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

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51204888]No, he simply claimed that there WAS collusion, which is absolutely true as evidenced by the email leaks and DNC leaks .[/QUOTE] Mind linking the relevant emails?

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;51204966]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like Admins could.[/QUOTE] A lot of shadowbans happen by accident, you can message the reddit admins to get them repealed.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51205064]Mind linking the relevant emails?[/QUOTE] [url]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8086[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/MatthewKick/status/743418063937220608/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url] [url]https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808[/url] [url]https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4150[/url] I didn't actually read through all of the thousands of leaked emails (sue me), so I had to do some quick searching but here are the first five I found. [QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51204964]that's fucking low if you're going to ban someone just ban them[/QUOTE] While it is low, if someone is constantly trolling for instance it would be better to ban them without their knowledge so they just shitpost in silence, as opposed to them just creating a new account after they learn of their ban.

[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] They can but only for their subs. Basically you set up automoderator to flag a users posts for mod approval(This is actually what regular shadowbanning does too, just makes all the users posts require mod approval.). The user will still see the post, but unless a mod approves it no one else will.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51205234][url]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8086[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zombinie;51205234][url]https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808[/url][/QUOTE] Both of these are nothing more than journalists looking for a rebuttal on what they have written, or at the very least comments on the matter. I'm having trouble finding the particular Lisa Lerer piece (Her AP history only goes as far back as this year) but the Ken Vogel page was particularly unflattering for the Democrats and was even picked up by a few conservatives. [QUOTE=Zombinie;51205234][url]https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url][/QUOTE] Mostly more of the above. Either 60 minutes approached Clinton's people or vice versa upon hearing about an interview. For their part, both Crowley and 60 minutes deny asking questions that other sources may have asked, and due diligence for a journalist would require asking questions that might oppose Assange's narrative. Which of those questions were "plants" by Crowley in particular is hard to guess because the criticisms brought up during the interview were ones held by many more people than Secretary Clinton's press team. [QUOTE=Zombinie;51205234][url]https://twitter.com/MatthewKick/status/743418063937220608/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url][/QUOTE] Not really collusion with the media to defend your candidate from the media. [QUOTE=Zombinie;51205234][url]https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4150[/url][/QUOTE] The guy outright refused an interview, that's like the opposite of collusion.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51204640]"I like the ones who weren't captured" All I really need to say pal.[/QUOTE] Thanks for doing literally exactly what I said was wrong about the whole situation. I don't know if the irony was intentional, but it doesn't make for intelligent discussion either way.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51205562]Thanks for doing literally exactly what I said was wrong about the whole situation. I don't know if the irony was intentional, but it doesn't make for intelligent discussion either way.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/18/trump-mccain-a-war-hero-because-he-was-captured-i-like-people-who-werent/"] “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you.”[/URL] Video has the full conversation, skip to around 4:00 for full context.

Exactly how reliable is Wikileaks anyways? We know Julian Assange has an undisclosed agenda and the feds have said that there's signs that Russia might be feeding them emails themselves. I'm sure it can't all be fake, but they can very easily change some stuff or release things without proper context.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51206058]Exactly how reliable is Wikileaks anyways? We know Julian Assange has an undisclosed agenda and the feds have said that there's signs that Russia might be feeding them emails themselves. I'm sure it can't all be fake, but they can very easily change some stuff or release things without proper context.[/QUOTE] Are you sure you're not mixing up Assange and Snowden? Assange is in London using the Embassy of Equador as refuge, Snowden is using Russia as refuge. As for Assange's agenda, it's not undisclosed. He laid out his agenda in an essay online ten years ago shortly before starting Wikileaks and literally achieving his endgame immediately. sorry for the blog-type post: [url]https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/[/url] To attack conspiracies.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;51202616]Did you actually read the threads that got linked? [B]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.[/B] 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 must be blind because I can't see any relevant links. And I think that it would be downright retarded not to consider the bias that r/the_donald has against mainstream media and really anything remotely liberal at all. It would like it's liberal equivalent, r/enoughtrumpspam, claiming that r/the_donald contains mostly russian bots using the same level of thinking as "R/POLITICS IS RUN BY CTR SHILLS BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" [editline]15th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombinie;51202252]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] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/57lge3/users_in_rundelete_have_had_enough_of_rthe_donald/"]r/undelete is pretty bias too, some of the moderators of r/undelete are getting tired of this whole shill meme[/URL] Don't believe me? [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/57m3o3/mods_of_renoughtrumpspam_have_just_been_made_mods/"]Top thread is claiming that the new mods of r/enoughtrumpspam are mostly CTR shills without evidence other than usernames.[/URL] Clicking on any thread related to politics will likely bring you posts about how everyone but them is a CTR shill.

