• So the CEO of Reddit admitted to editing negative comments about him
    294 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Samiam22;51421614]What's this got to do with anything? Do you really believe r/the_donald is anything more than an echo chamber?.[/QUOTE] Do you think echo chambers are powerless or impotent politically? [QUOTE=Samiam22;51421614] No he wasn't. Had he not admitted to it, no one would have known. People had suspicions but no one knew for certain until he came out and said so[/QUOTE] I never meant to make it appear i knew he was caught, i was making an inquiring assumption. The fact that people suspected is bad enough though... did he admit only to the times people suspected it? did he admit it knowing the suspicions could be proven eventually if enough detective work was done (or was done by internal administration?) and came clean to prevent it entirely exploding in his face? What did he change and into what? are there other presidents?
[QUOTE=bunguer;51421008]This has been discussed dozens of times, Reddit is not a small website, people won't just "move to another website" when it is literally the largest place to discuss and share news. That's like asking for people to stop using Windows if they suddenly forbid third-party browsers or started censorship the websites you saw - just because they "can" doesn't mean they should, and you can bet there's regulations to stop companies such as Microsoft from doing exactly that. Large websites like Reddit and Facebook do not suffer that type of regulation, but the more this happens, the easier it is to justify doing that. Do you agree about having regulations regarding restaurants needing to serve people of all races? Restaurants are a private entity too.[/QUOTE] If you told a restaurant owner to go fuck himself he is 100% allowed to throw your ass out. This isn't racial discrimination. [editline]24th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51421053]The point is, since reddit is so big and has become a nearly invaluable part of the communication infrastructure... can they still claim to be a private platform? private package delivery companies for example, they could claim 'we can do pretty much what we want with these packages, so you cant do anything about it if we open them and steal your stuff because you gave them to us' but that’s not the case... you have extensive legal protection against this stuff... even with a private company. [editline]24th November 2016[/editline] exactly... this is for companies that have formed themselves as the foundation of public life... not that one forum that has just 1 women posting reviews of every Buffy the vampire slayer episode.[/QUOTE] Where do you guy keeps coming up with these analogies. If a delivery man steals your package that's still stealing. It was never anything else and has no bearing on the current conversation. I never thought I would live to see the day where people want the government to fully regulate websites inside their countries basically take state control of what an admin can and can't do on their own website after it hits some arbitrary view count.
[QUOTE=bunguer;51422083]Ah yes, comparing warez, an actual [i]illegal[/i] topic to opposing political views, a completely legal one. Not to mention that Facepunch is a small time forum, not the major discussion board on the web - not understanding this difference is not understanding the topic or being purposely disingenuous, since no one is defending regulations for small-mid sized companies. Then you talk about absurd then you go off by saying that Reddit is not a monopoly because Facepunch exists? Like how Microsoft isn't a monopoly despite Linux and Mac OS? (newsflash, it is) There's a distinct lack of arguments on why this type move should be supported, and instead you seem to focus on why Reddit is not that powerful, which ,when it has >550M monthly users and it is the largest/popular discussion board, I seriously wonder at your definition of powerful.[/QUOTE] Discussing warez isn't illegal. The size of Facepunch is pretty irrelevant to whether it's appropriate to restrict discussions (it's always appropriate, imo). Reddit's presence doesn't prevent anyone's use or creation of other forums or modes of discussion, so limiting Reddit's ability to act at its discretion is irresponsible. Reddit does not have a monopoly on content, nor on forums, nor would its market share on forums create any concern from regulators. It is a forum, and it is not exerting its power to affect anything but its own forum. It is not limiting the existence of other forums (except through acceptable market forces), nor is it using that market share to unduly influence its position in other markets. It's irrelevant whether Microsoft is a monopoly (it doesn't even have an OS monopoly now, just a Desktop OS monopoly), and the restrictions on its behavior are strictly regarding leveraging that market share to benefit other markets (its Office product line, Internet Explorer, etc). No one care if Microsoft would prevent you from using its OS in specific ways, unless Microsoft benefited its activities in other markets through that activity. I don't care whether anyone is happy about this move, but legally, it's completely acceptable. It's not concerning in the slightest, because [I]every website ever[/I] has this power, and you just never hear about most of the times that power is used. I mean, look at Facebook. That CEO insulted people who were stupid enough to give him all their private information, and he's still going strong. No one really cares.
