Reddit Bans Subreddits Related To Selling Guns, Drugs, Sex, and More (bloomberg.com) 277
New submitter cornholed writes: Yesterday, Reddit updated their Content Policy forbidding transactions for certain goods and services. From the formal announcement on Reddit: "As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including: firearms, ammunition, or explosives; drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances (except advertisements placed in accordance with our advertising policy); paid services involving physical sexual contact; stolen goods; personal information; falsified official documents or currency." Bloomberg has an interesting write-up on how Reddit is wading into the gun control debate. See this post on Reddit for a full-list of all subreddits banned. "Reddit has been something of a Wild West for users building communities by curating and commenting on content in subreddits," reports Bloomberg. "Sometimes, as in the case with gun sales, marketplaces emerge in the course of conversations within specific communities. With Reddit's increased popularity -- the site is the sixth-most-visited in the world -- has come introspection and stricter content guidelines. The company recognizes its responsibility for having provided a platform for hate groups to flourish and, more recently, the possibility that Russian propaganda on the site may have played a role in influencing the 2016 presidential election."
time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what's called a paradox.
Re:time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
It just needs a moderation protocol on top of it. Let people subscribe to what ever moderation service they want to read USENET with.
Re: (Score:2)
It just needs a moderation protocol on top of it. Let people subscribe to what ever moderation service they want to read USENET with.
You'll still get people whining about censorship, just as they did whne Twitter (or some 3rd party for twitter) did something similar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most nntp servers have hooks for hooks to check content.
Just make sure that every post is at an 8th grade reading level.
Offer paid 'moderation services'. For $1/month you can get a 'white list' of comments to fetch and read and all of the spam gets modded immediately at -10 because they don't.
Or this: https://xkcd.com/810/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Then they can unsubscribe from that 'moderation server' and subscribe to another one.
Everyone talking at once in one place would be great, let people choose what filter they want to see the world through.
Real life intrudes (Score:2)
People whining about censorship. In this case you'd get people whining about the lack of censorship. I need someone else to ensure I don't see anything which might be ugly or disagree with my worldview. I wonder how soon before some one sues Caltrans for there be an accident on the freeway. Not in the sense of there being an accident but that they had to witness the 'horror' and tragedy of real life and were forever damaged because of it...
Re: (Score:2)
ggAutoBlock was decried as censorship and persecution, even though it was entirely voluntary. The creator was harassed. Creating and maintaining such lists is going to be a thankless, punishing task.
Re: (Score:3)
Put the spam on a blockchain, and let the AI train on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what's called a paradox.
Shitty people ruin good things for everyone. News at 11.
Re: (Score:3)
More precisely an "oxymoron" :D
Re:time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
The complete antithesis to free speech would be if you were forced to spread messages you disagree with.
Oh, you mean like a baker forced to bake a wedding cake with a pro-same-sex marriage message when it's against his (Christian) religion? (Muslims get a pass)
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That was the official rationale, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Being forced to contribute to someone else's speech is still forced speech. Moreover, issues of free speech aside, being forced to provide any service against your will is slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, because there is absolutely no creativity allowed when baking.
Re:time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that the cake did not have "homosexuality is great" written on it in frosting. If it did, you might have a point. Otherwise you're grasping desperately at straws.
No, that *was exactly* the point. The bakery and owner in question had served this lesbian couple on multiple occasions prior knowing they were a gay couple. They sold them goods each time with no problem at all. The message on the cake was the sticking-point that went too far. Even then, the baker offered recommendations for other bakeries that he felt were good shops that would have no problem with their message and provide good quality and value.
That was not good enough and they filed the discrimination complaint. Why are Muslim-owned halal bakeries never challenged? It seems Christians are considered "safe targets" for attacks on their religion but not Muslims in the US. This tells me it's not about principle at all, it's about attacking other's beliefs with which you disagree, but only those others you are confident are too civilized to attack back. It's about bigotry and hatred and not about equal rights and protections.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
But the bakers in question weren't even restricting sales to the couples, merely the special order of a wedding cakes. In at least 2 of these cases the shops in question had already sold to the complaining couples with full knowledge of their sexual orientation. They had no issue with selling to gay couples for normal general goods (general cakes, cookies, cupcakes etc..) it was only the sale of wedding cakes that they refused.
