Picture "TOP SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY BANS SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT" headlines running for months.
Picture Trump bringing it up in hundreds of speeches and tweets, demanding regulation and saying how unfair it is that he and his supporters are being censored and silenced and attacked by Silicon Valley and the left. (He's already doing that, but this would give him way more ammo.)
Picture he and his supporters pointing to it as evidence that The Elites and the liberals and the tech industry are out to get him and out to get half of the country, and that only he can defend their liberties and bring our country and corrupt establishment back from the brink.
Also, all of those users would just flock to alternative off-site communities that make TD look like a bastion of reason and civility by comparison.
Huffman's not in an easy position, here.
It does, and it is wonderful if those platforms are following along with the same narrative as you at a given point in time.
Google, Reddit et al. have shown themselves to pretty flexible when it comes to their morals though, particularly when it comes to the needs and wants of the Chinese government and their investors, so while you may be clapping your hands to your ideological opponents being "de-platformed" today, it could very well be you tomorrow.
I remain skeptical. Evidence still seems mixed.
Yes, it seems social medias are effective incubators and accelerators for social pathogens, dominating the attention economy.
But there's also evidence that attention doesn't change minds. If I read this correctly, StarSlateCodex is making the case that media attention about Creationism didn't move the needle about beliefs.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/creationism-unchalleng...
I really want someone to explain what's going on.
The POTUS has a strong support base, including multiple major media outlets that share information about him. It’s a totally different story. I think he could easily stand up a huge social media network if he needed to, perhaps in collaboration with Fox News.
I recommend this post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
Key excerpt: "There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches."
If you have relatively moderate people looking to discuss non-mainstream things without being censored, and they can't do that, then you're forcing them into the witches' dens, where they'll probably become increasingly less moderate and increasingly more paranoid and polarized. They feel like the other side hates them and is out to get them... and in this case, their point is being proven. This is exactly why Trump won in 2016 and why he'll probably win again.
Sure, it certainly isn't profitable or fun to run 8chan, Gab, or Voat if you're the owners, but this is just about the users who don't particularly care what site they're using. They'll just use whatever site won't get rid of them. (Also, it isn't even profitable or fun to run reddit, either.)
And this isn't even getting into the possible ethics of de-platforming and censorship and what should and shouldn't be permitted; just the practical effects. Practically speaking, I don't think it's an effective tactic, if the effect you want is to disempower your opponents. It empowers them and energizes them.
and make no mistake "de-platforming" is censorship
Is it really censorship if r/t_d had violated numerous Reddit ToS rules? Rules which all users agreed on when signing up.
Make no mistake, it's a no brainer to ban a community that is both outwardly hateful, and regularly abuses the rules of the site they're hosted on.
yes and no. It is lesser because it empowers the user to self select if they want to see NSFW items. That is the key.
I put the quarantine on the same level as this, so I have less of an issue with that than if they just banned it outright.
>Is it really censorship if r/t_d had violated numerous Reddit ToS rules?
yes, let me be clear Reddit is perfectly in its legal rights to censor anything they want. They can censor directly all Republicans if they want.
They however can not magically make it not censorship simply because they add a line in their ToS.. that is not how free expression works.
a Website that only allows car related topics censors all speech not related to cars
The problem for Reddit is for years they advertised themselves as a Open Access forum for all topics and discussions, the point 6 font terms of service not with standing.
If reddit has a BIG BOLD header on the HomePage that reads "Conservatives not welcome here" then it would be a different discussion for me
>> outwardly hateful,
Ahh the old "hate speech" non-sense. I reject this premise as "hate speech" is such a subjected term that if you ask 10 people what qualifies as "hate speech" you will get 30 different answers based on context and other things
Further Reddit ignores their own policy on hate speech and promotion of violence provided the speaker is the "correct" political affiliation and that target is the "wrong" political affiliation
I implore you to go to ceddit.com/r/the_donald and look at the mod log. See how many slurs and calls to violence you see being manually approved by their mods.
Reddits content policy, by their own admission today, is subjective and poorly defined.
Further it is beyond denial that admin moderation and crack downs on subreddits is often politically biased. for example it has been shown many times Admins will crack down on "calls to violence" in conservative or "right" subreddits but are hands off in progressive or "left" subreddits.
You ask me to go to ceddit or mod logs to see violence and racism, but what about the left subreddits that have it on display with out having to visit an external site or mod logs?
Platforms shouldn't have the power to completely squash voices but monopoly power and such is a different issue.
