Twitch And Reddit Ramp Up Their Enforcement Against 'Hateful' Content
from the content-moderation-is-a-process dept
On Monday, both Twitch and Reddit ramped up their efforts to deal with various forms of hateful content on their platforms -- and both of them ended up shutting down some forums related to President Trump -- which inevitably (but incorrectly) resulted in people again screaming about "anti-conservative bias." Reddit kicked things off by announcing new content policies (which you can read here). The key change was an expanded rule against communities that "promote hate based on identity or vulnerability."
Based on that, Reddit has permanently shuttered around 2,000 subreddits, including, most notably the r/The_Donald subreddit for Trump fans. However, as if they were expecting the bogus claims of anti-conservative bias to show up in response, Reddit also shut down r/ChapoTrapHouse, which might be considered the flip side to The_Donald subreddit, but from the left end of the traditional political spectrum. Both communities were known for their anger spewing wackos. Reddit painted its decision to suspend both as a way to show that it is applying the rules equally across all its subreddits:
All communities on Reddit must abide by our content policy in good faith. We banned r/The_Donald because it has not done so, despite every opportunity. The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations. Until now, we’ve worked in good faith to help them preserve the community as a space for its users—through warnings, mod changes, quarantining, and more.
Though smaller, r/ChapoTrapHouse was banned for similar reasons: They consistently host rule-breaking content and their mods have demonstrated no intention of reining in their community.
To be clear, views across the political spectrum are allowed on Reddit—but all communities must work within our policies and do so in good faith, without exception.
Of course, because content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, I've already seen plenty of complaints about other Reddit forums that the site failed to take down. And I fully expect that at some point a forum will be shut down by overzealous moderators. Because that's the nature of content moderation.
Meanwhile, over on the Twitch side, the site has been coming under increasing attacks for enabling a lot of harassment. Since much of Twitch is live-streaming, it's that much more impossible to monitor. Last week, the company promised to take harassment claims more seriously and began suspending some users. On Monday, that included a temporary ban of the president's campaign account on the site. Apparently, the move was in response to comments made at recent Trump rallies, that Twitch claims violated its policies.
Twitch pointed to comments made at two rallies that led to its decision. At a campaign rally in 2016, which was recently rebroadcast on the platform, Trump said Mexico was sending over its bad actors, such as rapists or drug dealers. Twitch also pointed to Trump’s recent Tulsa rally, where he told a fictional story of a ‘tough hombre’ invading someone’s home.
“Hateful conduct is not allowed on Twitch. In line with our policies, President Trump’s channel has been issued a temporary suspension from Twitch for comments made on stream, and the offending content has been removed,” a Twitch spokesperson told CNBC.
Again, these platforms are in an impossible position -- which we detailed in our post about the content moderation impossibility theorem. If they do nothing, tons of people will call out these platforms for inaction. But in pulling down these accounts, a bunch of other people will now be furious as well. And sooner or later these platforms will pull down other accounts that lots of other people (no matter what they're political leanings) will get upset about as well. This is the nature of content moderation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, donald trump, hateful content, masnick's impossibility theorem
Companies: reddit, twitch
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No longer worth the effort
All communities on Reddit must abide by our content policy in good faith. We banned r/The_Donald because it has not done so, despite every opportunity. The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations. Until now, we’ve worked in good faith to help them preserve the community as a space for its users—through warnings, mod changes, quarantining, and more.
As I have it on good authority that breaking the rules is a justified reason to give someone the boot and not an indicator of bias seems that this is a good example of someone's actions finally catching up to them and not an example of bias.
On a more general note it would seem that the two platforms in question are weighing the costs of hosting rule-breaking content and/or allowing rule-breaking behavior and giving the guilty parties a pass due to fame/power and are starting to decide that it's simply not worth it, and while I imagine that's going to cause some collateral damage due to the sheer scale of moderation involved I do still think it's an overdue change.
That said if they are going down this road they will need to be both firm and transparent, willing and able to point out why someone got the boot no matter who it is lest control of the narrative be taken from them and used against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No longer worth the effort
Reddit has always been back and forth with transparency and incremental in large banwaves. The fact that they banned ChapoTrapHouse in this round was probably seen by them as showing their lack of bias, though the alt-right subs that got banned were more numerous. The fact that the alt-right subs were also more inclined to break the rules and deserve to be banned will be ignored when the alt-righties whine about bias. Much like the disingenuous arguments that the alt-righties made in their banned subs, they'll be disingenuous in spinning this as biased no matter what, so I don't know what Reddit could actually do to mitigate that claim since the alt-righties have no shame or sincerity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You quite sure you want to defend THAT?'
