Congress confirms Reddit admins were trying to hide evidence of email tampering during Clinton trial - General

[hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQcfjR4vnTQ[/hd] [editline]14th October 2016[/editline] But wait, [URL="http://archive.is/wzKyp"]there's more[/URL]! [editline]14th October 2016[/editline] Not sure what to make out of all this, but reddit has and always been sketchy as shit.

Haven't trusted reddit ever since the CEO debacle and shadowbanning people. Shadowbanning to me is just admitting that you're wrong and doing everything to cover it up.

Attempting to discuss or engage on politics on Reddit is tantamount to drilling a nail through your.. ahm, private areas. Repeatedly. While simultaneously hanging yourself. Seriously, I go on Reddit all the time and the smaller communities are great, and some of the bigger gaming communities can be to. [B]But stay the FUCK away from the vast majority of defaults[/B] and ANYTHING to do with politics.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51201932] [B]But stay the FUCK away from the vast majority of defaults[/B] and ANYTHING to do with politics.[/QUOTE] The best politics subreddit is r/polandball

Yes there are many allegations right now regarding /r/politics being run by Clinton-financed mods / heavily biased. (Note that the second source is from /r/the_donald, so there is probably some bias there) [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/57cxjb/user_analyzes_375_posts_on_rpolitics_right_now/?ref=share&ref_source=link[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/57bz0w/134323675_it_needs_to_be_known_rpolitics_has_not/?ref=share&ref_source=link[/url]

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51202252]Yes many allegations right now regarding /r/politics being run by Clinton-financed mods / heavily biased. (Note that the second one is from /r/the_donald, so there is probably some bias there) [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/57cxjb/user_analyzes_375_posts_on_rpolitics_right_now/?ref=share&ref_source=link[/URL] [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/57bz0w/134323675_it_needs_to_be_known_rpolitics_has_not/?ref=share&ref_source=link[/URL][/QUOTE] There is precisely no evidence to any of this btw, somebodies trump yard sign could fall over and the_donald would find a way to blame it on clinton shills. "Wow why is r/politics so negative about trump," I don't know maybe it's because Trumps news has been nothing but negative for weeks now. In fact the_donald lies constantly about pretty much everything, including what kind of communication they have with the admins. To believe anything alleged by them is a serious waste of time.

[QUOTE=Streecer;51202272]There is precisely no evidence to any of this btw, somebodies trump yard sign could fall over and the_donald would find a way to blame it on clinton shills. "Wow why is r/politics so negative about trump," I don't know maybe it's because Trumps news has been nothing but negative for weeks now. In fact the_donald lies constantly about pretty much everything, including what kind of communication they have with the admins. To believe anything alleged by them is a serious waste of time.[/QUOTE] Did you actually read the threads that got linked? the r/politics mods are clearly deleting every anti-clinton wikileak, theres no need to beleive or trust trump supporters or whatever you can check yourself. also its kind of silly that your first response isn't to defend r/politics by refuting the evidence against then but by attacking the character of the people presenting the evidence.

Not even slightly surprised

To be quite honest, if you somehow wanted to save political discussion on Reddit (hint: don't fucking bother, most redditors are complete and utter morons), you'd need to nuke r/politics from orbit at-least 50 thousand times by; 1) making it non-default and unsubscribing everyone from it; 2) banning certain sources (such as Breitbart and Huffington Post - basically, any trashy source that skews things for one wing or another); 3) changing ALL the mods; 4) actually disable downvoting (on comments; not sure about stories) and recommending comments are organised chronologically. No, I don't mean that shitty CSS workaround. I mean literally making it impossible to downvote. It'd probably be a pain in the ass to code, but it'd be worth it - for politics and other subs. Still, it's reddit. There is a reason why I come here to discuss politics; mostly because the people here aren't complete idiots, SH isn't biased and allows for things to be discussed unless people go off the deep-end.