Wedding cakes are, in almost all cases, special order cakes and take a lot more
Re:time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is Catered censors ---- In other words, censors who are Approved by the group they are censoring, For example:
in a "Gun Sales forum" --- the censors would act according to the wishes of THAT community and not be subject to the OVERALL Public opinion or scrutiny by a Corporate overlord, And then: effective means in place of monitoring the usage and cancelling or revoking the censorship powers in the event that one of the approved censors becomes rogue and starts going against the desires of THAT PARTICULAR community.
PROBABLY the idea would be to have a means of marking spam so it's hidden by default, But concerned citizens can turn on an advanced feature and see all the "Deleted" or "Censored" messages.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this essentially what reddit already has? Community moderators on a per-subreddit basis?
Re:time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this essentially what reddit already has? Community moderators on a per-subreddit basis?
Yes... Unfortunately reddit also has Site Admins who can exercise independent authority over any Post, Article, and can even destroy an entire Sub. And the unwanted censorship actions are coming from the Global Site Admins group, not the moderators.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Such sites already exist, e.g. Voat will continue to allow this content and is largely community moderated.
Sometimes it works, sometimes the lack of detached, outside influence leads to bizarre little enclaves where things get more and more extreme due to a kind of feedback loop.
Re: (Score:2)
Usenet is not dead.
However it is usually a payed service of your ISP to connect to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Its all in the GUI.
The more a brand attempts to support SJW by banning content, the more the internet gets creative to move around the SJW censorship brands.
Not dead! (Score:2)
It's still alive, but not popular as before. :)
Re: time to bring back USENET? :) (Score:2)
Usenet is still accessible, but you will have to pay for the service from an Usenet aggregator since it is no longer provided (or at least provided in complete fashion) by ISPs these days.
The last few days have been strangely coordinated. (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos [slashdot.org]
Citi sets restrictions on gun sales by retail clients [reuters.com] by adding arbitrary rules (can only sell to 21+ years-old, no standard capacity magazines, etc)
Re: (Score:3)
"Citi said that in addition to the policy for new clients, it is starting talks with current clients on their practices and if they do not adopt changes the bank will help “transition their business away from Citi.”
From a financial standpoint this would be called shooting themselves in the foot.
Cracks me up when talking about an anti-gun policy.
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:4, Interesting)
"Citi said that in addition to the policy for new clients, it is starting talks with current clients on their practices and if they do not adopt changes the bank will help “transition their business away from Citi.”
From a financial standpoint this would be called shooting themselves in the foot.
This is just Citi throwing a minority under the bus for free publicity. From what it looks like, this is only for corporate accounts (that is, if your business uses Citi as your bank). [twitter.com] I imagine gun retailers are a drop in the bucket for them.
The biggest possible hit they'll take is fallout from boycotts from gun groups. Looks like it's already all over social media: https://twitter.com/Citi/statu... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that gun manufacturers and dealers are used to dealing with this sort of banking tomfoolery.
It is a repeat of what they experienced in 2013 when the DOJ worked with banks to block their access to banking services in Operation Choke Point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Re: The last few days have been strangely coordina (Score:2)
The banking system is an important tool for the regime to oppress the people.
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:4)
This is as close to a literal marketplace of ideas as we will ever get. The majority favour more gun controls now,
The vocal minority do. As we've seen in all recent elections, your point of view is shared by a minority of the population.
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:5, Insightful)
It's definitely trying to make the news cycle, and if there are any lessons to be learnt from gamergate, it's being orchestrated, and, I'm not surprised to see some of the same companies involved again.
The rhyme of history is sounding again. When the printing press was invented in Europe, it didn't take long for establishments to see that sharing information was not always in their interests, books got banned, notably political ones. I think we're just in a similar phase as then; some companies are taking it on themselves to consolidate and control what gets shared.
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:4, Funny)
You figured it out. It's those damned bow and arrow makers who are behind the conspiracy to get guns banned in order to drive up their sales!
Re: (Score:3)
No, they probably have the same percentage of shitty individuals as any other loosely grouped mass of people.
If you look into a subculture long enough, you'll always be able to collect a shitton of asshattery, especially if you're not constrained by such thungs as context.
Fake news everywhere ;).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The only thing anyone learned from gamergate is that a lot of gamers are really really shitty people.
That's funny, the "magazines" had to backpedal to get their advertising back, so at least they've learned that spewing lies about gamers is not profitable. You'll note that they haven't tried to go down that route again. The anti-gamergaters have not had their views spread like prior to gamer gate.