The point of transparency in that case is that if Twitch/Reddit can point to specific examples of what caused the ban then those that might otherwise use the ban as ammo will be forced to either own that content or distance themselves from it.
If someone wants to claim that a ban is example of 'conservatives' being treated unfairly then it should require them being forced into admitting just what 'conservative' means to them by defending the content in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You quite sure you want to defend THAT?'
It took a great deal of effort but I did manage to get just such a conservative to admit ownership of that type of behavior that causes banning/deplatforming, right here in TD's comments. It was a glorious moment that was still completely lost on that person. Even when they admit to being racist, homophobic, violent assholes they still do not understand why that's a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No longer worth the effort
I dont know. I got banned from a subreddit using only a Thomas Jefferson quote.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
Although, the context of using that quote definitely was in advocacy of shooting back at violent cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No longer worth the effort
With a bunch of protests going on I imagine they are treating any comments that might come across as inciting or calling for violence with a much firmer hand than otherwise, as 'allowed for calls for violence on their platform' is really not something a platform wants to defend, especially when there are plenty of people looking for any chance or opportunity to attack them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No longer worth the effort
Perhaps this was sarcasm, but this is not my experience with internet moderation at all. There are plenty of internet spaces that vigorously and immediately enforce the stated rules . . . against precisely everyone the mods disagree with.
(Ironically enough, this is also a common justification for police action: "It's the law, so enforcing it can't be racist!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No longer worth the effort
I think transparency is key. Even if they err it's ok as long as they keep it visible and provide means to revert such errors. As Mike pointed moderation at scale is impossible to do perfectly. But perfect is the enemy of reasonably good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No longer worth the effort
"reasonably good" in moderation at scale means you or someone you know gets booted off of Twitter without justification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No longer worth the effort
No, it means that sometimes mistakes are made and that those can be dealt with individually what they arise. This is better than pretending that perfection can exist, because it cannot.
The weird thing is - I don't know anyone personally who has been booted off Twitter. What are your asshole friends doing to get themselves kicked off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not A Fan
Collective punishment is a very ugly, dangerous, and dark path to pursue. Often times, once it starts, it is very difficult to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Fan
Yeah, yeah, a few bad apples and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Fan
Yup, now if you could actually demonstrate that that's what happened that might be a relevant point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Fan
Collective punishment be more along the lines of banning everyone who had ever posted in those subreddits rather than simply closing some venues where rule-violating activity tended to proliferate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Fan
Fascinating. Here's what you wrote less than 9 hours earlier, about a platform banning lefties:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users -it-doesnt-like.shtml#c220
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not A Fan
You mean he's a hypocritical idiot who's just angry that his Klan buddies can't hang out with him in public any more? I'm shocked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
You do realize that the KKK was created as a militant wing of the Democratic Party after they lost a war defending slavery? They then spent the next 100 years fighting equal rights. The Southern Democrats voted against equal rights which thankfully got passed anyway.
Hillary, Pelosi and other current Dems praised Robert Byrd, the Grand Dragon of the KKK and fellow Democrat. They praise Margeret Sangor, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood. PP is in poor, minority neighborhoods to reduce minority populations, not for any kind of healthcare.
Dems are against school choice because they want to keep poor minorities from getting a real education and realizing that the leftist policies are just economic slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
This is all bullshit. The KKK and the Democratic Party that existed in the 19th and early 20th century no longer exist.
Who does the Klan currently vote for and support? The Republican Party. Which party has the most minority candidates and voters? The Democratic Party. You're pretending African Americans in the Democratic Party are racist against themselves. Meanwhile Republicans are out in force waving confederate and Nazi flags and yelling white power from their golf carts.
Margaret Sanger wasn't racist. She opened clinics in poor neighborhoods because they didn't let her open them in wealthier neighborhoods and she was asked to open those clinics by the community leaders. Having too many children in poverty is an effective method of remaining in poverty.
School choice is a way to defund public schools to make them worse. Not every student can bus to a different, better school, so "school choice" leaves underprivileged students behind. That adversely affects poor and minority students.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Sorry but it is the conservative African Americans that are called Uncle Toms. The Dems try to hide it, but their racism is still on full display. Just check Joe Biden's recent remarks. There is a reason they are hiding him in the basement, he keeps opening his mouth.
And yes, Margaret Sangor was a racist and eugenicist. You should look that up, the info is out there. I pasted just the first link I came to below.