If they come out with a clearly defined OBJECTIVE set of rules that is UNIVERSALLY enforced then my objections would disappear
Instead they have a vague subjective list of rules that they selectively enforce largely based on a political bias they continue to publicly deny exists
They claim their site is open to all political leanings and views, if they want to have a liberal version of thedonald.win then more power to them, put up a banner that says "Democrat Supporters Only, This is Reddit. Our community is a high-energy Democrat rally. There are no exceptions." then my objections, and the objections of many would disappear, of course reddit would lose most of its value and traffic, which is why they want to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Reddit is only of high value if it has a large cross section of the public participating.
This would make the SV and "the left" look worse and more political, including in the eyes of fairly moderate people.
There's a lot of daylight between censorship and simply not amplifying outrageous behavior.
We could break feedback loops, add friction, disallow retweets (forcing copypasta), not show likes, etc.
Yes, it has been and it is and it will, but everything is relative. No matter how bad a bad situation is, it can always get worse. You may not like the US now, but for all we know you could be begging to return to June 2020 when June 2021 comes around.
Every little thing like this increases his odds of re-election and the odds that people will think he's right or at least has a point. If reddit bans the subreddit for him and his supporters and doesn't ban any others, that could actually turn some non-Trump voters into Trump voters, and definitely increases the odds that his people will get out and vote.
>spend every moment outraged about censorship and supposed sleights against them — real or not
Sure, but then here they would have a real sleight, a real example of censorship, and a concrete and empirical thing to be outraged about, as well as a coherent and persuasive argument about the larger implications of the censorship and potential future risks they may face. It's the perfect way to empower them and bolster their intensity and their numbers.
He is very good at taking inflammatory stories, running with them, and getting other people fired up about them, too. He is extremely persuasive not only to his base, but also can be to some people who are closer to the middle. Reddit banning the subreddit and not allowing another one be created for him would be an escalation and a turning point. It's a major line in the sand, and would be a major talking point for him.
It may sound alarmist, but I'm saying this because I am genuinely alarmed at what could have happened and what might happen in the future. His supporters exist in the tens of millions, and they're going to talk with each other one way or another. If they're unable to talk with each other or about him without being banned on popular websites, they're left with no choice but to instead do it on insane cult-like conspiracy theory websites (trust me, if you think TD is bad, just try looking at some of those sites), where they'll be increasingly polarized and will increasingly believe even more dangerous and extravagantly false things.
The more large organizations try to restrict a particular group, the angrier they get and the more they feel like powerful forces are out to get them and that there's an organized conspiracy behind it. It's like trying to push an air bubble out of some material - you just end up displacing it, and if you apply too much pressure, the thing's going to pop.
Also, as other commenters have pointed out, there are lots of very polarized and even extremist people on the opposite side, and if reddit removes one side and does nothing to the other, then all of the above gets amplified even more.
I honestly agree with how Zuckerberg and Huffman are handling this. They both clearly personally dislike Trump, but they understand the big picture. It's kind of like geopolitics.
That ship has already sailed most likely. I voted Libertarian in 2016 as I have for every presidential election that I have voted in.
2020 there is a high probability that I will vote Republican for president for the first time in my life, not for sure yet but it is EXACTLY because of the extreme support for censorship, de-platforming and cancel culture that is coming from the Authoritarian left that has my vote is wavering
I'm a left-leaning person and always will be, but sometimes I get really frustrated at how people I otherwise agree with just never fail to consistently shoot themselves and each other in the foot. They'll read your and my posts and just think it's a bunch of nonsense and once again be flabbergasted when Trump wins again. (I'm not 100% certain he'll win, but I definitely am over 60% confident.)
Your comment is not sarcastic, it is misleading, misiniformed and ultimately destructive.
That "dropping pretense" you describe carries a LOT more weight than you are giving it, in who it attracts, and the behaviors it promotes.
I'm no fan of r/politics, but to actually believe that they're basically the same as TD is just wild.
I would in particular be interesting to know if there is a significant difference in offensive words used in either sub.
Indeed, the difference between making a direct call to violence and an inferred one are very different things.
The problems with TD stemmed far beyond inciting or glorifying violence. As mentioned, the biggest problem with /r/politics is it's an absolute echo chamber. Not even in the same realm.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
Note that I don’t think that Reddit policing its content is censorship, I am only responding to the “fire in a crowded theater” Internet trope.
Right spirit, completely wrong details. Story of my debugging life :D
Clear and present danger is the standard.