Who would have guessed that the media is biased towards the left. I thought most people figured that out years ago.

[QUOTE=Orkel;51205018]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.[/QUOTE] Every forum/blog/thing with comments should have shadow bans, and some tools to automatically obfuscate the process. Things like fake ratings, viewcounts, etc. It's a wonderful tool to make dedicated spamming efforts less effective. Like anything else, they can be misused, but that's the nature of powerful tools.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51208796]Every forum/blog/thing with comments should have shadow bans, and some tools to automatically obfuscate the process. Things like fake ratings, viewcounts, etc. It's a wonderful tool to make dedicated spamming efforts less effective. Like anything else, they can be misused, but that's the nature of powerful tools.[/QUOTE] That's the thing, without transparent moderation, then you can't call corrupt moderation out on their scummy shit when they pull it off.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51208537] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/57m3o3/mods_of_renoughtrumpspam_have_just_been_made_mods/"]Top thread is claiming that the new mods of r/enoughtrumpspam are mostly CTR shills without evidence other than usernames.[/URL].[/QUOTE] How incredibly dishonest of you. Let's examine the full title of the post. And for good measure, let's post whats inside of the archive link. [quote]Mods of /r/EnoughTrumpSpam have just been made mods of /r/politics, as well as multiple brand new, most likely CorrectTheRecord accounts.[/quote] [t]http://i.imgur.com/PNLggJa.png[/t] Let's address the first part. It's pretty darn weird that a subreddit that claims to solely want political news, especially one that has very little of a "trump spam" problem, brings on every moderator of a subreddit that is based entirely around opposing a candidate. Secondly. it is always very bad for any subreddit when brand new accounts are made into moderators. Why? Because it's always either A) a moderator that was previously ousted by the community making a return, or B) the current moderators preparing a scapegoat in case any changes they're planning go sideways. Either way, sweeping reform of a subreddit contrary to its users interests will result. [editline]16th October 2016[/editline] Even putting aside the whole "wow this is OBVIOUSLY correct the record shill planting!!!" presumption, the development is extremely worrying. Especially since they did no announcements, no communication whatsoever with their community regarding the sudden bloating of the subreddit's moderation.