The left has controlled education for 50 years and yet public education, especially for minorities is piss poor. That is no coincidence. If they can keep them uneducated and poor, they can keep their vote. Thankfully the #walkaway movement is bringing some around to what is really going on.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/carroll/opinion/cc-op-sprinkle-010420-20200104-opc3c76o4na 47mtdtun4nvqw3y-story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
You're implying that it's white Democrats who are saying that and that whoever is saying that represents the Democrats. Neither is true.
Yeah, or there's a pandemic going on. Never mind what Trump has said and done which is much worse.
You can't even spell her name right. You cited an opinion piece (that I can't even read because it's behind a wall). I'll cite fact-checking pieces:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-afr ican-americans-shou/
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was -planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population
The left has not controlled education for 50 years. Where did you get that claim? Education is largely controlled by local and state governments, so it's controlled by whichever party is in power in a certain area (and that's why a lot of conservative southern states have terrible education systems). And the Department of Education is run by whichever party has the executive branch. You don't even know how things work but you make claims very confidently. However, the influence of conservatives in Texas over textbooks is tangible.
The walkaway movement is a failed conservative effort to pretend that because some liberals disagree with some aspects of the Democratic Party, they're going to suddenly change all their opinions and join the Republicans. "The Democrats don't do enough for African Americans, so I'm going to support the party that is actively racist!" Great logic there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Very timely video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3nInyPuFE
The walkaway movement hasn't failed, still going strong from what I see. Your phrasing "The Democrats don't do enough for African Americans" is very telling. It shows your racist thinking. The racism of low expectations. African Americans don't need you to do anything for them, they need you to quit holding them down. They can succeed quite well on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Why are you holding them down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
The amount of propaganda you see from fake walkaway people isn't the same as success. Walkaway attended to shift the 2018 election and failed spectacularly. After Covid-19 and a thousand and one Trump failures, flubs, and outright offensive feats, a hashtag isn't going to convince people to side with Trump over the much lesser evil. The Lincoln Project is counteracting walkaway, if the was even actually an effect to counteract.
Ah, yes - the projection in the G.O.P. - gaslight, obstruct, project.
You have a really bad habit of conflating and confusing groups of people and individuals. You're speaking to me as if I am the Democratic Party and attributing your accusations of it to me. You're the racist who is denying systemic racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
So do they pay you to spout this sad pathetic drivel?
Nor do you do it for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
I do so love it when someone tries to attack the current democratic party by pointing out how terrible they used to be historically, as with the party swap the historical democratic party are today's republican party, and if past deeds count against the current party then that means they just shot the republican party in the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
You are right, the current Democratic party is not the same today. It is far, far worse. It has taken a sharp Marxist turn with its hate of freedom, especially the freedom of speech. You only have to look at the results of leftist policies in the blue cities and states to see where it leads. Also look at their hypocrisy with disbanding the police while keeping armed guards for themselves at tax payer expense. You should check out Larry Elder, PragerU and other conservative channels on YouTube if you really want to see what Conservatism is about rather than remaining in the willful ignorance of the leftist media. But you won't because it will cause you to think something leftist sheeple refuse to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
The Democratic Party is a center/center-left party, with some center-right elements. It's far from being Marxist. Marxism involves worker ownership of the means of production, which no Democratic platform has ever advocated for. You don't know what Marxism is.
None of these policies are Marxist. You're just using the term to describe things you don't like.
This is a non sequitur. Defunding the police doesn't mean no one wants security. You're also conflating protesters wanting the police defunded with politicians who aren't saying the same thing.
The leftest media like Fox News - the most watched media channel? All you need to do to learn about conservatives is listen to them. They'll tell you they don't care about the poor. They'll tell you that they value police officers over the lives of African Americans. They'll tell you they want tax cuts for the wealthy and no guaranteed time off and no extended maternity leave and no job protections for minorities and no raises in minimum wage.
Propagandist complains people don't fall for his brainwashed propaganda. News at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Why is it leftists that are all caught up in black face scandals? Comedians, late night hosts, actors and even the Governor of Virginia. Could you imagine if it was a Republican that dressed in black face or as a KKK member and had the nickname of coonsman? The leftist media would still be talking about it. But no, the racists Dems don't mind electing racists to office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Why do assholes post stupid comments that are clearly antagonistic?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Why not answer the questions? Because you can't explain why leftists keep getting caught up in racist stories? It is no wonder the leftist think everyone is racists, they know their own hearts and judge others by their own actions and beliefs.