Didn't this ultra liberal bias start with the Ellen Pao era of reddit? Ever since she assumed position as CEO there has been a clear liberal bias by the mods, even after she stepped down. That site almost went the way of tumblr and yahoo.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;51202616]Did you actually read the threads that got linked? the r/politics mods are clearly deleting every anti-clinton wikileak, theres no need to beleive or trust trump supporters or whatever you can check yourself. also its kind of silly that your first response isn't to defend r/politics by refuting the evidence against then but by attacking the character of the people presenting the evidence.[/QUOTE] I'm attacking their character because you cannot trust a word they say. The first thread is just a list of the front page. The second link is another the_donald admin saying shit with no evidence, which was then removed because the admins told them to stop brigading r/politics. So no, there is no evidence of admins deleting threads.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51202741]To be quite honest, if you somehow wanted to save political discussion on Reddit (hint: don't fucking bother, most redditors are complete and utter morons), you'd need to nuke r/politics from orbit at-least 50 thousand times by; 1) making it non-default and unsubscribing everyone from it; 2) banning certain sources (such as Breitbart and Huffington Post - basically, any trashy source that skews things for one wing or another); 3) changing ALL the mods; 4) actually disable downvoting (on comments; not sure about stories) and recommending comments are organised chronologically. No, I don't mean that shitty CSS workaround. I mean literally making it impossible to downvote. It'd probably be a pain in the ass to code, but it'd be worth it - for politics and other subs. Still, it's reddit. There is a reason why I come here to discuss politics; mostly because the people here aren't complete idiots, SH isn't biased and allows for things to be discussed unless people go off the deep-end.[/QUOTE] I think the delisting of it n stuff as default subs would help a lot. Or even better, they should have a system like tumblr, when you sign up, you aren't subbed to really anything, they ask for a few tags, and then present a big list of people you could follow, in this case, subs. But really all that would do is help keep innocents away from the cancer. The issue is that the reddit algorithms literally do lead towards circlejerking by hiding away minority opinions until they just stop posting. They probably won't ever want to fix this since the precious precious reddit algorithms is their pride and joy

[QUOTE=Streecer;51202902]I'm attacking their character because you cannot trust a word they say. The first thread is just a list of the front page. The second link is another the_donald admin saying shit with no evidence, which was then removed because the admins told them to stop brigading r/politics. So no, there is no evidence of admins deleting threads.[/QUOTE] Dude are you kidding? I've seen it myself multiple times!

[QUOTE=Streecer;51202272]There is precisely no evidence to any of this btw, somebodies trump yard sign could fall over and the_donald would find a way to blame it on clinton shills. "Wow why is r/politics so negative about trump," I don't know maybe it's because Trumps news has been nothing but negative for weeks now. In fact the_donald lies constantly about pretty much everything, including what kind of communication they have with the admins. To believe anything alleged by them is a serious waste of time.[/QUOTE]You do realize that the media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to run negative pieces on Trump right? Even if the stuff that Trump has done is abhorrent, and the things he says retarded, there is still obvious collusion between the two entities, so obviously Trump news has been nothing but negative for weeks (and months)

[QUOTE=Killer900;51203165]You do realize that the media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to run negative pieces on Trump right? Even if the stuff that Trump has done is abhorrent, and the things he says retarded, there is still obvious collusion between the two entities, so obviously Trump news has been nothing but negative for weeks (and months)[/QUOTE] The DNC leaks pretty much back this up, if I am not mistaken.

[IMG]https://puu.sh/rJ7xl/a38543410b.PNG[/IMG] :hammered: (Also yes I use Drumpfinator)

[QUOTE=Killer900;51203165]You do realize that the media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to run negative pieces on Trump right? Even if the stuff that Trump has done is abhorrent, and the things he says retarded, there is still obvious collusion between the two entities, so obviously Trump news has been nothing but negative for weeks (and months)[/QUOTE] Best example I can think of is the recent PTSD thing where he advocated for better mental health care and very clearly did not mean to imply that soldiers with PTSD are weak, yet the media took one sentence completely out of context and ran with it.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51204176]Best example I can think of is the recent PTSD thing where he advocated for better mental health care and very clearly did not mean to imply that soldiers with PTSD are weak, yet the media took one sentence completely out of context and ran with it.[/QUOTE] If somebody says they support better veteran/mental healthcare before or after implying that soldiers with PTSD are weak (which he very obviously did to anyone who comprehends English), that's not taking it out of context. I can nod to his lip service about improving things while simultaneously taken aback by his questionable use of words in that instance. [editline]14th October 2016[/editline] That also doesn't prove collusion, which to me is taking the idea of the "liberal mainstream media" even a step further with no real evidence that the Clinton campaign and sources like CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and CNBC as well as online sources such as HuffPo, Politico, the Hill, and Forbes. All of these sources have covered Clinton and her campaigns' mistakes as well as Trumps, it may just be that Trump, being the type of personality he is, has more campaign stumbles, lending the surface view that the media is biased against him. Even then though, the idea that the media is biased towards liberals generally has at least a little credence given how many journalists tend to lean left as opposed to right, but for outright conclusion you will have to do a little bit better than "That time they took him out of context (even though they didn't take him out of context and I'm not going to define who exactly "they" was)".

[QUOTE=rider695;51201923]Haven't trusted reddit ever since the CEO debacle and shadowbanning people. Shadowbanning to me is just admitting that you're wrong and doing everything to cover it up.[/QUOTE] The fuck is Shadowbanning? sounds like secret ss police shit

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51204511]The fuck is Shadowbanning? sounds like secret ss police shit[/QUOTE] You get banned without knowing you are banned. You can make posts, but nobody outside of you sees them. It was originally made to be used for spambots I heard, but at some point, mods on various subreddits abused it. It was considered bad practice at some point, but around the time of the Ellen Pao controversy, word somehow got out that even staff members were using it if I recall correctly.

