[UPDATE] Major Reddit communities going private in mass protest

[SurvivorNVL]

Proud that I never touched Reddit.  Even once.  That said; Reddit firing her is for the best.  Though technically they shouldn't have had too, since she should've never been HIRED in the first place, but, eh.

[dalekphalm]

22 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Unfortunately this is a result of the psychology of individuals.

 

Certain personalities lean towards certain job/carer types, Media for example, be it journalism, on screen reporters , presenters, actors etc, are the types of profession those with a more extrovert personality favor. A person who looks outward towards others, wants to change others, who wants to be in the spotlight, to be the leader at a party etc. These types of people favor the left leanings of politics (the policies of changing others, progresivism etc).

 

On the other side, those who are more introverted, who look to themselves, to change themselves rather than others, doesnt like being in the spotlight, those who would rather work behind the scenes, in industry etc. These people tend to be centrist or lean right politically.

 

As such when you hear about cancel culture, it can only be used when you have control of the platform your using, these platforms are ofc a type of media, a type of mass socializing, all things that appeal and are controlled by those whom lean 'left'. As such the 'target' and thus those who talk and complain about it, are those on the opposing political side.. the 'right'.

 

It is however ironic when you see someone considered a 'lefty' get 'canceled' ..as it has been said that cancel culture will eventual eat itself (the left eating the left).

 

What is your basis for all of this?

 

You're basically claiming that people who are in Media are naturally left inclined. You're also claiming that "cancelling" people is by nature a "left" thing.

 

Which is quite simply not true. "Cancelling" abides by no political lines, and there are plenty of examples of right wing people wanting something "cancelled".

 

Trying to make this a political left/right issue is, disingenuous at best, I would say.

[Bombastinator]

23 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Unfortunately this is a result of the psychology of individuals.

 

Certain personalities lean towards certain job/carer types, Media for example, be it journalism, on screen reporters , presenters, actors etc, are the types of profession those with a more extrovert personality favor. A person who looks outward towards others, wants to change others, who wants to be in the spotlight, to be the leader at a party etc. These types of people favor the left leanings of politics (the policies of changing others, progresivism etc).

 

On the other side, those who are more introverted, who look to themselves, to change themselves rather than others, doesnt like being in the spotlight, those who would rather work behind the scenes, in industry etc. These people tend to be centrist or lean right politically.

 

As such when you hear about cancel culture, it can only be used when you have control of the platform your using, these platforms are ofc a type of media, a type of mass socializing, all things that appeal and are controlled by those whom lean 'left'. As such the 'target' and thus those who talk and complain about it, are those on the opposing political side.. the 'right'.

 

It is however ironic when you see someone considered a 'lefty' get 'canceled' ..as it has been said that cancel culture will eventual eat itself (the left eating the left).

 

I’m getting a “this is the way it is” statement with literally zero backing.  
 

Might possibly be true.  Probably isn’t but could be.  Has a massive huff of old-wives-tale about it.  
 

Is there research that supports this?  

 

One would think if there was it would be very widely trumpeted.  It has been shown that something being unpopular with media types does not stop it from being disseminated.  That I’ve never even heard it before though says to me it could be BS. One interesting point I see here is that part of the claim uses language identical to several personality tests.  This gives it the whiff of research, but using that language does not mean that actual research supports it.  It DOES mean though that a personality test would have picked it up many many years ago and AFAIK that never happened. If it did it would have been easily by far the MOST important thing to ever come out of personality testing and would have been everywhere years ago.  But it’s not.  

[CarlBar]

On 3/26/2021 at 4:59 PM, Bombastinator said:

So you’re saying there is no good evidence that the father and husband have this issue or  that there has been no prosecution in spite of good evidence? It was alleged that One of the issues here seems to be that the actual Reddit worker was associated with a political party and no prosecution could take place.  This strikes me as somewhat unlikely given the immense distaste society has for that offense. 

 

Despite being in the UK both of the claimed incidents sailed past me without being noticed. That said the first incident had her father successfully prosecuted. The second is far muddier and less clear. There's claims of an account hack and an investigation, but no information on how that investigation turned out that i've been able to dig up in a hurry.

[Bombastinator]

54 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Despite being in the UK both of the claimed incidents sailed past me without being noticed. That said the first incident had her father successfully prosecuted. The second is far muddier and less clear. There's claims of an account hack and an investigation, but no information on how that investigation turned out that i've been able to dig up in a hurry.

I’m in the US and didn’t hear much about it though it isn’t the kind of thing I’d pay a ton of attention to.  There are people dealing with it.  Thats good enough for me unless it starts getting used for something annoying.

[Orcblood]

On 3/25/2021 at 9:15 AM, wkdpaul said:

subreddits are run by regular people that have nothing to do with the company itself.

Yes, I know this. Some good some bad. But I have seen first hand a lot of big subreddits that matter, that will ban anything slightly right wing & promote anything Left wing any chance they get. 

 

On 3/25/2021 at 9:15 AM, wkdpaul said:

as @Bombastinator said, they could've think it was spam and didn't look further into it.

 

I don't even think I've ever even posted on /r/linux, mostly just a lurker, & I only made a few comments ever prior and that was like a way before that day I commented with this. This is the one and only comment I made that month that got me banned. This was of course shortly after January 6th so the purge was still heavily going on. Like I said to the mods, I found it disturbing that I got banned. Just realized I never replied to his comment asking if there was a reason to suspect my comment so i'll probably follow that up now but either way this just seems like bad moding. Anyway, there's bigger things going on now like actors getting canceled & de-platformed & books getting taken down from amazon that people don't agree with. 