Don't get me wrong - I don't mind that the toxic SJW culture was given a pushback by the games journos - but I actually thought that they were slower learners and wouldn't change their stance on gamers that quick
Re: The last few days have been strangely coordina (Score:2)
Is it a response to this [slate.com], passed by the Senate 2 days ago?
According to the EFF [t.co]:
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that they're targeting guns isn't really surprising, that most recent Florida shooting is still a pretty hot topic.
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem is, the government is letting shootings slide. I mean, earlier this week was another one, much smaller but still, it happened.
When there was a democrat in the house, he could say grand things, knowing that Congress would never approve it. But at least He Was Doing Something About It. He managed to work both sides quite well - make the big evil Republicans the reason he can't pass anything, and at the same time, gun owners were nervous, so every time they'd buy more guns, simulating the economy more.
Now that the entire government is republican controlled, there is no more excuse. Trump can't say he can't do anything about it because Congress won't let him, and everyone knows he loves his executive orders and he's famous for his Get Things Done attitude.
Problem is, he didn't. He made some noise about it, and let it peter it. Then it happened again. And people are at their breaking point. Businesses see that, they realize that it isn't business as usual and they need to Do Something to appeal to the silent majority who do want some form of dun control. (I believe the stats have it around 75% or more. It seems less, but the NRA has a whole pile of money they spend buying politicians and in fact, if one wavers in their support, all that money suddenly goes to their opponent.
The political climate has shifted, and businesses are simply stepping into the vacuum, realizing that while the NRA business is nice, it's not actually necessary, and they get a nice PR boost from being seen as Doing Something.
As long as mass shootings keep continuing to happen (and there's no indication it's going to stop), this is going to get worse. As long as the guy in the White House does everything else other than be seen doing something about the issue, companies are going to reconsider their support. The irony is, the NRA may have one the battle (Trump does nothing), but they might lose the war (popular opinion turns against gun owners, even being brandished as idiots of a barbaric age).
As long as kids are dying in the streets, no amount of tariffs or trade wars matter.
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:4, Informative)
Businesses see that, they realize that it isn't business as usual and they need to Do Something to appeal to the silent majority who do want some form of dun control. (I believe the stats have it around 75% or more.
The stats of those who want stricter gun control are around 10%. The 75% number are those who want "some" form of gun control and who were told that there are none at the moment. The 75% are quite happy with the existing gun-controls, only they don't know it is existing.
Re: (Score:3)
"As long as kids are dying in the streets, no amount of tariffs or trade wars matter."
Except...it's not that bad, and getting better.
1) violent crime is continuing a decades-long trend of decrease
2) gun homicides have dropped by 1/3 (!) since a high in the early 1990s, from 18000 to about 13000.
3) https://news.northeastern.edu/... [northeastern.edu] shows that school shootings are down 75-80% in that same span.
By *any* objective measure, gun violence is decreasing significantly. We should be celebrating.wildly at the improv
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that way, because you're basing that opinion on your pre-existing beliefs and not facts.
Here's a list of the top 50 organizational donors to US political campaigns [opensecrets.org] - guess who didn't make it?
Here's another list of the top 50 organizational donors to all federal contributions [opensecrets.org], not just campaigns - guess who's still not on the list?
Here's a list of the top 75 corporate sponsors of legislation [motherjones.com] - again, the NRA is nowhere to be found.
You have a choice here - learn that you were incorrect, accept it, an
Re:The last few days have been strangely coordinat (Score:5, Interesting)
Sheep often move en masse, as though there was some coordination in effect.
Perhaps that's news to you.
Do you think these policy changes for companies like Citigroup and Youtube happen overnight? I'm sure these companies have been working on these for a while - it's just strange they ALL get announced within 24-48 hours of each other.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm just pointing out the timing is coincidental.
Re: The last few days have been strangely coordina (Score:4, Insightful)
Disarm the common people! Down with freedom and democracy! The Social Justice reich shall last a thousand years!
Meh, meh, meh (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meh, meh, meh (Score:4, Informative)
Voat is contaminated by the racist fuckheads who went there after Reddit purged them. Now any self-respecting person who goes there comes back looking for the clear history button in their browsers.
Better to let that one be and find another alternative instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to let that one be and find another alternative instead.
The problem with any given alternative is that the people who get pushed out of established communities tend to be the ones that were already on the fringe. Thus, any alternative community has a very high fringe-nutjob-to-levelheaded ratio by simple virtue of how said alternative community came into being.
