Reddit CEO Actively Altered/Censored User Comments

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, Swatson said:

Seeing a lot of slippery slope fallacy here. No he's not gonna edit in CP or other horrific things. Yes what he did was wrong, but dont imply that automatically means he's literally hitler going around terrorizing reddit. Everyone likes to call for a CEO's head as soon as they make a mistake. He admitted what he did pretty soon after he did it and really it's not resignation worthy imo. Just because someone did something you dont like doesnt mean they have to automatically lose their job.

It's not a slippery slope fallacy when you have historical precedent for why the banning of speech based solely on "moral judgements" is a horrible road to go down.

 

For examples, please see every single last "communist" "fascist" regime throughout fucking history.

[Trik'Stari]

18 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

1st amendment does NOT cover the verbal abuse of other private citizens. It only covers you when you speak (in a non-libelous/non-slanderous) of a company or the government.

Abuse would be a crime, which I said is not protected by the 1st amendment.

 

"Hate speech", is protected by the first amendment so long as it does not become direct harassment or threats. That's why the KKK and the Black Panthers are both allowed to exist and hold rallies.

 

Should they? Probably not, but allowing the government to ban them opens a very bad door that ends, historically, with anyone who disagrees with government being labeled a communist and thrown in jail.

[Albatross]

Someone called you a cuck? Get over it or stop acting like one? It is that simple. It isn't racist, it isn't sexist and it doesn't make them Hitler nor does it make it right to impersonate them and mass edit their comments in an effort to start a civil war which could give you "reason" to ban the subreddit. This wasn't just a "joke" like the guy claims it was. It was serious but because the people in this subreddit are at large hated, simply for who they voted for and based on the actions of a minority, it is accepted.

 

I'm on the subreddit a lot in order to get Trump related news without the bullshit of CNN and DNC controlled media. Most people there are kind. Maybe douchey about winning a lot (pepe memes), but they aren't the people the rest of the site makes them out to be. Just because someone else had a terrible experience with someone there doesn't mean every single one of them is like that.

 

I find it pretty funny though so many people are against r/the_donald for doing things they do here or on other subreddits. Talk about double standards.

 

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

1st amendment does NOT cover the verbal abuse of other private citizens. It only covers you when you speak (in a non-libelous/non-slanderous) of a company or the government.

 

1st Amendment does not only cover speech concerning companies or government...you can say whatever you want so long as it doesn't cause direct harm or incite others to harm.

 

As @Trik'Stari pointed out, it is why the KKK and Black Panther (and others) are allowed to exist.

[Trik'Stari]

4 minutes ago, Albatross said:

Someone called you a cuck? Get over it or stop acting like one? It is that simple. It isn't racist, it isn't sexist and it doesn't make them Hitler nor does it make it right to impersonate them and mass edit their comments in an effort to start a civil war which could give you "reason" to ban the subreddit. This wasn't just a "joke" like the guy claims it was. It was serious but because the people in this subreddit are at large hated, simply for who they voted for and based on the actions of a minority, it is accepted.

 

I'm on the subreddit a lot in order to get Trump related news without the bullshit of CNN and DNC controlled media. Most people there are kind. Maybe douchey about winning a lot (pepe memes), but they aren't the people the rest of the site makes them out to be. Just because someone else had a terrible experience with someone there doesn't mean every single one of them is like that.

 

I find it pretty funny though so many people are against r/the_donald for doing things they do here or on other subreddits. Talk about double standards.

Communist ideologues always see fascists around every corner, and fascist ideologues always see communists around every corner.

 

Kind of funny when you realize that they both almost the exact same thing (In practice. They just claim to have different ideas)

[Energycore]

What do I think? This situation is a wash and we should all be looking hard into it before stating an opinion.

[Albatross]

9 hours ago, Swatson said:

Seeing a lot of slippery slope fallacy here. No he's not gonna edit in CP or other horrific things. Yes what he did was wrong, but dont imply that automatically means he's literally hitler going around terrorizing reddit. Everyone likes to call for a CEO's head as soon as they make a mistake. He admitted what he did pretty soon after he did it and really it's not resignation worthy imo. Just because someone did something you dont like doesnt mean they have to automatically lose their job.

 

He got caught admitting to doing "far worse" before too. This isn't the first time he has done it and now we have no reason to suspect he hasn't done it before to people he doesn't like. Even if this was his first violation of his own site's rule, it wouldn't change the severity of the issue either.

 

And he didn't even apologize for it either, though it wouldn't have made it better. He gave a half-baked explanation as to why he did it, as if that makes it any better, and then promptly went into a chat with others to start a circlejerk about why the subreddit needed to be illegitimately removed if it had to be. He even continued to joke about editing people's comments.

 

Impersonating and mass editing the comments of dozens of people, when you know that sort of thing can lead to a lawsuit, because you don't like them isn't "resignation" worthy? I find it appalling that you do not see this as a serious matter, but then again half of reddit feels the same way and could care less that people are being mistreated simply because they do not like them.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Perhaps, and this is just a thought.

 

Perhaps the CEO and employees of a company that provides a public forum of discussion, should not intervene in said discussion unless some law is actually broken.