reminder that impersonating someone is against the penal code in california and editing peoples posts to make them say whatever you want is basically impersonation. Reddit is HQ'd in San fran [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=528-539[/url] also [url]https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205020669[/url] [QUOTE]Can I impersonate someone else? Impersonating someone in a misleading or deceptive manner is not allowed. However, satire and parody are ok.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wii60;51423087]reminder that impersonating someone is against the penal code in california and editing peoples posts to make them say whatever you want is basically impersonation. Reddit is HQ'd in San fran [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=528-539[/url] also [url]https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205020669[/url][/QUOTE] He didn't break any laws. [QUOTE]SECTION 1. Section 528.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 528.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d). (b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated. (c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social networking Internet Web site in another person’s name. (d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a) may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (g) of Section 502. (f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other law. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=plunger435;51422534]Where do you guy keeps coming up with these analogies. If a delivery man steals your package that's still stealing. It was never anything else and has no bearing on the current conversation. I never thought I would live to see the day where people want the government to fully regulate websites inside their countries basically take state control of what an admin can and can't do on their own website after it hits some arbitrary view count.[/QUOTE] We come out of the woodworks demanding free speech zones after it became clear most of our communication lines are not tolerant to free speech.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51423227]We come out of the woodworks demanding free speech zones after it became clear most of our communication lines are not tolerant to free speech.[/QUOTE] So your idea of free speech is the government strong arming websites into doing what it wants?
[QUOTE=plunger435;51423245]So your idea of free speech is the government strong arming websites into doing what it wants?[/QUOTE] If that's what it takes for the right of free speech to be guaranteed on the currently relative communication channels, yes. The alternative would be the same as having free speech on the telegram network...
good article, reddit basically got opened up to lawsuit territory. and thanks to gawker, theres precedent if reddit claims 230. [url]http://associatesmind.com/2016/11/24/did-the-ceo-of-reddit-pierce-section-230/[/url] [QUOTE]Remember the college billboard example earlier? The college wasn’t liable for Adam’s comments because the college didn’t write them, the college just provided the space. But the college would be liable if college staff erased Adam’s comments and changed them to something else. If Adam was originally saying something mild about Betsy, and instead a college staffer changed it to something defamatory, that’s not on Adam, it’s on the college. By editing users’ comments to reflect something other than their original intent, Huffman changed himself and Reddit from being an “interactive computer service”2 to an “information content provider.” i.e. If Huffman or Reddit are sued, they cannot claim Section 230 immunity from a lawsuit. In legal terms, Huffman has exposed Reddit to liability. In common parlance, he totally fucked up. That the CEO of a media company so flagrantly violated the integrity of the copyright of its users is insane. It represents a complete lack of understanding of the ethical, moral, and legal duties he has to his customers and his shareholders. Huffman has potentially exposed Reddit to legal liability through his actions. By any account, it’s a breach of his fiduciary duty to shareholders. Not to mention that what Huffman did is a violation of Reddit’s User Agreement and Content Policy. So by their own Terms of Service, they should ban or censor their CEO. Nice move.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51421110]How do we know the answers from the Donald Trump or Obama AMAs haven't been modified to suit Spez's agenda? How can we trust that other influential figures haven't had their posts modified to further a hidden agenda?[/QUOTE] Because it's unreasonable paranoia lol. If it happened, then it surely would've went noticed. As soon as spez started editing posts, people noticed.