Now all they need.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Is to ban the sale of rock and roll.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe that would give it back some of the edge it lost over the decades. Rock 'n' roll used to be the devil's music, corrupting our youth and leading them drinking, smoking the Mary J and having pre-marital sex.
Now it's just the same crap as everything else, being played on corporate radio, completely toothless and lacking any sort of passion and righteous anger.
I'm not a huge fan of black metal (more into death/doom/power), but I think those freaks have a point. Make music dangerous again.
1956 redux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Those born before Netflix might remember network TV shows with bland family content where you never see naked people or hear swearing. When Lucy, of 'I Love Lucy', got pregnant, she was not allowed to be seen on screen in that condition. We listened to Lawrence Welk music and saw the art of Norman Rockwell on magazine covers. We waved the flag on 4th of July and cheered for our baseball team and joined Boy Scouts. Yes, youngsters, that was life before the internet. We had to read National Geographic magazine to see naked people.
But why was that so? Because of the Religious Right. Because of the Moral Majority. Because of Puritans who ran the country. But mostly because of advertising sponsors who were afraid to be associated with anything 'immoral'.
We now swim in porn of all kinds with Game of Thrones and other films by Amazon, Netflix and other new media innovators. We have chat rooms where we are free to swear and say outrageous things. We freely criticize politicians and corporations and media and each other. The internet has freed us from Moral Morons and Patriotic Pimps and Advertising Assholes who suppressed free thought since the Dark Ages.
But it's happening again. The Wild West internet is gradually coming under the thumb of the Pompous Puritans. Facebook, Twitter and even Reddit are shutting down free speech bit by bit. And yes it's largely due to advertising sponsors and partly due to threats by governments around the world.
Was Reddit the last major bastion of Free Speech? Is the internet going to become as bland and mindless as 1956 television?
Re:1956 redux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's happening again. The Wild West internet is gradually coming under the thumb of the Pompous Puritans. Facebook, Twitter and even Reddit are shutting down free speech bit by bit.
What about the free speech rights of Facebook or Twitter or Reddit? As much as I despise at least one of those corporations, I have to concede that those corporations also have the right to free speech, namely the right to control what appears on their platform. It's their platform -- we're all just guests there. To put the free speech rights of the guests above the owners of those platforms is to rob them of their rights.
I appreciate the argument, and the desire to have free speech. But one person's free speech cannot infringe on someone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have no free speech "rights", check your constitution.
And then again "free speech" is not what you think it is. It only means the government can not harass/punish/imprison you for what you said AGAINST that government.
You still are not free to insult other citizens or call for violence, your legislation who has to file a case and who can prosecute it, may vary.
Re: (Score:2)
When a brand opens a forum for political talk to the wider public some state laws do get interesting.
The US constitution prevents the US government from stopping speech.
State laws in the past did have guidance on what political speech was protected in areas that invited the wider public in.
Different US laws around the USA are not only all about what the government cannot stop as a government.
Some state laws in the past did try to p
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have no free speech "rights"
There are no corporations that aren't run by people. You do not surrender your constitutionally protected rights just because you gather together as a group to run a landscaping business, a charity, a consultancy, or an internet messaging operation.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the free speech rights of Facebook or Twitter or Reddit? As much as I despise at least one of those corporations, I have to concede that those corporations also have the right to free speech, namely the right to control what appears on their platform.
They have the right to censor (on their own platform), and we have the right to say it's a bad idea and we oppose it.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Reddit initially sold themselves as a "say anything" platform. But Facebook sure didn't. In fact, their whole schtick from the very beginning was a more controlled and curated experience than the cesspool MySpace had become. That was the reasoning behind the "real names" policy. And that 's why everyones' Facebook wall looks the same, vs. all of the garbage CSS you could use to "pimp your myspace". I don't recall Twitter actively billing themselves as an anything goes platform either; but just
Re:1956 redux ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Was Reddit the last major bastion of Free Speech?
Was reddit *ever* a bastion of free speech? The karma system they invented algorithmically represses and censors users who don't conform to the groupthink more efficiently than an army of ironfisted moderators ever could.
4chan is about the last major site left with pure(ish) free speech (modulo the occasional vindictive mod). Also worth pointing out that /pol/ is more active than all political subreddits combined on a posts per hour basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Even 4chan is decried by some as being guilty of censorship and oppression. 4chan banned GamerGate, and the people behind it moved to 8chan. Even the mighty /pol/ has some banned topics - the sticky at the top of every page lists questions like "is X group white?" as being not allowed.
