinda sad though, considering he is from Sweden, one of the most liberal countries in the world. I mean, if Trump had his way, he would be one of the first to go.

[Leadsop]

Welcome to social media. They censor, delete, and block anything not liberal. Happened during the election yet the left still lost. Keep it up though, it really helps the division of America by not allowing the other side equal platform.


[Infracted]

Huh. Someone posts something negative about liberalism's behavior on social media and Endus infracts it.

It's almost like clockwork.

[unfilteredJW]

Huh. Someone posts something negative about liberalism's behavior on social media and Endus infracts it.

It's almost like clockwork.

Huh. Someone breaks the forum rules, gets infracted, and someone cries about moderation.

It's almost like clockwork.

[Daelak]

I know. It is kinda sad though, considering he is from Sweden, one of the most liberal countries in the world. I mean, if Trump had his way, he would be one of the first to go.

I am kind of sad for him, being brainwashed by anglo superiority pablum.

[Deleted]

Huh. Someone breaks the forum rules, gets infracted, and someone cries about moderation.

It's almost like clockwork.

What rules? Half the time people breaking the rules don't get infracted or in the case of my last infraction* which was for pointing out some racism with a silly picture. Ignored racist comment but infract for silly picture.

* not endus BTW.

[Elba]

I love how you guys have become so insanely radical that people who considered themselves anti-SJWs are now being called SJWs by you and your ilk because we point out your dumbass horseshit too.

Keep on being a crazy. How does it feel to be as hilarious ridiculous as those you malign? God I love Horseshoe Theory.

The irony here is that I would call you an alt-righter for opposing Gamerghazi.

[Danner]

Yeah, no. You're just badmouthing Reddit because they're not willing to sacrifice their own rights in the ways you want them to. Your position isn't rooted in some "ideal", because fundamentally, you're trying to restrict Reddit's options, even if just "idealistically". That's an assault on the concept of freedom of speech, right there. And yet, somehow, you think you're defending the concept.

This is how free speech works. Everyone's rights get defended. Not just the users you want to support. Reddit's rights too.

I cannot agree with worldview. And if you think I am here to support /r/the_donald you are entirely misinterpreting me. This is a matter of disagreeing with what they say, but defending the right to say it. And I'm even loathe to do so, because in my opinion, /r/the_donald are pretty disruptive to any reddit argument.

My argument is about ideals. Though our ideals here clearly seem to clash.

Reddit has the right to forcibly shut down any speech they do not want on their platform. That's because it is their platform.
It doesn't mean it is right to do so. At the end of the day, one party is denied the option to express an idea. That is what you call everyone's rights being defended, but what I call failing to uphold the ideals of free speech.

The end decider here is obviously Reddit. They do not have to allow any given expression. And there are ideas there may be very good reasons to deny expressing. I'm saying this isn't simple enough to categorically and non-negotiably claim is solved in one universal answer.

There is an ideal we all should strive for. An ideal where everyone does have the opportunity to express and receive ideas. That is freedom of expression.

Neither.

Facebook would have been fine to continue to eliminate that image. They decided that their standards didn't warrant them doing so, on reconsideration, which is why they put the images back up. It wasn't a "victory for free speech", nor was the PM "bullying" anyone. They had a discussion, and Facebook changed their minds on that particular ruling. That's it.

So, your one-word answer is actually the same as mine. Which was really the point of me asking that question. The answer isn't categorically black and white.

Yet that answer is in sharp contrast to your answer on the Reddit scenario, where any opposition to reddits view is, in your words, "an assault on the concept of freedom of speech" conveyed by yours truly.

Tell me, why is

• the PM of Norway tweeting that Facebook should heed their responsibility as a platform for societal debate a "discussion whereupon Facebook changed their minds on that particular ruling"
• me posting on that Reddit should heed their responsibility as a platform for societal debate me "badmouthing Reddit because they're not willing to sacrifice their own rights in the ways I want them to"

This is inconsistent standards. Either the PM of norway is also badmouthing Facebook because they are not willing to dance to her demands. Or I have a point.