[QUOTE=Wii60;51423305]good article, reddit basically got opened up to lawsuit territory. and thanks to gawker, theres precedent if reddit claims 230. [url]http://associatesmind.com/2016/11/24/did-the-ceo-of-reddit-pierce-section-230/[/url][/QUOTE] Good, i hope a residence is created so people don't make the same mistake
[QUOTE=bunguer;51421571][b]It's not just about modifying posts, there are private talks on Slack about banning certain subrreddits, not for violating the rules but simply for opposing views.[/b][/QUOTE] [quote]not for violating the rules but simply for opposing views.[/quote] really???? [url]http://archive.is/ZmULb[/url] You're talking about a subreddit where most of the sites admins have had problems with not because of the disagreeing viewpoint, but because of breaking global rules. Clearly you don't know that much about r/the_donald other than it's just a donald trump subreddit. r/the_donald probably has so many infractions right now since there's just been so many conflicts with the subreddit, I think the admins have been more than generous considering how fucking lenient their rules are the_donald has had problems with brigading, doxxing, harassment, spam, botting, vote manipulation you name it. the admins have every right to want to ban that subreddit.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51423351]really???? [url]http://archive.is/ZmULb[/url] You're talking about a subreddit where most of the sites admins have had problems with not because of the disagreeing viewpoint, but because of breaking global rules. Clearly you don't know that much about r/the_donald other than it's just a donald trump subreddit. r/the_donald probably has so many infractions right now since there's just been so many conflicts with the subreddit, I think the admins have been more than generous considering how fucking lenient their rules are the_donald has had problems with brigading, doxxing, harassment, spam, botting, vote manipulation you name it. the admins have every right to want to ban that subreddit.[/QUOTE] He's... not taling about t_d ok?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51423388]He's... not taling about t_d ok?[/QUOTE] then did I miss something in slack because I can't find any serious mention of banning subreddits just because they support a viewpoint
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51423319]Because it's unreasonable paranoia lol. If it happened, then it surely would've went noticed. As soon as spez started editing posts, people noticed.[/QUOTE] so, you're saying that because nobody said anything until now, it couldn't have possibly happened before now? you're saying the lack of evidence is evidence that nothing happened, unto itself? all i'm saying is it throws all credibility away. now nobody has any way of knowing for sure what has happened, because spez has shown himself to be immature and emotional in the face of having his feelings hurt, and willing to use his administrative powers on people he disagrees with politically. whatever credibility reddit may have had before is gone now.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51423554]so, you're saying that because nobody said anything until now, it couldn't have possibly happened before now? [B]you're saying the lack of evidence is evidence that nothing happened, unto itself? [/B][/quote] That's quite literally how burden of proof works, yes. [QUOTE=Anti Christ;51423554]all i'm saying is it throws all credibility away. now nobody has any way of knowing for sure what has happened, because spez has shown himself to be immature and emotional in the face of having his feelings hurt, and willing to use his administrative powers on people he disagrees with politically. whatever credibility reddit may have had before is gone now.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with politics. Spez did this because he was being harassed, not because he decided one day that "oh i fucking hate donald trump supporters, time to annoy them"
-snip-
[QUOTE=bunguer;51423631]Except, you know, none of those reasons are valid to ban an entire subreddit, or else they would close many more for the same reasons, starting with the controversial SRS and going through every political one, this implies that they are discussing the ban, not for those rules but for their views. So unless you are you arguing that only the_donald does that, that argument is null. Furthermore, I ask again, what's to gain for supporting this type of action? What if it were any other subrreddit?[/QUOTE] srs should've been banned long ago
I neither support nor condemn the man. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing for shits, giggles, and revenge. Then again, that's one of the many reasons I don't own a community of 200 million. One thing's for sure, though, is that Reddit is about as credible as Wikipedia in 2004.
The timelines are becoming unstable. Pizzagate is just shit from the universe where Trump didn't win, leaking into this doomed alternate timeline. That was an incredibly unprofessional way to deal with it from Reddit, though. Great way to further legitimize the lunacy.
[QUOTE=bunguer;51423631]Except, you know, none of those reasons are valid to ban an entire subreddit, or else they would close many more for the same reasons, starting with the controversial SRS and going through every political one, this implies that they are discussing the ban, not for those rules but for their views. So unless you are you arguing that only the_donald does that, that argument is null. Furthermore, I ask again, what's to gain for supporting this type of action? What if it were any other subrreddit?[/QUOTE] Those are all actually reasons to ban a subreddit, and subreddits have been banned for breaking them before. Doxxing, brigading, etc. are all against global forum rules and if any subreddit allows them to happen why shouldn't that subreddit be banned?
