Topic: Liberal faggot at Reddit censors 800,000 Trump supporters
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #100,937
Erik !jzYkdX7lIw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #1,139,330
Can you copy and paste. Theres a pay wall
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,332
For the best, honestly. From what I've seen on minichan.org, most Trump voters are annoying faggots anyway.
Anonymous C double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,333
> Hurr muh based orange man! Owning teh libs! Incompetence? No, it's just 5D chess!
Christ. You should all be gassed.
Christ. You should all be gassed.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,334
@1,139,330 (Erik !jzYkdX7lIw)
June 30, 2020
On Monday, Reddit — a site that for years was considered one of the internet’s dirtiest sludge pits — barred more than 2,000 communities as part of a broad crackdown on hate speech.
The crackdown’s most notable casualty was Reddit’s largest pro-Trump community, r/The_Donald. The group, which had nearly 800,000 subscribers, served as a virtual gathering place for President Trump’s fans, and a source of countless memes, slogans and conspiracy theories that made their way into the broader online conversation. (In more recent years, it had devolved into a cesspool of racism, violent threats and targeted harassment.)
These actions were a major shift for Reddit, which spent years resisting the idea of moderating users’ posts and refused to remove all but the worst content on its platform. Steve Huffman, Reddit’s co-founder and chief executive since 2015, when he returned to the company after six years away, has faced pressure to reckon with the site’s legacy of bigotry. This year, hundreds of Reddit moderators signed an open letter to Mr. Huffman and Reddit’s board demanding changes to the site’s policies.
On Monday, after the bans were announced, I interviewed Mr. Huffman about the decision to take down The_Donald and many other subreddits. These are edited excerpts from our conversation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Can you explain, in the most succinct way possible, why you decided to take down these subreddits?
Yes. We updated our content policy to add an explicit rule banning hate on Reddit, which has long been an implicit rule, somewhat by design. But not being explicit about it, I think, has caused all sorts of confusion over the years. And so we updated the rule.
And then any time we make a rule change, we evaluate communities against the rule change. And so, as a result, there were a number of communities we ended up banning.
Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
A few weeks ago, you wrote a letter to your employees about Black Lives Matter and where Reddit stood on issues like hate and racism. How much do you think the political climate and the protests and the kind of reckoning we’re seeing played into this decision?
The current events certainly added more urgency to it. Now, that said, we’ve been working on an update to our content policy for quite some time, and we had a sense of where the gaps were, and the rough patches.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
A few years ago, you were asked about banning The_Donald specifically, and you said, “There are arguments on both sides, but ultimately, my view is that their anger comes from feeling like they don’t have a voice, so it won’t solve anything if I take away their voice.” What changed?
So The_Donald is complex, and I think reducing that community or any large political group to one thing or one viewpoint is impossible. One aspect of The_Donald is that it’s a very large political community that, at one point in time, represented the views of many Americans. Political speech is sacred in this country, and we applied that to Reddit as well.
At the same time, that community had rule-breaking content — content that was harassing or violence or bullying. And so our strategy has been to try to get that community to come in line with our content policies. We made moderator changes, different technical changes to try to bring The_Donald into line, some more successful than others, but ultimately not to the extent that we needed.
Something I’ve said many times is that the only way to scale moderation online is by working alongside our community members and the moderators, because they have the context to decide whether an individual piece of content is hateful or not, for example. Which means that if we don’t have agreement from our moderators and our communities that these are the rules that we’re all going to abide by, then a community that’s not willing to work with us has no place on Reddit. And I think that became abundantly clear with The_Donald over the years, and even the past few months.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Right now, Facebook is facing an advertiser boycott — companies pulling their ads in protest of the company’s policies and their failures to keep misinformation and hate speech off the platform. Reddit also has advertisers, who presumably have some of the same concerns. Was this a business decision?
EDITORS’ PICKS
I’m Not Ready to Go Back to Restaurants. Is Anyone?
June 30, 2020
3 Long (Haired) Months: Barbershop Before-and-Afters
June 25, 2020
The Day the White Working Class Turned Republican
July 1, 2020
Don’t Hate Me, but I Hate My Job
June 26, 2020
Leo Tolstoy vs. the Police
June 25, 2020
Is It Safe to Go Back to the Dentist?