Re:1956 redux ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Wild West internet is gradually coming under the thumb of the Pompous Puritans
Except these 'Pomous Puritans' are now from the hard left instead of the religious right.
Re: (Score:2)
> Was Reddit the last major bastion of Free Speech?
No, Redditards downvote anything that doesn't fit into their myopic view.
> Is the internet going to become as bland and mindless as 1956 television?
Welcome to new world of Political Censorship -- where anything that doesn't fit into the Stupid Juvenile Whiner mindset is marginalized (at best), or censored (at worst.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Lucy, of 'I Love Lucy', got pregnant, she was not allowed to be seen on screen in that condition. ... But why was that so? Because of the Religious Right.
Or... because only Lucille Ball was pregnant, not Lucy Riccardo.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 50s, you also had drinking, marijuana and *gasp* pre-marital sex. Rock 'n' roll was corrupting the youth!
Re: (Score:2)
Even back in the 1950s there was porn and demand for it. Often it was sold as documentaries about nudists or dramas set in nudist camps.
What changed was not that the puritans went away, it's that it got cheaper to make porn. First theaters started showing it, so it became much more profitable. Then home video arrived and recording directly onto tape made the whole process a lot cheaper.
The increased competition and difficulty regulating the industry forced mainstream TV to loosen up.
An absolute crock (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns are not illegal. The purchases on gundeals were all above board NFA licensed businesses that required NFA transfers that included background checks. So, there was no illegal activity going on there. What's next? They ban communities where people hookup because some people consider it immoral? So posting pictures of your genitalia is ok, but getting a good deal on a scope isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Guns are not illegal.
Yet. The idea of this:
firearms, ammunition, or explosives; drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances
Is to throw "firearms" and "ammunition" in with things that are illegal or looked down upon why wide swaths of the country. They want you to see "guns" and "drugs" in the same sentence time and again, so at some point you'll start to see them in the same way.
We really need to fight back against this bullshit. It's time that the majority in this country starts making these slimeballs bake those cakes that they don't want to bake. I don't know the best way, yet, but we need to come u
Non political my ass (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if you are for or against gun control, you can't deny utube and reddit are left wing.
/ don't own any guns
Re:Non political my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Christianity perfected these techniques but didn't invest anything in marketing in order to update it's business model and messaging for modern times and, as a result, lost much of it's influence. However those techniques are now being wielded by those with a progressive agenda many of whom were probably one-time church members.
Companies see the writing on the wall and it very well may be the case that, at some point, stores have to have (D) and (R) after them just like our elected officials. This forces them to look forward and figure out which views the majority will hold and engage in virtue signaling in this area.
This is a terrible outcome because it means that it will become much harder to challenge majority views. I think it's a shame, but it's unavoidable. The clocks aren't going to turn back so life is always going to be somewhat progressive. But we need strong conservative voices to ensure that policy doesn't get ahead of the data or ignore critical facts (like not being able to borrow infinite amounts of money.) Unfortunately, the only "conservative" voices we have in the US are always making impossible promises to turn back the clock rather than trying to argue for smoother transitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's their right to not be enablers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like knowing that you've enabled a murder, an overdose, or a rape might keep you up at night.
And yet our cities' politicians are just inviting more homeless in all the time.
The more a site bans users content (Score:2)
US brands that support freedom of speech start trending.
SJW brands that ban content become a meme.
Loophole (Score:4, Insightful)
As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including: firearms, ammunition, or explosives; drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances (except advertisements placed in accordance with our advertising policy); paid services involving physical sexual contact; stolen goods; personal information; falsified official documents or currency
If I read correctly, one can still trade chemical weapons. Elephant's tusks seems fine. Human organs trafficking seems to be in a grey zone because of physical contact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The link is in TFS, but I'll repost it here for you anyway: https://www.reddit.com/help/co... [reddit.com]
The first thing on the list of prohibited content is things that are illegal. Isn't selling chemical weapons, elephant tusks and human organs illegal?
sex is the odd one out (Score:2)
I always wonder why sex is named in the same context as guns, drugs and illegal materials.
Drugs and guns you can argue are dangerous things.
Illegal stuff is harmful to someone (the person you stole it from, for example).
For some reason, we are still in the middle ages where sex is thrown in with these things, not for rational reasons, but because stuff-up moral preachers want to give it a bad taste.
Will humanity ever grow up? We've been waiting since the Enlightenment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a United States thing. I live there.