According to the Supreme Court saying that all members of a certain minority group in must be killed, is covered under free speech, but saying that a specific member of that minority group must be killed at 9 p.m. tomorrow night, it's not free speech but clear and present danger.
I guess that’s one way of looking at it...
t_d was a vile, hatred spewing, white nationalist, violence prone subreddit and its death made the world better. Let's link a few examples, not for you, but for the few people that might still doubt it.
(NSFW links coming up, by the way.)
Their mods regularly left up posts that advocated for violence against leftists [1], calling for civil war in response to impeachement [2], calling for the murder of those who disagree with them [3], general gay and islamic hatred [4], kept a discord with doxxes of leftist in their sidebar [5], calling for political opponent's murder [6], rounding up muslims into concentration camps [7], extermination of migrants [8], and many, many, many others [9][10][11]
[1] http://archive.today/slkGP
[2] http://archive.today/DrQTU
[3] http://archive.today/TbEpC
[4] https://ld.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/f9owok/i_present...
[5] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/trump-sup...
[6] http://archive.today/0uCjr
[7] http://archive.today/DwlAc
[8] http://archive.today/oOqOR
Many of the posts are quite nasty, for sure. But I feel rather deceived. Many of the cited links don't support your claims about them. I checked them all, here are the summaries here for others.
advocated for violence against leftists [1]
This post advocates deportation of low-IQ immigrants. Many countries impose proxies for IQ on immigrants, e.g. degree requirements. I've had to pass such requirements myself. For this claim to be correct any border enforcement must be considered "advocacy of violence", which given the widespread existence of borders would be in my view a misleading claim. None of the replies advocate for violence either.
calling for civil war in response to impeachement [2]
This post doesn't "call" for civil war but predicts that it would be a likely outcome of Trump being replaced by Nancy Pelosi i.e. someone of entirely opposite views, in case of impeachment. If this post is considered unacceptable speech then it's hard to see how anyone could say "action X would lead to civil war" without it being equally unacceptable, which would effectively ban all discussion of civil war including by academics.
calling for the murder of those who disagree with them [3]
This post says "Whats the penalty for treason? Death?" and the replies give a variety of other possible outcomes like CNN jobs, book deals etc.
The US does have a history of executing people for treason. Lawful executions aren't legally considered murder. This post is thus a rhetorical question about constitutional fact. Obviously whether the act being discussed really is treason or not is a different matter, I didn't bother checking that, but it's not the same as saying "let's go murder this person" because the call is for the state to take action, not individuals.
general gay and islamic hatred [4]
This one is an image macro titled, "I present to you, the anti christ". The image is a cartoon of what appears to be a gay man wearing a turban and smoking a cigarette. It does indeed seek to denigrate gays and muslims, I guess, if you accept that depicting a gay muslim is inherently "hatred". But isn't that a contradiction in terms? Isn't that only considered controversial because Islam is famously intolerant of gays? The combination of these two things really shouldn't be considered a problem, according to western values, and presumably that was the point.
kept a discord with doxxes of leftist in their sidebar [5]
The leftists in question signed a public petition, and petitions aren't signed by anonymous people. Still, I agree this breaks Reddit's rules on doxxing as addresses are more than names, and this is by far the strongest claim to bad behaviour so far.
calling for political opponent's murder [6]
This one calls for Hillary Clinton to be imprisoned, not murdered. A small minority of comments talk about treason, but again when the state executes someone this isn't called murder, which is a legal term with its own meaning.
rounding up muslims into concentration camps [7]
This one indeed is bad, it describes China rounding up muslims in concentration camps and then says that whilst they "aren't applauding China" maybe the EU and Canada can learn something from it. For me that'd cross the line.
The top voted comment and thread is describing muslims as feral animals, barbarians etc. The others are suggesting that China has legitimate reasons for it due to Islamic terrorism.
extermination of migrants [8]
This one says, "ICE isn't enough. The Federal government will need to implement martial law to eradicate the aliens and corrupt politicians"
This one seems ambiguous. Grammatically it can be read as either ICE isn't enough to fulfil its mission of "eradicating aliens" (deporting them would be getting rid of them), which doesn't involve "exterminating" people let alone all migrants as they only care about illegal immigrants. Or it can be read as the difference between ICE and martial law is the level of killing involved. Given the Hacker News rule of the most generous reading possible this one would go the first way - not a call for "extermination of migrants" or indeed politicians but rather tougher enforcement of the existing rules.
The replies are all discussing electoral demographics and don't make any statements about killing one way or another.