 

I'm sorry but the whole "it's a private company" bullshit should not allow you to circumvent the 1st amendment when your company exists to offer a public forum for discussion and debate. You should not get to be "open to the public" but then claim the right to control what is said, simply because you disagree with what is being said.

 

That is censorship. You do not get to take advantage of the freedom of running a business, then deny other freedoms to those who use your business.

 

And please, do not bring up that bullshit XKCD meme, it fails to address the entire point and merely attempts to disarm/deflect with comedy.

I say it's close but not quite there. If it was for example this forums, even though public, Linus should not be compelled to just allow everything and anything covered under 1A.

 

But once we can reasonably assume there's little competition or you pass a certain threshold of active users (say, a billion: Twitter, Facebook and Reddit) you can say that you have enough of a reach to have an additional burden and responsibility to uphold, if not the letter, the spirit of 1A.

 

Radio stations and TV stations are after all regulated because we foresaw their strategic importance so we can't just say "Oh this history-changing telecommunication tool is private so no free speech provisions or moderation whatsoever" and arguably some of these social networks have even more reach than TV at this point.

 

So not exactly 1A provisions but something in between lawlessness and shitty, politically motivated bigotted SJWs suppressing ideas and 1A.

 

[Trik'Stari]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I say it's close but not quite there. If it was for example this forums, even though public, Linus should not be compelled to just allow everything and anything covered under 1A.

 

But once we can reasonably assume there's little competition or you pass a certain threshold of active users (say, a billion: Twitter, Facebook and Reddit) you can say that you have enough of a reach to have an additional burden and responsibility to uphold, if not the letter, the spirit of 1A.

 

Radio stations and TV stations are after all regulated because we foresaw their strategic importance so we can't just say "Oh this history-changing telecommunication tool is private so no free speech provisions or moderation whatsoever" and arguably some of these social networks have even more reach than TV at this point.

 

So not exactly 1A provisions but something in between lawlessness and shitty, politically motivated bigotted SJWs suppressing ideas and 1A.

 

^Exactly this.

 

Once you have a certain reach, you attain power and "authority", and that power should come with a responsibility to not abuse it for your own ends. Both parties are very much guilty of this, but the left has been more successful as of late.

 

Why have they failed? Because they got too exclusive. Like a cult, they have shunned, mocked, derided, and silenced anyone who questions or disagrees with their ideology. And in doing so, they have made themselves the minority.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Maybe I'm overthinking and maybe I'm not but with all the recent incidents with social media, fake news, and the likes, I wonder if people aren't just doubling up to get publicity.  How do we know that Spez doesn't criticize himself or create controversies under other usernames?  Seems all to coincidental that everyday an individual of high power is in the news for some issue and then the whole incident just disappears.

 

In my opinion it doesn't seem likely that these people are just letting their emotions get the best of them and lashing out at users. I think there has to be some alternate agenda and it's most likely money as it almost always is.

[Guest Kloaked]

2 hours ago, Albatross said:

I find it pretty funny though so many people are against r/the_donald for doing things they do here or on other subreddits. Talk about double standards.

a-fucking-men

[TidaLWaveZ]

2 hours ago, Albatross said:

 

I find it pretty funny though so many people are against r/the_donald for doing things they do here or on other subreddits. Talk about double standards.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

a-fucking-men

You guys better grab a seat because you're in for years of people blaming all their problems on The Donald.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

You guys better grab a seat because you're in for years of people blaming all their problems on The Donald.

I heard 8 years of the Obama administration blaming the Bush administration for everything, and that attitude rubbed off on so many people so it doesn't surprise me.

[TidaLWaveZ]

3 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I heard 8 years of the Obama administration blaming the Bush administration for everything, and that attitude rubbed off on so many people so it doesn't surprise me.

I can hear it now...

 

"America was making great progression before Trump came and ruined it!"

[S w a t s o n]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's not a slippery slope fallacy when you have historical precedent for why the banning of speech based solely on "moral judgements" is a horrible road to go down.

 

For examples, please see every single last "communist" "fascist" regime throughout fucking history.

No, it's still a slippery slope fallacy. Saying X will happen because Y happened is all that is required to invoke that fallacy.

 

2 hours ago, Albatross said:

Impersonating and mass editing the comments of dozens of people, when you know that sort of thing can lead to a lawsuit, because you don't like them isn't "resignation" worthy? I find it appalling that you do not see this as a serious matter, but then again half of reddit feels the same way and could care less that people are being mistreated simply because they do not like them.

A lawsuit for saying fuck "insert users name here"? Again, stop assuming hypotheticals are going to happen and work with the facts.

 

It's pretty funny that people are singling out reddit as if admins on pretty much every forum or community dont have the same power (and use it too!)

 

I should probably make it clear that I strongly disagree with editing of users posts, but I also live in the real world and realize that this isnt the end of the world.

[Blade of Grass]

14 hours ago, ChineseChef said:

My other question is, if challenged, would this negate the "safe harbor" status of Reddit?  Since they have now shown they are willing to edit comments directly and secretly.  They can't claim to not be in control of what their users post, since they obviously are in control, and have shown their willingness to directly modify user's posts with evidence of such modifications.

