TIFU by editing some comments and creating an unnecessary controversy. (u/spez)
reddit.comI agree that the sub-reddit shouldn't have done that and i agree that it was in bad taste. However, i feel it's a bad idea to censor reddit. You're targeting a single commnunity, what is to stop you from doing it to others? How do you decide that this needs to be censored and this doesn't, i honestly think they handled this very poorly and reading it left a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm sorry if you disagree with me but this is my opinion.
the_donald is now filtered from r/all. Quarantined. Subreddit for discussing the President elect and all things associated to him.
Does anyone know is there anything to allegation that b/c spez actions 'Reddit just lost their safe harbor protections. They are now legally liable for every post on Reddit.'[0]
[0] https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/801627024431271936
Before the Communications Decency Act, filtering could possibly be criteria for losing safe harbor protection, see Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., but because of Section 230 of said act, which was added to enable websites to engage in moderation and filtering, reddit is fine.
So those include modifying user posts without displaying it has been modified by mod? Reddit posts has been used in court as evidence.
To me, the egregious bit is how reddit is trying to simply brush aside this monumental problem by downplaying it as a mere "controversy" caused by nothing more than "editing some comments".
What? That moron hasn't targeted a particular political group for censorship, and to do so hasn't he showed the world that reddit is willing to go to any extent to manipulate users to follow their whims?
That is not a mere "controversy". This non-apology apology doesn't even scratch the surface of how appallingly awful reddit showed itself to be. In fact, this pathetic excuse for atonement is just yet another weak attempt at brushing aside the PR problem reddit created for themselves.
But it won't simply vanish, particularly when these stalinist characters still linger around.
Censoring alternative, conservative views is exactly why Trump became president.
Ah yes because the mainstream media censored Trump so much. I didn't see any coverage of him or his views anywhere! And I certainly didn't see the bullshit he said just simply parroted and repeated in newspaper headlines without any clarification or fact checking at all.
Give me a fucking break.
'Crazy racist' and 'homophobic' narrative certainly hurt Trump as well as him 'Raping 13 year kid' and multiple other women according to MSM.
Compare the source what he really said and what was reported[0]
[0]http://www.salon.com/2015/12/21/the_media_needs_to_stop_tell...
> Ah yes because the mainstream media censored Trump so much.
I'm not even american, but even I noticed how major media companies such as CNN or NBC insisted in dedicating major time slots just to defame and harass Trump.
I mean, in CNN we even had Fareed Zakaria dedicating all his show just to quite blatantly state that Trump was all kinds of awful and incompetent and unfit for president.
Whether Trump was or wasn't a good candidate is immaterial. The truth is that the bulk of the US mass media was gunning for Trump, some were subtle but others were going at it harder than attack ads.
> Censoring alternative, conservative views is exactly why Trump became president.
I'm having a hard time telling from the link, but it seems that /u/spez censored personal insults directed at him, which, while still inexcuseable, is quite different from censoring merely alternative viewpoints.
That's probably not worse, but it's so incredibly petulant... I am not sure what it is about reddit that tends to attract such childish execs. First Yishan, now him.
I mean he created it, so it's not that crazy.
>...censored personal insults directed at him, which, while still inexcuseable, is quite different from censoring merely alternative viewpoints.
He censored a whole sub-reddit dedicated to the discussion of President Trump. That's taking it too far.
The same Trump who dominated media coverage for about a year? The one who participated in televised debates seen by millions? If anything, the problem was that his views got too much coverage.
His views got too much coverage, I agree. Negative coverage though. Imagine if the media was unbiased.
The reason why so much of it was negative is because the majority of things he said were flat out lies or smearing other people.
> The reason why so much of it was negative is because the majority of things he said were flat out lies or smearing other people.
What if your beloved media companies dedicated themselves to spin everything Trump said to cast it at a bad light, and bent themselves backwards to filter in only the unpopular stuff?
There was no impartial coverage of Trump. In fact, the US coverage did its best to focus only on two candidates, and invested heavily in gunning down one of those candiates. This, in spite of their pet candidate being involved in multiple criminal investigations and suffering from debilitating health problems.
If people keep spouting stuff like this we can look forward to eight years of Trump in office.
Sorry, 'serge', but I am gonna call out things the president-elect says - such as that three million people voted illegally in the last election - as what they are: grade A bullshit.
Part of the problem is that it seems like the lines between legitimate conservative views and hate speech were blurred a little bit this election. I live in Minnesota and Trump came and talked about Somali refugees here in a way that angered a lot of residents. That's even not counting the people who are blatantly racist like the ones that put up posters based off of literal Nazi propaganda at the university I used to go to.