June 25, 2020
It’s a Wonderful Time to Be Leslie Jordan
June 23, 2020
How a Writer With a Ph.D. in Psychology Became a Poker Champ
June 23, 2020
Overlooked No More: Valerie Solanas, Radical Feminist Who Shot Andy Warhol
June 26, 2020
‘Hamilton’ Review: You Say You Want a Revolution
June 30, 2020
No, although, of course, what you say is true — we have advertisers who care about these things. But this was a decision — a series of decisions, really — to make Reddit better.
The mission of Reddit is to bring community and belonging to everybody in the world. And we’ve long had this debate on Reddit and internally, weighing the trade-offs between speech and safety. There’s certain speech — for example, harassment and hate — that prevents other people from speaking. And if we have individuals and communities on Reddit that are preventing other people from using Reddit the way we intend, then that means they’re working directly against our mission.
In a call this week, you said something about how you were struggling to balance your values as an American with your values around human decency. Can you explain more what you meant by that?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
I think this is something that a lot of people in the United States are going through right now.
When we started Reddit 15 years ago, we didn’t ban things. And it was easy, as it is for many young people, to make statements like that because, one, I had more rigid political beliefs and, two, I lacked perspective and real-world experience.
Over the years, we’ve been increasingly confronted with difficult decisions, and we have to weigh these trade-offs. And so here we are, believing that free speech and free expression are really important, and that’s one of the things that makes Reddit special, but at the same time, seeing that allowing everything is working against our mission.
The way out, for us, has been through our mission: What are we trying to accomplish on Reddit? And what’s the best path to get there?
You used to joke that you were Reddit’s “totally politically neutral C.E.O.” For a long time, it seemed like neutrality was sort of the aspirational goal of being a social media platform. And now it seems like a lot of platform leaders, you included, are admitting that that’s not a good goal, or at least not one that produces good outcomes. Do you think the era of the neutral platform is over?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
I’m going to reject that statement just a little bit, in that banning hate and violence and bullying and harassment is less a political statement and more a statement of what are largely common values in this country. And there’s certainly the political debate over how far free speech should go. But just as in the United States there’s no such thing as unfettered free speech, there are limits. And I will point out that the Supreme Court has also wrestled with this over hundreds of years, because these are really challenging debates.
I’m baiting you a little bit, so don’t ask the obvious follow-up question, but … although I have political views, they don’t surface through Reddit. And nobody, in all of my years on Reddit, has actually asked me my political views.
Well, OK. What are your political views?
You’d have to give me a specific case. But I think my previous point stands, which is that working in service of our mission is not a hot take. Banning harassment is not a hot take.
But in today’s political environment, even saying something like “Black Lives Matter” places you on one side of a cultural divide and political divide. So how do you think about the fact that even if you don’t mean for these to be partisan decisions, people will interpret them as such?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
You know, I think the answer is in your question. I think making statements, or making changes to our policies in the name of human decency, may be perceived as political statements. But for us, it’s doing the right thing and doing the practical thing.
In the past couple of weeks, the president has threatened to revoke legal protections for online companies, and he’s gone after Snapchat and Twitter and other platforms that have taken action against him. Are you worried about becoming a target of the president and his allies?
Well, I believe the latest thing through the Department of Justice was demanding that these platforms consistently enforce their terms of service. And so we are simply doing what he asked by enforcing our own terms of service.
I’m sure that will be a satisfactory answer to everyone in the Trump administration.
[Laughs] I think we’re good, right?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
One thing that was said about social media for a long time, and that some platforms are still saying, is that social media is just a mirror for society. Like, the problems that exist on social media are just a reflection of the problems that exist in society, and the good things are a reflection as well. Do you think that analogy still holds?
Yes, but let me expand on that a little bit.
So when one looks into a mirror, the first thing they do is they see themselves. And the second thing they do is they fix their appearance. They brush their hair a little bit, or whatever. Mirrors aren’t one way, in that sense. It’s an opportunity to see what we really look like and decide is that what we really want to be?