Or is it more sinister? Alinsky said to accuse your opponents of what you're doing while you're doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Black face scandals from decades ago are the best you can find for racism on the left? Did you break your shovel digging for that?
Why is it that conservatives are actively displaying racism out in the open right now and Trump is even boosting them on Twitter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvT6Ls936sE
Why is it that a rally called Unite the Right featured confederate and Nazi flags?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Ral ly_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg
That's not hard to imagine at all, except that the modern Republican party supplanted the Klan such that it's no longer necessary in the eyes of racists. What's the most recent Democrat elected to office you can name who was a confirmed member of the Klan while in office? I can name a lot of Republicans and their racist statements and actions from current times.
63% of African American voters in Virginia voted for Northam after the scandal. Maybe you can let them speak for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"Could you imagine if it was a Republican that dressed in black face or as a KKK member and had the nickname of coonsman?"
Like these people?
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/29/755649657/alabama-gov-kay-ivey-apologizes-for-wearing-blackfa ce-during-college-skit?t=1593583253229
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47162714
https://edi tion.cnn.com/2019/10/12/us/blackface-craig-stivender-south-carolina-campaign-trnd/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"Could you imagine if it was a Republican that dressed in black face or as a KKK member and had the nickname of coonsman?"
We don't have to. That's basically what they do today.
Whereas most democrats with similar idiocy on their 1970's college records have apologized for being morons long ago.
Sorry but as long as your president keeps identifying actual neo-nazis and current KKK sporting insignia as "Very Fine People" we'll need something more than a few stories about what a few democrats did in 1960 before we accept you as anything other than just a clown pretending the GOP isn't filled with racist lackwits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpToEILMnA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oRjyH8O7VM
There are many, many more you should watch. Just might open your eyes about those pesky, racist conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
wow, I feel dumber already, I should have known better than to listen to Prager U...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Bloody hell, they linked to that rubbish and you listened to it? You have my sympathy, and hopefully have learned your lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Yeah - I came here to watch stupid videos - not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"You do realize that the KKK was created as a militant wing of the Democratic Party after they lost a war defending slavery?"
Yes. I also understand the rest of history that happened after that. The stuff that makes you sound like and uninformed idiot.
I'm concerned with the assholes who are currently KKK, not the dickheads who had a different label 100 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Well you kinda sorta got history right up until the last 40 odd years. I can only wonder why you left that part out.
I mean other than the fact that it overturns the idiotic narrative that you are so desperately trying and failing to spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Its funny, for all the name calling the left does to the right, racist and others, they never produced actual evidence of anything. When you resort to name calling you have lost, you have no defense for your policies so must drown out the opponents. The left will not watch conservatives because they can't defend leftist ideology and don't want to consider that their ideology is indefensible.
We will see if a senile, racist, sexist Joe Biden can win the presidency. It will be a sad day for this country if he does. Trump built the greatest economy we have had in years and it lifted everyone, especially minorities. A win by the Dems this year will end any chance we have of it happening again.
Let me ask, when Obama gave his impassioned speech about how many houses does one person need, did he believe what he was saying? Did you? Does it bother you he is worth tens of millions now and bought his 3rd home for over $10 million dollars in a global warming flood plain? Is he going to claim insurance in a few years when the oceans rise or does he not believe they will?
How about Bernie getting his 3rd house after dropping out of the last election? Does he not believe his own commie rhetoric? Do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Dude, both your straws and pants are on fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Again, no response to the actual questions and the allegations against conservatives. The left just will not come to the table and address the issues. Just look at the protests and gatherings that the left and right have. The left scream, give nasty speeches, wear pink vagina hats, attack people and leave a mess behind. The right can gather with guns in hand and have a peaceful protest and leave the place cleaner than they found it. The right has a message of hope, the left is just anger and hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"Again, no response to the actual questions and the allegations against conservatives."
The allegation against "conservatives" is that every one of the people you whine about being banned were bigots or trying to spread a deadly pandemic, and/or just ignoring the rules of the private club they wanted to enter, once you look at the facts.
You've been asked many times for examples to prove this wrong, but you refuse to provide any.
"The right can gather with guns in hand and have a peaceful protest and leave the place cleaner than they found it. "
Not really, but I'm sure that the fact that the white supremacist cops won't tear gas their brethren has something to do with that.
"The right has a message of hope, the left is just anger and hate."
The "left": gay people should have rights, and blacks should be able to do legal things on the streets without being summarily executed.
The "right": we don't need trials for those peaceful protestors and those ones being summarily executed probably deserve it. Plus, screw masks, we should infect everybody while we're down there!
Sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Gov. Northram declared a state of emergency when the 2A protest occurred. He would have loved nothing more than to bring down the law on the conservatives. Odd that a Gov sworn to uphold the law gets angry when people obey the law. But he does nothing when his state is being ripped apart with riots. How many people have to be injured or killed before order is restored? Why are they killing blacks in the name of BLM? Seems contradictory but the left doesn't think so.
So the protestors and rioters aren't spreading a deadly pandemic? They are spreading violence, fire bombs, beatings and killings. Its all on the 6 o'clock news, just watch for yourself.
You should look into what happened in Baltimore after the last riots there some years back. The area still hasn't recovered. There are areas now that may have the same thing happen as a result of these riots. But its racist to be concerned about that I guess.
Just look at the leftist, hypocrite Seattle mayor. Her summer of love is going to be removed since the "peaceful" protest is leaving people dead. Oh, and suddenly she doesn't like peaceful protests when they come to her neighborhood. But the left keeps electing people like that.
It is the blue cities and states that are tearing themselves apart. The systemic racism they are decrying are areas run by Democrats. So do you believe there is systemic racism? How do you explain that your party is the one in charge where it is supposedly happening?
Kamala Harris said it was racist that a black woman couldn't get elected. This while dropping out of the Democratic primary. She was apparently talking about the Democrats because it wasn't Republicans voting or not voting for her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
There seems to be a lot of cherry picking there....
"So the protestors and rioters aren't spreading a deadly pandemic?"
I'll be you're too dumb to understand that those are not the same group of people. Plus, from the picture I've seen, the people protesting black executions were largely wearing masks while the people whining about not getting haircuts were not. Although, granted, I'm laughing at you from another continent where the infections aren't spiking due to idiots not wearing masks, so the images I see may not be 100% the same as whatever you're seeing.
"So do you believe there is systemic racism?"
Yes. I'm also not stupid enough to believe that the "team" the city mayor is on changes the system overnight.
Enjoy your partisan bullshit as it tears your country apart. You likely deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
You should check your facts, most blue cities have been so for many decades. So the team in charge has not changed. In fact, many have black mayors and police chiefs. So the narrative doesn't really seem hold that it is the conservatives that are racists.
The leftist deserve it as they are the cause of it. But unfortunately it brings down he conservatives as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"You should check your facts, most blue cities have been so for many decades"
Yes. So?
You're the team game partisan idiot. The team in charge doesn't chage systemic problem just by the label being there
Do you have a point, or are you just determined to display your lack of critical thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"I'll be you're too dumb to understand that those are not the same group of people. "
Actually, Conservatives understand that very well. You can search YouTube and see for yourself. I didn't think leftists understood it. But ask yourself, if they are a different group, why are leftist mayors and governors allowing them to riot, destroy, beat and kill? Surely if they are just anarchists the left should have no problem dealing with them? Or is the left using them for political agenda? If so, what kind of person allows people to be injured and killed and businesses shut down and destroyed for a political agenda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
So, displaying your ignorance and idiotic committal to partisan politics at the expense of the rights of citizens it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
There is no actual response to what you say because all you have is a line-up of whataboutisms, strawman attacks and lies.
And for some reason you think I belong to the left of the political spectrum because I dare to point out your bullshit. Well, I guess from your viewpoint everyone not in your clique must be on the left.
And the right has a message of hope? Laughable, because from where I stand all I see is a message of exclusion and isolationism mixed up with bits of racism, greed and pure stupidity that if continued will fast-track the dismantling of the Republic known as the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Again, accusations without examples. I provided many examples of the hypocrisy of the left but they have gone unanswered. Maybe because the answer is quite uncomfortable to the left.
Trump built the greatest economy we have had in 50 years. It was even better for minorities and women. So racist, sexist Trump improved peoples lives he doesn't like? The left did not and could not build that. Obama even said mfg and jobs weren't coming back. Is that because he didn't' want them to or he didn't know how to get them back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"Its funny, for all the name calling the left does to the right, racist and others, they never produced actual evidence of anything."
You mean other than the actual TV shots where Trump is calling the actual neo-nazis at charlottesville some "Very Fine People" or the public records where he says exactly what he thinks about black people? Well, of course, if you dismiss observed public fact as evidence then we couldn't even "prove" the sun had risen.
And that's basically what you morons have been reduced to. Claiming your president, Pence, or Steve King didn't, in fact, say exactly what they said on public television.
"We will see if a senile, racist, sexist Joe Biden can win the presidency. It will be a sad day for this country if he does."