The final three you didn't summarise. Oddly they seem like the strongest to build your case. They are anti-semitic comments about how "jews control our media" etc, a comment about "humvees with mounted machine guns" in response to a video of quite mild clashes between migrants and police, and a comment revelling and glorifying the impaling of someone who attempted to clime a border fence and was killed by the fence's protection mechanisms.
Clearly there's some nasty content there the moderators failed to crack down on. But I've seen some very nasty posts on all kinds of subreddits over the years. To prove T_D was worse than others would require some sort of statistical analysis, which would itself be likely to be biased (obviously a lot of posters on Reddit think nothing of calling people they disagree with Nazis... and we know what happened to them)
(They are also encouraged by the numerous statements by Trump himself – their “god emperor” – and other allied officials in support of overtly fascist and white supremacist viewpoints.)
What would you consider to be fair definitions of “fascism” or “white supremacism” or “racism”? Does your definition include e.g. neo-Nazis marching chanting “Jews will not replace us”?
Can you elaborate as to why? I'm not really sure how a subreddit is responsible for hate + violence + racism. How does freedom of speech/thought only work one way?
And freedom of speech need not tolerate death threats.
That's not to say that they haven't ever existed, but certainly not anything remotely close to how it's perceived. And definitely not any worse than you would see right now on r/politics.
Plenty of really gross Pepe memes. I mean, I don't know what to tell you.
538 did an interesting analysis into the kind of people on the sub at the time https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-...
They always did a good job of some token news story as a "see we're good guys!" type post but if you scratched the surface and read the comments its was obvious.
The 538 article has some examples https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ldfmg/red_pills...
I mean, reddit scrambled to implement a subreddit filtering feature just to provide a means for users to filter TD out due to the near constant complaints about the content of that sub.
Meanwhile, they banned other subreddits for much, much less. They actively fought to provide them their safe space and wrote actual features to support that subreddit.
I don't really get bringing up the freedom of speech angle here - r/the_donald has always aggressively deleted posts and banned users for expressing anything but complete loyalty to Donald Trump.
it's much narrower than that: whatever doesn't fit centrist Dem narratives is removed
Are you saying "smear campaigns against survivors of a school shooting" is explicitly pro-Trump?
The survivors of the school shooting politicized the issue which makes it everyone's problem. They want a political action, they are constantly on the television promoting a certain viewpoint which I believe is asking to give up on my civil rights. They're saying that I need to give up my civil rights because of what happened to them.
Virginia Beach Shooting resulted in sweeping anti-gun legislation passed and the flipping of Virginia legislature, almost none of it was targeted at the survivors of the shooting. There was world's biggest Mass demonstration of armed protesters, and almost nobody brought the survivors of Virginia Beach shooting up.
a) This is such a stretch and you have no evidence to support your claim.
b) I'm pretty conservative and know a large number of conservatives and exactly none of the people I know even like Reddit, or consider it a viable "conservative community" at all.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reddit%20the_donald&btn...
Work elsewhere certainly expresses and substantiates that narrative: Kate Starbird, Renee DiResta, Samuel Wooley, Kara Swisher, Zynep Tufekci, among others.
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/details-emerge-abo...
Hard to tell for sure, of course, but the recent blanketing of facebook with political advertising doesn't seem to have achieved that much except for buying Brad Parscale a ferrari.
Social media does presumably have some effect but I'm not sure how you'd tell how much/how little compared to other approaches for reaching people.
What form it takes isn't as important as the fact that it supplies enough content / entertainment / methods of consumption that one can subscribe to it and have 100% of their bandwidth filled, to the exclusion of competing narratives.
Talk radio was an imperfect expression of this, because radio isn't portable in the same way that app-based social media + mobile devices / Fox News are.
But it's entirely possible to prevent someone from ever being exposed to a contrary narrative, simply by filling all their available time.
That's the central premise of Elizabeth Eisenstein's The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (1980) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/printing-press-as-an-ag...
I've compiled a related bibliography that gets at other aspects, including social and online media.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a...
Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign digital director, and Dan Scavino, Trump's social media manager, regularly visited the site.
Surely you mean "the dynamic we have in the world of reddit today", right? Otherwise, that sounds Bill-Gates-Is-Transmitting-Corona-Over-5G-Towers level insane.
It's not the smoldering powder keg in the middle east, the long looming conflict between the US as the sole imperial super power and the up and coming China contesting their role in SE Asia etc, no. It's really TD, a subreddit where Trump fanatics post memes.
Good on her for publicly calling it out.