Nilay Patel, the editor in chief of The Verge, had an interesting tweet. The conversation was all about the political and legal and financial reasons that platforms might want to crack down on objectionable speech. And he said, “Sometimes the answer is as simple as people looking at the thing that they’ve made and deciding that they would like to be more proud of it than they are.” Does that resonate with you?
It does. And to be honest, I’ve said those words at Reddit. When I came back my first day of 2015, I told the company, “One of my goals is for you to be proud to work here.” Because back then, the company was not in a good place. The people who worked at Reddit simultaneously loved Reddit — you wouldn’t be at Reddit in 2015 unless you loved Reddit — and were not willing to wear their swag in public.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Like, their Reddit sweatshirts and T-shirts?
Precisely. And that made me sad. It’s, I think, a very natural human thing to want to make the world a better place. I know those words are cheap in this town, but some of us believe it.
Your general counsel said on Monday that there’s a place for President Trump on Reddit. But given how the president has been testing the limits and rules of all the platforms that he’s on, and creating all these headaches for their leaders, do you really want Mr. Trump on Reddit?
Look, nobody wants to be in an echo chamber, right? It’s boring and unhelpful to read a one-sided view of any issue. So we welcome political views across the spectrum. I think Trump’s rhetoric and campaign style is deliberately antagonistic, and that makes it easy to run afoul of our policies. But we have many conservatives on Reddit, and we have Trump supporters on Reddit who are perfectly capable of staying within our rules. And we hope that continues to be the case going forward.
Your co-founder, Alexis Ohanian, recently stepped down from Reddit’s board, saying that he wanted to make space for a Black board member. And when he made that announcement, he said that part of the reason that he did that was so that he’d have an answer when his daughter asked, “What did you do?” I don’t think you have kids, but when you’re making decisions like these, how much are you thinking about how future generations will look back on Reddit?
You know, when I look back on this time, and — hopefully — if I get to tell my kids about it, I can say that I didn’t quit, I was a part of this, and I did everything I could to stand up for my and our values, even though at times it’s very difficult.
Kevin Roose is a technology columnist for The Times. His column, "The Shift," examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture. You can find him on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, or Instagram. @kevinroose • Facebook
A version of this article appears in print on July 1, 2020, Section B, Page 5 of the New York edition with the headline: Reddit’s C.E.O. on Why He Banned the Subreddit ‘The_Donald’ . Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
The Shift
Kevin Roose examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture.
Social Media Giants Support Racial Justice. Their Products Undermine It.
June 22
On Thursday, President Trump issued an executive order threatening to remove legal protections that shield tech companies from liability for what gets posted on their platforms.
The President Versus the Mods
June 9
The anti-vaccine community is more organized and strategic than many of its critics believe.
Get Ready for a Vaccine Information War
June 3
More in Politics
Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist who was convicted on charges of fraud, corruption and conspiracy, will be returning to jail.
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Disgraced Lobbyist Jack Abramoff Headed Back to Jail
June 25
Roger J. Stone Jr. was sentenced in February to 40 months in prison.
Judge Orders Roger Stone to Report to Prison Next Month
June 26
Continue reading the main story
Editors’ Picks
Margeaux Walter for The New York Times
Don’t Hate Me, but I Hate My Job
June 26
Tolstoy’s views, particularly his strong invective against state-sponsored violence, riled authorities who consequently placed the writer under near constant police surveillance.
Leo Tolstoy vs. the Police
June 25
Dr. Todd Bertman working with a patient at Advanced Dental Arts in Manhattan on Monday. Experts say dentists and hygienists are at greater risk from the coronavirus than patients.
Is It Safe to Go Back to the Dentist?
June 26
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Access more of The Times by creating a free account or logging in.
Access more for free.
June 30, 2020
On Monday, Reddit — a site that for years was considered one of the internet’s dirtiest sludge pits — barred more than 2,000 communities as part of a broad crackdown on hate speech.
The crackdown’s most notable casualty was Reddit’s largest pro-Trump community, r/The_Donald. The group, which had nearly 800,000 subscribers, served as a virtual gathering place for President Trump’s fans, and a source of countless memes, slogans and conspiracy theories that made their way into the broader online conversation. (In more recent years, it had devolved into a cesspool of racism, violent threats and targeted harassment.)