[Allybeboba]

Well given your posting history I'm pretty certain that if google only showed news from white supremacist or nazi websites you'd be jumping for joy. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

There it is, fifth post in. Didn't take long at all.

[alexw]

There it is, fifth post in. Didn't take long at all.

What? For me to point out the fact that he is a self-proclaimed ethno-nationalist/neo-Nazi? I mean he's said this himself about himself. But well done on you in defending him, birds of a feather flock together as they say.

Here are some of his past statements -

"We need to get nationalism indoctrination in our schools."

"Im in favor of disbanding the EU. And perhaps the eastern block remade, this time under strong nationalist leadership."

"You dont see it, dont you? For example 2 years ago all Hitler videos on youtube had negative comments and big dislike bars, check them now.

A recent video of Paul Joseph Watson who bashed a bit a white supremacy group, had major dislike bar and negative comments, not in line with his other videos. No one gives a shit about alt right or tea party or w/e republican shit, only FAR RIGHT NATIONALISTS matter now.

All far right wings grow, and all traitors should be concerned."

"I hope one day to see nationalism being preached at the school, duty to the nation and to the family."

"I admire the slavs for their nationalism.. Tough men, not cucked up feminine trash. Fucking proud to stand in eastern europe right now!"

"So i plan making 5 children, and to those children ill give a a right wing nationalist education, and from them i expect atleast 2-3 children of their own."

[Endus]

I cannot agree with worldview. And if you think I am here to support /r/the_donald you are entirely misinterpreting me. This is a matter of disagreeing with what they say, but defending the right to say it. And I'm even loathe to do so, because in my opinion, /r/the_donald are pretty disruptive to any reddit argument.

My argument is about ideals. Though our ideals here clearly seem to clash.

Reddit has the right to forcibly shut down any speech they do not want on their platform. That's because it is their platform.
It doesn't mean it is right to do so. At the end of the day, one party is denied the option to express an idea. That is what you call everyone's rights being defended, but what I call failing to uphold the ideals of free speech.

The reason our ideals "clash" is because I'm a pretty staunch defender of free speech.

Nobody had their right to speak denied. Every single participant at /r/the_donald is free to keep saying whatever they were/are saying on that subreddit. Even if reddit had closed it completely (which I'll note they haven't), they could use any other venue they like to keep communicating that message.

Reddit isn't "forcibly shutting down speech." They're just saying "you're not going to broadcast that speech on our private platform". They're free to take it to any other platform that'll have them. Their rights are preserved, completely. And attempt to prevent Reddit from restricting the use of their platform in this way is an attack on Reddit's freedom of speech. Because that right extends to controlling what they broadcast. They aren't a public utility. They have rights too, and that's what you folks keep ignoring.

[Danner]

The reason our ideals "clash" is because I'm a pretty staunch defender of free speech.

Nobody had their right to speak denied. Every single participant at /r/the_donald is free to keep saying whatever they were/are saying on that subreddit. Even if reddit had closed it completely (which I'll note they haven't), they could use any other venue they like to keep communicating that message.

Reddit isn't "forcibly shutting down speech." They're just saying "you're not going to broadcast that speech on our private platform". They're free to take it to any other platform that'll have them. Their rights are preserved, completely. And attempt to prevent Reddit from restricting the use of their platform in this way is an attack on Reddit's freedom of speech. Because that right extends to controlling what they broadcast. They aren't a public utility. They have rights too, and that's what you folks keep ignoring.

Yet you keep on missing or dodging the point here.

Everything you just said I can agree with (except the first sentence). That doesn't change that there is an ideal of free speech.

The UN human rights is a statement of that ideal.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


This is not a law. It's a statement that ideas should be sharable without interference.

Reddit closing some ideas contrasts that ideal. though I fully agree it is their right to do so. Sometimes it may even be fully necessary to do so. That doesn't change that there is an ideal of free speech, where you should not do that.