Just about the only truth to come out of you today. Biden will be less bad than Trump but that's about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
So you ignore Biden's continual foot in mouth when it comes to race? He said Obama was articulate and clean and good looking. A story book person. Yet another example of leftist racism of low expectations.
You can find video of Hillary saying blacks are ne'r do wells, but that's not racist is it?
Most of the leftist congress wore Kente stoles which was a group of slave traders. Was that an accident?
Many leftists got caught up on the Epstein sex slave scandal. Many Hollywood elites have recently lost their careers with one doing jail time for their sexual assualts.
The name calling does not distract from the leftists being the real party of racism and sexism. Well, it distracts leftists from examining themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"You do realize that the KKK was created as a militant wing of the Democratic Party after they lost a war defending slavery?"
...and then, in 1950, Roosevelt ran with his 'New Deal' and 'Affirmative Action' programmes and the racists all moved from the democrats to the republicans while every moderate conservative among the republicans moved to the democrats.
That's why, today, all the racist assholes with southern roots are republican whereas their grandpappies were all democrats. It's also why the democrats of today have such a wide tent.
Byrd being one of those who instead changed his tune and publicly broke with his past as a racist and his previous pro-segregation policies.
I honestly don't know what to say every time I encounter the fact that europeans are, apparently, better versed in US historical politics than actual americans.
But hey, you just keep believing the "party of Lincoln" is still one where Lincoln would feel at home - because he really wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
50's? African Americans weren't given civil rights until the 60's. And FDR was in the 30s, not 50s. Apparently euro snobs aren't as well versed as they think. So the racists were and still are in the Democratic party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not A Fan
I know, it's very consistent. We discovered that the Parler bans were for a specific reason: Parler's published rules disallow impersonation accounts and the individuals involved all went to Parler and setup impersonation accounts.
These reddit forums were banned because reddit disagreed with the community. Otherwise they would have simply banned however many individuals broke the rules. Collective punishment is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
If your Klan district is banned rather than individual members being banned because they're KKK it's no more wrong. The problem is that you ignorant tits are bigots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
So you're just admitting you don't understand how Reddit works. There are admins who are actual employees and mods who aren't.
Communities are run and policed by mods. When mods allow rule-breaking content to get posted and perpetuated, the sub is seen as being in violation.
For example, The_Donald was initially quarantined because the mods allowed content that threatened violence against the police officers in Oregon who were possibly going to enforce a legal command to retrieve Republican state congresspersons who reneged on their duties to prevent a vote they didn't like and didn't have the votes to kill.
When even after quarantine and numerous warnings, the mods still fail to moderate properly and block rule-breaking content, the sub gets banned. The_Donald was banned after mods actually encouraged rule-breaking content and rebellion against Reddit's admins. They weren't poor victims of persecution. They antagonized Reddit admins actively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
Parler's published rules disallow impersonation accounts and the individuals involved all went to Parler and setup impersonation accounts.
Gonna need a citation there, since unless you found some information not included in the TD article that is not what it said at all. Some people might have been banned for setting up 'fake' accounts, but at least one person claimed they were booted for the heinous crime of pointing out how stupid the rules were, and I'm sure they weren't the only one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
"These reddit forums were banned because reddit disagreed with the community."
They were banned because they didn't follow the rules they agreed to when signing up, despite ample opportunity to do so.
"Collective punishment is wrong."
When the assholes overrun the group, you ban the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
They were banned because they didn't follow the rules they agreed to when signing up, despite ample opportunity to do so.
Funny how that works. Break the rules on Parler and get caught(assuming that is what happened anyway)? They shouldn't have broken the rules, they had it coming'.
Break the rules on Reddit, repeatedly and over time until the mods get tired of being nice in the hopes that you'll shape up? 'They were banned because the mods didn't like them'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not A Fan
We discovered that the Parler bans were for a specific reason: Parler's published rules disallow impersonation accounts and the individuals involved all went to Parler and setup impersonation accounts.
This is false. While some accounts were banned for that reason, many other accounts were banned just for making fun of Parler. Ed Bott wrote a single message just asking when he'd be banned... and got banned. He didn't impersonate anyone. He didn't violate any law.
He just criticized Parler and got banned.
Funny, that Twitter lets people criticize Twitter all the time. But Parler seems to think that's not allowed (even though it doesn't say that in its rules).