No, they cannot lose safe harbour for that reason. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects all website operators from being classified as publishers, even if they edit the content on their site. 

[MrDynamicMan]

15 hours ago, Jorgen297 said:

He's done this over multiple years. It's appalling, especially since reddit account history has been used as information in court. He could technically edit in CP in people's comments through the database and leave no traces. He should step off immediately. 

Source for him doing this multiple years? In his thread on r/announcements he said he'd done it only once in 2009 when he changed 'fag' to 'fog', and would edit titles when requested for spelling mistakes. 

 

Anyway, has anyone actually read TD? The comments he edited where accusations of owning child sex slaves. He dun goofed, but TD is fucking cancerous. 

[MrDynamicMan]

11 hours ago, Kloaked said:

 

Well like I said earlier, it's a circlejerk subreddit for the most part so they'll exaggerate a lot of things. However, a lot of the people there (won't say all of them) have fair arguments against the media, even their own trusted sources like Breitbart, Infowars, Fox, etc. They call out bullshit when they see it and it doesn't matter where it comes from. The problem is a lot of the bullshit they see is coming from left-leaning outlets like HuffPo, NYT and so on.

Tell me again about r/pizzagate. 

 

No,  r/TD was a bastion of censorship and false information. In my books, you lose your freedom to spam the front page as soon Dissent is a bannable offense. 

[MrDynamicMan]

5 hours ago, Albatross said:

 

He got caught admitting to doing "far worse" before too. This isn't the first time he has done it and now we have no reason to suspect he hasn't done it before to people he doesn't like. Even if this was his first violation of his own site's rule, it wouldn't change the severity of the issue either.

 

And he didn't even apologize for it either, though it wouldn't have made it better. He gave a half-baked explanation as to why he did it, as if that makes it any better, and then promptly went into a chat with others to start a circlejerk about why the subreddit needed to be illegitimately removed if it had to be. He even continued to joke about editing people's comments.

 

Impersonating and mass editing the comments of dozens of people, when you know that sort of thing can lead to a lawsuit, because you don't like them isn't "resignation" worthy? I find it appalling that you do not see this as a serious matter, but then again half of reddit feels the same way and could care less that people are being mistreated simply because they do not like them.

"He has done this previously too"

 

Citation. Needed. 

 

[Bouzoo]

54 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

"He has done this previously too"

 

Citation. Needed. 

 

It is among the first posts in the thread.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/379042/reddit-ceo-editing-post/

[MrDynamicMan]

3 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

It is among the first posts in the thread.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/379042/reddit-ceo-editing-post/

One incident, in 2009,concerning one letter, is not a tragedy. 

[Prysin]

19 hours ago, eLucid said:

Lolworthy to say the least.

if you can laugh at the matter of a CEO behind arguably one of the biggest, most trafficated sites in the world going and personally silencing people for going against his or her own personal opinions, then you sir, you are the cancer of the free world.

 

This is no laughing matter. Tiny things like these can change whole societies. Censorship is NOT a joke. it must be taken with extreme care if it is ever to happen. If not, you will see extremely dangerous individuals rise to power with nobody to stop them before it is far too late.

[Hawx]

There's an announcement now if no one has seen it: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_editing_some_comments_and_creating_an/

 

the_donald is essentially toxic trash. The other conservative subreddits keep to themselves, yet the_donald feels like ruining the rest of reddit. 

 

It should've been quarantined back when they were abusing the /r/all algorithm to constantly get themselves to the top. 

[potoooooooo]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

if you can laugh at the matter of a CEO behind arguably one of the biggest, most trafficated sites in the world going and personally silencing people for going against his or her own personal opinions, then you sir, you are the cancer of the free world.

 

This is no laughing matter. Tiny things like these can change whole societies. Censorship is NOT a joke. it must be taken with extreme care if it is ever to happen. If not, you will see extremely dangerous individuals rise to power with nobody to stop them before it is far too late.

How can you be so blissfully unaware of how dramatic you're being? Changing "Fuck spez" to "fuck trumpshaker" isn't silencing someone's opinion, it's not censorship, it's a misguided joke.

 

These things don't change societies because it's just some site on the internet that people shouldn't take too seriously anyway. You're proof of why websites shouldn't be taken seriously.

[lettuce head]

he's the ceo of one of the biggest community of internet trolls on the planet (im an avid member myself but people on the internet are assholes...big surprise) and he cant handle people saying shit about him? sounds like he either doesnt know what it is to be a CEO or he doesnt know how the internet works.

[eLucid]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

if you can laugh at the matter of a CEO behind arguably one of the biggest, most trafficated sites in the world going and personally silencing people for going against his or her own personal opinions, then you sir, you are the cancer of the free world.

 

This is no laughing matter. Tiny things like these can change whole societies. Censorship is NOT a joke. it must be taken with extreme care if it is ever to happen. If not, you will see extremely dangerous individuals rise to power with nobody to stop them before it is far too late.

 

 

I think you misunderstood. Regardless, reddit (generally) is a cesspool that's full of censorship. Don't believe me? Go into any topic with an unpopular opinion and see for yourself, kiddo.