And people like you, telling people like me, that pressuring/discussing to heed the ideal is an "assault on freedom of speech" - that's bullshit. Trying to justify it in the name of free speech requires a level of mental gymnastics I do not condone.

Also, you didn't answer the question. What is the difference between the PM of Norway tweeting about Facebook's rules, and me posting about Reddit's rules? You approved one of these, and condemned the other.

[The Oblivion]

they should honestly remove all the political shit from popular. not just one sides, r/politics is not much less swampy

[StayTuned]

everyone who says it's "just a private forum, they can do whatever they want", didn't think anything through far enough.

Reddit, Twitter and co. have wide reaching audiences with real world impact. And as long as they want to ACT as the forum for PUBLIC VOICE they can be held to whatever standards the public wants them to have.

They have become a serious threat to free speech, intelligent and rational thought and open, friendly speech. Let's not pretend that only one side is toxic

[Kronik85]

everyone who says it's "just a private forum, they can do whatever they want", didn't think anything through far enough.

Reddit, Twitter and co. have wide reaching audiences with real world impact. And as long as they want to ACT as the forum for PUBLIC VOICE they can be held to whatever standards the public wants them to have.

They have become a serious threat to free speech, intelligent and rational thought and open, friendly speech. Let's not pretend that only one side is toxic

There is no universal concept of "Free Speech". Every country in the world has it's own take so to pretend that "the public" has one view of what or what not should be permissible is a fallacy. As far as the internet is concerned the most sensible option is to let a site conduct itself by it's own standards and let it's audience decide whether or not they want to continue visiting the site, if they lose enough traffic because of such policies then the site will take notice and decide for itself whether it wants to review its policies or not.

[StayTuned]

There is no universal concept of "Free Speech". Every country in the world has it's own take so to pretend that "the public" has one view of what or what not should be permissible is a fallacy. As far as the internet is concerned the most sensible option is to let a site conduct itself by it's own standards and let it's audience decide whether or not they want to continue visiting the site, if they lose enough traffic because of such policies then the site will take notice and decide for itself whether it wants to review its policies or not.

I can see where you're coming from but these platforms have too much irl influence to just leave it at that. What people say on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit is often literally newsworthy. It changes public discord and sways discussions and opinions one way or the other. To the point where you cannot let them do as they please. If you allow one side to have a public discussion, you gotta own up to it and allow the other side to do the same.

With a board such as mmo champ, your approach is probably the best approach. Who cares about what I or anyone else says here, other than those members of mmo who maybe read it.

A viral Tweet is probably read by millions plus some presidents or sum shit.

[Flarelaine]

What? For me to point out the fact that he is a self-proclaimed ethno-nationalist/neo-Nazi?

His shtick lately seems to be jumping into a thread and triumphantly declaring a Godwin. Do not feel singled out.

[Kronik85]

I can see where you're coming from but these platforms have too much irl influence to just leave it at that. What people say on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit is often literally newsworthy. It changes public discord and sways discussions and opinions one way or the other. To the point where you cannot let them do as they please. If you allow one side to have a public discussion, you gotta own up to it and allow the other side to do the same.

With a board such as mmo champ, your approach is probably the best approach. Who cares about what I or anyone else says here, other than those members of mmo who maybe read it.

A viral Tweet is probably read by millions plus some presidents or sum shit.

I see where you're coming from but for the rest of the world your position is uniquely American. If you want to argue that these giants have a public duty because of their massive audiences then we have to decide what that duty is. For you it seems to be that they should give everyone a platform to say whatever they want but for others that duty should be to firmly control what sort of discussion the site wishes to foster and to moderate that discussion.

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong or denigrating the American value of Free Speech, just pointing out that there is no universal standard and everyone does it differently. Since these companies are multinational and the internet can't be confined to one countries specific laws the only way forward is to let these companies do as they see fit and decide upon their own solutions. I'm not saying this because of my own philosophy but merely out of practicality, as things stand it's the only working option.