[QUOTE=Van-man;51211426]That's the thing, without transparent moderation, then you can't call corrupt moderation out on their scummy shit when they pull it off.[/QUOTE] Sure you can. It's up to the site admins to care. Reddit doesn't care about the community, and has been a shillfest for years. A shit site is going to be shit whether or not the tools exist. It's going to be even shittier with them, but misuse is not a very good argument in favor if discarding an otherwise useful tool.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51211973]How incredibly dishonest of you. Let's examine the full title of the post. And for good measure, let's post whats inside of the archive link. [t]http://i.imgur.com/PNLggJa.png[/t] Let's address the first part. It's pretty darn weird that a subreddit that claims to solely want political news, especially one that has very little of a "trump spam" problem, brings on every moderator of a subreddit that is based entirely around opposing a candidate. Secondly. it is always very bad for any subreddit when brand new accounts are made into moderators. Why? Because it's always either A) a moderator that was previously ousted by the community making a return, or B) the current moderators preparing a scapegoat in case any changes they're planning go sideways. Either way, sweeping reform of a subreddit contrary to its users interests will result. [editline]16th October 2016[/editline] Even putting aside the whole "wow this is OBVIOUSLY correct the record shill planting!!!" presumption, the development is extremely worrying. Especially since they did no announcements, no communication whatsoever with their community regarding the sudden bloating of the subreddit's moderation.[/QUOTE] Let me go through each user new since it seems that you can't be bothered to go through them yourself. [quote] hansjens47 (20019): User of 4 years, no subreddits of interest. PoliticsModeratorBot (82680): It's a bot Qu1nlan (140517): User of 4 years english06 (42720): User of 6 years Kumorigoe (2786): User of 6 years pimanac (5608): User of 3 years ticsuap (63): User of 4 years. has 6000+ comment karma samplebitch (7154): User of 7 years TheAquaman (3322): User of 3 years optimalg (14361): User of 3 years tme001 (2540): User of 8 years, Moderator of a mildly anti-donald parody subreddit named [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donaldd/"]r/the_donaldd[/URL] Isentrope (1733): User of 6 years, see above. IAMAVelociraptorAMA (5019): User of 4 years [B]Banshee__Queen (601): User of 1 year, moderator of r/EnoughTrumpSpam[/B] lyssargh (752): User of 3 years likeafox (606): User of 8 years scottgetsittogether (332): User of 1 year InIncognitoMode (1): User of 3 years [B]DefenestratedLynx (1): User of less than 1 year[/B] [B]YouveHadOneTooMany (1): Brand new user.[/B] Creation_Soul (1): User of 3 years, 6000+ comment karma Quiglius (189454): User of less than 1 year. Obvious turbonerd if he has 189k karma in 1 year. Santi871 (7223): User of 3 years. hockeypeg18 (4231): User of 2 years. lucastars (66): User of 4 years, 10k+ comment karma.[/quote] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/about/moderators[/url] I also looked at all other moderators of politics, and can you guess how many of them were part of the r/enoughtrumpspam mod team? Hint: ZERO. So I guess that claim of [quote]brings on every moderator of a subreddit that is based entirely around opposing a candidate.[/quote] Is full of shit like anything that is posted on r/the_donald So congrats. You fell for a lie. There's only 1 moderator of r/enoughtrumpspam so I guess that means that r/politics is bias. And since there are 2 brand new users I guess that means they're planning on blaming all their problems on these brand new mods (this doesn't work out, ever) And as for that outcasts returning part, that could be true, but it could be false. But I think you're being incredibly pessimistic about r/politics and assuming the worst in them. Consider the other just as likely possibilities such as the new moderators might be friends of currently existing moderators, and/or they know they have previous moderating experience.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51213120]Let me go through each user new since it seems that you can't be bothered to go through them yourself. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/about/moderators[/url] I also looked at all other moderators of politics, and can you guess how many of them were part of the r/enoughtrumpspam mod team? Hint: ZERO. So I guess that claim of Is full of shit like anything that is posted on r/the_donald So congrats. You fell for a lie. There's only 1 moderator of r/enoughtrumpspam so I guess that means that r/politics is bias. And since there are 2 brand new users I guess that means they're planning on blaming all their problems on these brand new mods (this doesn't work out, ever) And as for that outcasts returning part, that could be true, but it could be false. But I think you're being incredibly pessimistic about r/politics and assuming the worst in them. Consider the other just as likely possibilities such as the new moderators might be friends of currently existing moderators, and/or they know they have previous moderating experience.[/QUOTE] The point still stands that the extreme lack of communication between the moderators of r/politics and their users is downright abhorrent. For a long time it has been as if there were two communities within the subreddit, the moderators and the users. This sudden powermove only further extends the line between the two..

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51213839]The point still stands that the extreme lack of communication between the moderators of r/politics and their users is downright abhorrent. For a long time it has been as if there were two communities within the subreddit, the moderators and the users. This sudden powermove only further extends the line between the two..[/QUOTE] Is there a reason as to why r/politics has to tell everyone that they have new moderators? And how is this a powermove? More moderators doesn't necessarily mean there is more power to the moderators.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51213857]Is there a reason as to why r/politics has to tell everyone that they have new moderators?.[/QUOTE] Sure, its a community. [quote]More moderators doesn't necessarily mean there is more power to the moderators[/quote] Yeah, I agree with this mostly, but if you have a bigger moderator team you can enforce more invasive policies than with a smaller team.