Europe has realized that sex isn't a bad thing, in fact, it's what keeps our species going.
The Right is afraid of sex for puritan purposes. The Left is afraid of sex because they aren't sure what gender they are. The rest of us just don't want to get sued for harassment.
There needs to be another direction, maybe Front, rather than Left or Right. I wouldn't recommend Behind.......
Haven't banned everything yet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a bit late to the party, Reddit swung the banhammer on those a long time ago.
FOSTA (Score:2, Insightful)
Before all the alt-right Nazis go blaming liberal companies blah blah blah - someone should mention the Republican Congress passage of FOSTA. The bill makes it so that website owners can be held liable for posts of their users. Right now it is supposed to specifically target sex trafficking but broad language in the bill and the likelihood of increasing liability is making a lot of companies panic.
Likely caused by FOSTA (Score:2)
https://boingboing.net/2018/03/22/craigslist-personals-shut-down.html [boingboing.net]
with some additional links to the Reddit announcement, and an EFF announcement of how Congress is censoring the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Asshole Reddit mods catering to the snowflakes. Jumping on the anti gun bandwagon.
Meh, Reddit is a private company. If you don't like their rules go make your own pro-gun Reddit. That's how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
The parent was talking about the top-level moderators catering to the snowflakes, not irrelevant sub-level moderators
Those aren't moderators. Those are Reddit executives.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Name calling and whining over what someone else does with their platform. Indeed, that is what snowflakes do. I love how conservatives demand how other people must act and speak while calling liberals authoritarians for demanding that all people are created equal and must be treated so. Cry harder, it's working, you're winning!
It's also ridiculous when "conservatives" complain about what private corporations like Reddit choose to do with their own platform.
Hey "conservative" snowflakes - That's how ca
Re: It's just.... (Score:2)
Fake-progressive running dogs sure do love authoritarian capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, let me tell you how elections work....
I live in Canada, Anonymous Coward. I know how elections work.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it feel to be an asshole?
You first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Reddit has been something of a Wild West for users building communities by curating and commenting on content in subreddits,"
FALSE. They censor those who have right-wing viewpoints.
Maybe if the right-wing viewpoints were expressed with less frothing-at-the-mouth fervor, the rest of us would take the viewpoints more seriously. As it is, most of the right-wing stuff has become so radical and offensive over the last few years that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that those viewpoints are getting pushed out as fringe.
In other words, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about any given topic, regardless of what side of the issue you're on, it would help if you didn't start wi
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, given that some people consider the Second Amendment to be "crazy and offensive", it's pretty much impossible to avoid the label.
Note that, from my PoV, it's the people who think the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments are Holy Writ, but the Second is just silliness who are "crazy and offe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alas, given that some people consider the Second Amendment to be "crazy and offensive", it's pretty much impossible to avoid the label.
The "Crazy and Offensive" comes when supporters of the second amendment consider the deaths of children to be a reasonable price to pay for the right of crazies to buy assault weapons. In most people's world, there's no way that's not 'crazy and offensive.'
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you consider the deaths of children to be a reasonable price to pay for you to drive your car fast instead of slow (limiting speed to, say, 25mph, would virtually end fatal vehicle collisions)? Thousands of kids a year are dying to get you that extra 35mph. Is it just because it's mostly by accident-- ok for kids to keep getting killed, as long as it's by accident? Like that should matter to someone argui
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, given that some people consider the Second Amendment to be "crazy and offensive", it's pretty much impossible to avoid the label.
Major strawman alert.
It is only an extremely small fringe who consider the second amendment to be "crazy and offensive". The rest may think it is a bit outdated or may question the interpretation, but that is absolutely not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
ANTIFA, anyone? How offensive is that? ...wearing masks and attacking people because they can't stand to hear what they don't like. That my friend is fringe.
Antifa numbers a few thousand people worldwide. It is a *very* small fringe.
Also false equivalency, how many people have antifa killed? How many people have they taken freedom from?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FALSE. They censor those who have right-wing viewpoints.
Nonsense. I'm frequently attacked by the "right" on Reddit.
...now right-wingers do have to deal with Redditors responding to them by brandishing pesky 'facts' which they often interpret as "attacks" but the fact that they can rarely rebut the facts proves they're not "attacks."
No one censors them.
Reddit (Score:4, Insightful)
Reddit - come for the bigoted elitists lecturing everyone about their moral superiority - stay for the censorship!