[QUOTE=bunguer;51423631]Except, you know, none of those reasons are valid to ban an entire subreddit, or else they would close many more for the same reasons, starting with the controversial SRS and going through every political one, this implies that they are discussing the ban, not for those rules but for their views. So unless you are you arguing that only the_donald does that, that argument is null. Furthermore, I ask again, what's to gain for supporting this type of action? What if it were any other subrreddit?[/QUOTE] Uh, yes it is. [url]https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/[/url] [quote]Content is prohibited if it Is illegal Is involuntary pornography [B]Encourages or incites violence[/B] [B]Threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so[/B] [B]Is personal and confidential information[/B] Impersonates someone in a misleading or deceptive manner [B]Is spam[/B][/quote] [quote]In addition to not submitting unwelcome content, the following behaviors are prohibited on Reddit [B]Asking for votes or engaging in vote manipulation[/B] Breaking Reddit or doing anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit Creating multiple accounts to evade punishment or avoid restrictions[/quote] [quote]We have a variety of ways of enforcing our rules, including, but not limited to Asking you nicely to knock it off Asking you less nicely Temporary or permanent suspension of accounts Removal of privileges from, or adding restrictions to, accounts Adding restrictions to Reddit communities, such as adding NSFW tags or Quarantining Removal of content Banning of Reddit communities[/quote] Reddit Staff are just absolute pussies when it comes to banning subreddits because they're scared about the backlash. They all want to Quarantine or ban the subreddit for completely valid reason, but Spez isn't letting them r/the_donald moderators have received several warnings from the global admins for not being tough on bullshit, of course the_donald moderators act like 12 year olds when listening to warnings from a higher power. So far, I know for a fact, that the subreddit has received Several nice warnings Several not so nice warnings Global admins personally calling out the moderators in their own threads on their bullshit A ban from discussing the r/politics subreddit because of the amount of harassment that subreddit gets DIRECTLY from r/the_donald threads tbh if spez didn't fuck up like a retard, r/the_donald would be on the quarantine stage of subreddit purging.
-snip-
Reddit is shitty. In other news water is fucking wet.
Just a FYI, if someone editorializes comments on a website, they lose safeguard protections and essentially become liable for every post on their site since they are no longer just hosting user generated content, but editorializing it. [url]https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/page/who-should-be-liable-online-anonymous-defamation[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vsiKWv3.jpg[/IMG] The Degree of Spez fucking up is astronomical
[QUOTE=Wii60;51425492]Just a FYI, if someone editorializes comments on a website, they lose safeguard protections and essentially become liable for every post on their site since they are no longer just hosting user generated content, but editorializing it. [url]https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/page/who-should-be-liable-online-anonymous-defamation[/url] The Degree of Spez fucking up is astronomical[/QUOTE] Removing content constitutes the same kind of liability, they didn't open themselves up to anything new.
Their Safe Harbor Certification just got pulled on the 23rd too, the same day this happened [url]https://safeharbor.export.gov/companyinfo.aspx?loc=eu&id=32997[/url] edit: info on what that is [url]https://www.privacytrust.com/guidance/safe_harbor.html[/url] [QUOTE]US-EU Safe Harbor is a streamlined process for US companies to comply with the EU Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Intended for U.S. organizations that process personal data collected in the EU, the Safe Harbor Principles are designed to assist eligible organizations to comply with the EU Data Protection Directive and maintain the privacy and integrity of that data. U.S. companies can opt into the program (I.e. self-certify) as long as they adhere to the 7 principles and 15 frequently asked questions. The process was developed by the US Department of Commerce in consultation with EU.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wii60;51425513]Their Safe Harbor Certification just got pulled on the 23rd too, the same day this happened [url]https://safeharbor.export.gov/companyinfo.aspx?loc=eu&id=32997[/url] edit: info on what that is [url]https://www.privacytrust.com/guidance/safe_harbor.html[/url][/QUOTE] Should be noted Safe Harbor has been invalidated in Europe and is being replace by the equivalent EU-US Privacy Shield.
Such a huge fuck up just for a shitty joke. BDA is the best moderator btw.
Trump is a whiny, thin-skinned manchild. My support for him is 100% ironic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.