 

https://imgur.com/a/trXYUAn

[WkdPaul]

12 minutes ago, Orcblood said:

*snip*

I personally don't see anything wrong with your comment, but your questioning for the ban reason is VERY odd ... just a heads up, they might have their reasons for the ban, but you assuming it's because of your political affiliation just ticks another box that will convince them not to unban you.

 

Next time, simply inquire why, and don't shoehorn some agenda into it, that stuff never help with ban appeals.

[Orcblood]

32 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

I personally don't see anything wrong with your comment, but your questioning for the ban reason is VERY odd ... just a heads up, they might have their reasons for the ban, but you assuming it's because of your political affiliation just ticks another box that will convince them not to unban you.

 

Next time, simply inquire why, and don't shoehorn some agenda into it, that stuff never help with ban appeals.

I'm sorry but literally what else do I have to go on other than political affliction being a factor? Like legit... Can't blame me for going there as they gave me no reason & that's all I can see from my comment as how controversial mainstream media has made Gab to be & how especially politically sensitive everyone seems to be now a days. Anyway I just asked them to clarify why. Hopefully they give me the time of day but not holding my breath. 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Orcblood said:

I'm sorry but literally what else do I have to go on other than political affliction being a factor? Like legit... Can't blame me for going there as they gave me no reason & that's all I can see from my comment as how controversial mainstream media has made Gab to be & how especially politically sensitive everyone seems to be now a days. Anyway I just asked them to clarify why. Hopefully they give me the time of day but not holding my breath. 

Something you don’t see as a problem apparently.  
 

I remember a similar thing happening to various columnists who reported being fired because of their political affiliation, but when it was looked into they weren’t fired for that reason but for with publishing statements which were provably not true or for sexual harassment. 

 

I think this is why the previous statement was made.  When someone claims they are being removed because of political beliefs it is rarely true.  As such a person looking at such a ban would be required to find out what the actual reason was and it’s work they may not bother to even do. 
 

If you simply asked why it would have to be looked into and if it actually WAS politically motivated (rare, remember?) they would then find out.  

[WkdPaul]

3 minutes ago, Orcblood said:

Can't blame me for going there 

oh but I 100% can, yes, BTW we (moderators) are human. As such, mistakes can happen, bias can be present, so it's possible they decided to ban you simply because of what you posted somewhere else.

 

With that said, you assigning the ban to something that wasn't present in your post is yours, and yours alone. Next time, ask why without bringing anything into it, they'll have an explanation (that you might not like), but at least you'll know where they're coming from (again, not saying you'll agree).

 

I've been on the other side of this, and all your reply does is raise all sorts of red flag.

[Orcblood]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

oh but I 100% can, yes, BTW we (moderators) are human. As such, mistakes can happen, bias can be present, so it's possible they decided to ban you simply because of what you posted somewhere else.

 

With that said, you assigning the ban to something that wasn't present in your post is yours, and yours alone. Next time, ask why without bringing anything into it, they'll have an explanation (that you might not like), but at least you'll know where they're coming from (again, not saying you'll agree).

 

I've been on the other side of this, and all your reply does is raise all sorts of red flag.

 

I'm sorry but I don't see how my reply was wrong or "raises all sorts of red flags". It wasn't great sure but at worst it was just an okay reply. I have a full time job & a life so I don't really have the desire to try and cozy up to the moderators. I thought my desire to know why I got banned was shortly & calmly asked by me to the mod. A normal person could clearly see that my flagged comment itself shouldn't have been considered controversial enough to deserve a ban. Not even remotely. Not by itself anyway. I used a self censored swear word but i've seen many people use un-censored swear words in that sub leading up to it. So yeah obviously i jumped to the only assumption I could think of at the time. Also at the time my reddit history was rather easy to look through so he could have easily checked it out to see if there was other things said by me that could have warranted the ban. But sure I guess I'll throw-out the knee jerk reaction to assume the worst next time and probably add a please when asking why I got banned. This was my first time getting banned from a sub mind you so I acknowledge inexperience probably played a part. If he was a good mod, read what was flagged, he would have wondered why I got banned for such a thing and got to digging into it for me & getting back with an answer. But nope. 

 

Here's also the context that the "context" hyper linked in the image I shared earlier goes to if you care to look. As you can see I only said that one thing that got quoted for the ban. Not sure why op got his comment removed but i don't remember it being anything bad. Anyway this whole thing screams bad moderation. 

https://imgur.com/a/Ma2kywh

 

 

Thanks for at least acknowledging moderation bias. I feel like you have some bias here and I can't blame you, as moderating is an exhausting & for the most part a thankless job. Also understand I'm probably to much of a free speech advocate/lover to meet current mod standards as I was taught growing up to highly value free speech & that everyone should have a voice even Nazi's who we view to be the absolute scum of the earth.

 

 

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

oh but I 100% can, yes, BTW we (moderators) are human. As such, mistakes can happen, bias can be present, so it's possible they decided to ban you simply because of what you posted somewhere else.

 

With that said, you assigning the ban to something that wasn't present in your post is yours, and yours alone. Next time, ask why without bringing anything into it, they'll have an explanation (that you might not like), but at least you'll know where they're coming from (again, not saying you'll agree).

 

I've been on the other side of this, and all your reply does is raise all sorts of red flag.

i once got banned from a subreddit because i made one comment on r/thedonald. and that comment got me banned from thedonald also.

but after explaining it to the mods they unbanned me