I'd say that's... kinda... arbitrary. And weren't you complaining about arbitrary enforcement? Or are there different rules when it's your team?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Fan
Don't worry a few subs started posting in base64. And some subs are now talking about encrypting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not A Fan
That makes sense and should probably be allowed provided "outsiders" cannot access that content. The problem isn't that assholes have asshole ideas, it's that they spread those ideas to non-assholes or would-be assholes. If they can't draw others into their hatred there shouldn't be a big problem.
Still, any platform could decide not to allow that either and be completely within their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming rationality fails
If this was to show balance, it was a waste of time. Being rational does not serve the accusers' aims.
The accusers do not want a rational discussion. They want absolutely unfettered access to minds they can pollute with their irrational nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assuming rationality fails
From the sound of it that subreddit was overdue for deletion anyway, but yeah, if the goal was to deflect or reduce complaints about 'bias' then it was a waste of time, as the people crying about 'conservative persecution' have demonstrated that they aren't interested in facts that might prove them wrong, only that which they can use to further the persecution complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm more concerned about Reddit's new anti-hate rule exception that states it doesn't protect groups of people that are in the "majority".
Now for a global website, that's a peculiar statement to make. It's clear as day the statement is U.S.-focused and "majority" will exclusively apply to gender and racial lines, meaning the rule says it's a-okay to hate on the majority of the site's users based on their immutable physical attributes.
I'm curious if that can be subject to a lawsuit or if the wording is ambiguous enough that it avoids such risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If straight White cisgender male Americans can’t deal with some shit being flung their way, that’s their problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was a pretty bigoted statement.
Everyone should be able to handle some shit being flung their way regardless of minority/majority status.
What you said is equivalent to saying "I'm black so I can't be racist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pretty sure that this is not what he meant. Just because he doesn't call out everyone doesn't mean he says its fine if non whites do it.
This discussion around terms has been cleared up for decades. Black rights movement, feminism, ec vs people saying "but egalitarianism though".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not at all "cleared up" if what you say antagonizes someone else. In Stone's case, what he actually did was call out a very specific group as being deserving of shit. That's not even close to the same thing as saying "black lives matter" in defense of a particular group.
In the latter case, responding with "all lives matter" makes you a dick. In the former, any response is calling out Stone as a dick even if he had said "if Moroccan pirates can't deal with some shit being flung their way, that's their problem". I doubt any of us loves pirates but that statement is still a dick thing to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...what he actually did was call out a very specific group as being deserving of shit."
As a member of that group, I don't disagree with him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullying and hate is wrong regardless of what the target looks like. I'm not surprised that the wet towel of Techdirt thinks otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi! I’m a White cisgender male American. (I’m not straight, but pretty much anyone who doesn’t know me would assume I am anyway.) As a member of the group of people who’ve held more sociopolitical power in the history of the United States going back to its early days as a British colony, I’m well aware of what each aspect of my identity affords me in terms of societal privilege. Jokes about that privilege don’t hurt me because I’m someone who would rather not have that privilege.
Say I’m a dumb cracker whenever you want. Call me a privileged cis shitlord all the live-long day. Tell me that my dick makes me a horrible human being. You know what I’ll do? Agree with you. I may not actively perpetuate or intentionally exploit the privilege of my identity, but I know that sitting by and doing nothing to address that privilege would make me a jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullying and hate is wrong regardless of what the target looks like. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior regardless of the color of your skin or your genitals.
I've seen enough suicides resulting from this kind of cultural dynamic that I will not budge here.
Bullying and hate is wrong regardless of what the target looks like. And you are wrong for arguing otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One person bullying and hate is another’s not pampering the smooth bottom of a precious right wing snow flake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Get your stereotypings out of here. I'm left wing and a liberal, you bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Women are a slight majority (50.8%) so I guess that means misogyny is acceptable. Whites are only about 10% of the world population, but the majority in the USA. SO will whites be protected in places where they are a minority? Asians are the majority in Asian countries, but not in the USA. Muslim majority in Muslim countries. Islamophobia acceptable there, but not in USA? See the problem here?
Though it is nice to finally have an open admission of what many people, regardless of what "side" they're onn knew for years now: The rules are not applied equally. I'm sure the "experts" on sites like this one will continue to believe there is no bias on these platforms though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure people will cherry pick some examples of "leftist" stuff that got banned as if that's proof of some kind of complete balance in enforcement. I have no sympathy for the genuine haters, but this is a slippery slope that will eventually just be all about banning any kind of disagreement with far-left identity politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Left wing subs don't get shuttered because they're very rarely problematic, they're not flooded with hate, slurs, calls for violence because their users know how to behave for the most part, and those users that don't get the boot. The closest left wing sub to the many toxic subs on the right was Chapo, and no tears were shed when that Tankie infested hellhole was quarantined then banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A couple of points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've been seeing a lot of whining the last couple of days about "anti-conservative" bans on YouTube involving the likes of David Duke and Richard Spencer. You know, the KKK leader and the self-proclaimed Nazi who coined the term "alt right" because he correctly determined that usual white supremacist terms were unpopular.