[QUOTE=Killer900;51203165]You do realize that the media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to run negative pieces on Trump right? Even if the stuff that Trump has done is abhorrent, and the things he says retarded, there is still obvious collusion between the two entities, so obviously Trump news has been nothing but negative for weeks (and months)[/QUOTE] Should we not be covering the negative things that his personal empire has done? Like establishing a fraudulent University? A fraudulent Charity that spends other peoples money to bail Donald out of his legal issues? Like, I believe there is collusion, but also, should we just ignore the reality of Trump to deal with Clinton being bad when there is a legitimately worse threat to the US than Clinton? [editline]14th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51204176]Best example I can think of is the recent PTSD thing where he advocated for better mental health care and very clearly did not mean to imply that soldiers with PTSD are weak, yet the media took one sentence completely out of context and ran with it.[/QUOTE] "I like the ones who weren't captured" All I really need to say pal.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;51204565]You get banned without knowing you are banned. You can make posts, but nobody outside of you sees them. It was originally made to be used for spambots I heard, but at some point, mods on various subreddits abused it. It was considered bad practice at some point, but around the time of the Ellen Pao controversy, word somehow got out that even staff members were using it if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE]i Mods can't and never have shadowbanned, only admins can. There's a notable difference between the two levels of power on there.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51204640]Should we not be covering the negative things that his personal empire has done? Like establishing a fraudulent University? A fraudulent Charity that spends other peoples money to bail Donald out of his legal issues? Like, I believe there is collusion, but also, should we just ignore the reality of Trump to deal with Clinton being bad when there is a legitimately worse threat to the US than Clinton?[/QUOTE] Are you consciously aware that you load your questions?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51204640]Should we not be covering the negative things that his personal empire has done? Should we just ignore the reality of Trump to deal with Clinton being bad when there is a legitimately worse threat to the US than Clinton? [/QUOTE] We should absolutely not ignore Trump's wrongs, but his wrongs do not make Hillary's actions right. This is not a discussion about Trump, this is a discussion about Hillary's manipulation of the media and internet. There are already plenty of threads to discuss Trump's own heinous actions.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51204789]Are you consciously aware that you load your questions?[/QUOTE] He posted about collusion with the media being the sole reason those stories are brought up in such a negative light. If you consider the question loaded, because in this instance reality is somewhat loaded against Trump, then my bad, but I can't do anything about that. People keep wanting to ignore what Trump has done or is doing. It gets brought up, but the people who support Trump largely ignore the things that are criticisms of him to go ahead and rail on Clinton. It's surely created a cycle where it's just "Trump Clinton" in an endless back and forth but then there's the simple and honest truth, that I don't support Clinton. I just oppose Trump more.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51204852]He posted about collusion with the media being the sole reason those stories are brought up in such a negative light. [/QUOTE] No, he simply claimed that there WAS collusion, which is absolutely true as evidenced by the email leaks and DNC leaks. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51204852]People keep wanting to ignore what Trump has done or is doing. [/QUOTE] And it seems to me that you ignore Clinton in the same way. No one cares where you stand politically, I also hate both candidates and despise Trump's actions but as I said before we aren't discussing Trump's actions here. No one is denying or ignoring his actions here. If you don't know what this thread is about you should try reading the title.

[QUOTE=Streecer;51202272]There is precisely no evidence to any of this btw, somebodies trump yard sign could fall over and the_donald would find a way to blame it on clinton shills. "Wow why is r/politics so negative about trump," I don't know maybe it's because Trumps news has been nothing but negative for weeks now. In fact the_donald lies constantly about pretty much everything, including what kind of communication they have with the admins. To believe anything alleged by them is a serious waste of time.[/QUOTE] This is the thread that sparked the latest reddit firestorm: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/56pqik/well_donald_trump_just_threatened_to_throw/[/url] Look at every single upvoted post. [editline]14th October 2016[/editline] It had (at the time) over 7000 karma and 7000 comments. It was at the #1 position of r/all when it was removed. Most highly upvoted comments are "whoah, the attitude in these comments is completely different from normal." and stuff. The theory is that CtR didn't realize it was an anti-hillary piece until it was at the top of reddit.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;51204565]You get banned without knowing you are banned. You can make posts, but nobody outside of you sees them. It was originally made to be used for spambots I heard, but at some point, mods on various subreddits abused it. It was considered bad practice at some point, but around the time of the Ellen Pao controversy, word somehow got out that even staff members were using it if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE] that's fucking low if you're going to ban someone just ban them

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;51204766]i Mods can't and never have shadowbanned, only admins can. There's a notable difference between the two levels of power on there.[/QUOTE] Oh, gotcha. I thought it was exclusive to subreddits, which is why I guessed mods could. Like, how mods can ban from subreddits but not site-wide like Admins could.

Facepunch has shadowbans as well, they're just practically never used since it needs an admin to perform the command, us mods can't do it.