When these people talk about "conservative" censorship, all they're doing it displaying how offensive their version of conservatism is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well it did take them 3.5 years to ban it. So I think we all know what bias the platform has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Donald has been toxic for years, generating hate and brigading other subs, generally being a hellhole, so what changed to justify a ban? Simple, the mod team there had resisted all token efforts to stop them calling for violence and had the sub on lockdown in an attempt to drive the user base off to a site they control and profit from. The ban is meaningless, they've swept away the remains of a dead sub so it looks like a grand gesture, and people are lapping it up, ignoring that it's happened years after it should have and it wouldn't have happened at all if the sub were still active.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the case of Twitch banning Trump's account, you also have to juggle enforcing and upholding community standards with the public interest/newsworthy position that is POTUS. Unfortunately, there is no right way to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not necessarily. Twitch has no obligation or much of a fiscal incentive to weigh the newsworthiness of a channel against its own community guidelines.
And if the public wants Trump content, Twitch would probably be one of the last places they look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the trash fakes spamming in the Parler thread (flagged comments) prove: Nothing of value was lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline Changes
Change this headline:
Twitch And Reddit Ramp Up Their Enforcement Against 'Hateful' Content
To: Twitch and Reddit Ramp Up Their Censorship Against Free Ideas Content.
That's what really is happening. There is no such thing as hate speech (as the Supreme Court has declared). Get a grip. They coming for you next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline Changes
So how about you repeat these "free ideas" that are being removed?
You know, put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Headline Changes
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline Changes
"Change the headline from true to lies and the meaning totally changes zomg!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline Changes
"Free Ideas Content"
Do you have any examples?
Of course not, you guys always refuse to provide them, because you secretly know exactly why your friends are being banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Headline Changes
At this point I'm thinking that phrases like 'free ideas content' have gone far past dog-whistle territory and into straight up 'everyone knows what it means, the speaker just isn't honest enough to own it'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Headline Changes
They always try this stuff. See: "alt-right". The people who came up with that term were smart enough to understand that the usual white supremacist labels didn't work any more, but not smart enough to realise that it was the ideology and not the labels that was the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline Changes
Yeah, RIGHT!
alt -shift -del
https://davidduke.com/what-the-simon-wiesenthal-center-award-to-harvey-weinstein-really-means-a bout-jewish-power-in-the-u-s/
idiot blabbermouth
Say it like it is, bro, or STFU.
Religion. The world only has this one problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline Changes
A quick word to the wise - if you want normal people to agree to you, an anti-Semitic rant from a former KKK grand wizard and current white supremacist probably isn't the source you want to use.
At least, I assume that's what it is from the headline, I won't give that kind of person a click.
It's also worth noting that in ranting against religion you linked to a self-proclaimed born again Christian. Irony, or are you just that stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline Changes
Change something idiotic you said into something else idiotic and see if anyone notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Praise Jeebus, and his Pharisee overlords for this revelation!
But, especially, thanks to the Anti Defamation League, AIPAC, HARVEY WEINSTEIN, and the Simon Weaselthal Center for providing Americans with the rhetoric of “hate speech. ”
Look! Jews, the KKK, and christians all agree: shitting on the first amendment is a requirement of US citizenship!
https://davidduke.com/what-the-simon-wiesenthal-center-award-to-harvey-weinstein-really-means-about -jewish-power-in-the-u-s/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Jews, the KKK, and christians all agree shitting on the first amendment is a requirement of US citizenship!"
Weird, that read like you're saying that all 3 of those groups are bad, but you linked to a KKK born again Christian for proof.
Hey, at least you're no longer pretending that you're using reliable news sources any more - opinion blogs from outright white supremacists are now good enough for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I heard that the_donald was inactive for months when they banned it as everyone on that sub moved to thedonald.win. No idea if this is the case though as I don't pay attention to that sub and the Internet Archive doesn't seem to work with quarantined subreddits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean... that when people found a site's policies not to their taste, they set up their own alternative site rather than demanding that their original choice bowed to their commands? Thereby, leaving both the group who were blocked and the people who wanted them kicked out happy in their own communities?
Shocking. Almost as if this is how things should work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]