These actions were a major shift for Reddit, which spent years resisting the idea of moderating users’ posts and refused to remove all but the worst content on its platform. Steve Huffman, Reddit’s co-founder and chief executive since 2015, when he returned to the company after six years away, has faced pressure to reckon with the site’s legacy of bigotry. This year, hundreds of Reddit moderators signed an open letter to Mr. Huffman and Reddit’s board demanding changes to the site’s policies.
On Monday, after the bans were announced, I interviewed Mr. Huffman about the decision to take down The_Donald and many other subreddits. These are edited excerpts from our conversation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Can you explain, in the most succinct way possible, why you decided to take down these subreddits?
Yes. We updated our content policy to add an explicit rule banning hate on Reddit, which has long been an implicit rule, somewhat by design. But not being explicit about it, I think, has caused all sorts of confusion over the years. And so we updated the rule.
And then any time we make a rule change, we evaluate communities against the rule change. And so, as a result, there were a number of communities we ended up banning.
Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
A few weeks ago, you wrote a letter to your employees about Black Lives Matter and where Reddit stood on issues like hate and racism. How much do you think the political climate and the protests and the kind of reckoning we’re seeing played into this decision?
The current events certainly added more urgency to it. Now, that said, we’ve been working on an update to our content policy for quite some time, and we had a sense of where the gaps were, and the rough patches.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
A few years ago, you were asked about banning The_Donald specifically, and you said, “There are arguments on both sides, but ultimately, my view is that their anger comes from feeling like they don’t have a voice, so it won’t solve anything if I take away their voice.” What changed?
So The_Donald is complex, and I think reducing that community or any large political group to one thing or one viewpoint is impossible. One aspect of The_Donald is that it’s a very large political community that, at one point in time, represented the views of many Americans. Political speech is sacred in this country, and we applied that to Reddit as well.
At the same time, that community had rule-breaking content — content that was harassing or violence or bullying. And so our strategy has been to try to get that community to come in line with our content policies. We made moderator changes, different technical changes to try to bring The_Donald into line, some more successful than others, but ultimately not to the extent that we needed.
Something I’ve said many times is that the only way to scale moderation online is by working alongside our community members and the moderators, because they have the context to decide whether an individual piece of content is hateful or not, for example. Which means that if we don’t have agreement from our moderators and our communities that these are the rules that we’re all going to abide by, then a community that’s not willing to work with us has no place on Reddit. And I think that became abundantly clear with The_Donald over the years, and even the past few months.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Right now, Facebook is facing an advertiser boycott — companies pulling their ads in protest of the company’s policies and their failures to keep misinformation and hate speech off the platform. Reddit also has advertisers, who presumably have some of the same concerns. Was this a business decision?
EDITORS’ PICKS
I’m Not Ready to Go Back to Restaurants. Is Anyone?
June 30, 2020
3 Long (Haired) Months: Barbershop Before-and-Afters
June 25, 2020
The Day the White Working Class Turned Republican
July 1, 2020
Don’t Hate Me, but I Hate My Job
June 26, 2020
Leo Tolstoy vs. the Police
June 25, 2020
Is It Safe to Go Back to the Dentist?
June 25, 2020
It’s a Wonderful Time to Be Leslie Jordan
June 23, 2020
How a Writer With a Ph.D. in Psychology Became a Poker Champ
June 23, 2020
Overlooked No More: Valerie Solanas, Radical Feminist Who Shot Andy Warhol
June 26, 2020
‘Hamilton’ Review: You Say You Want a Revolution
June 30, 2020
No, although, of course, what you say is true — we have advertisers who care about these things. But this was a decision — a series of decisions, really — to make Reddit better.
The mission of Reddit is to bring community and belonging to everybody in the world. And we’ve long had this debate on Reddit and internally, weighing the trade-offs between speech and safety. There’s certain speech — for example, harassment and hate — that prevents other people from speaking. And if we have individuals and communities on Reddit that are preventing other people from using Reddit the way we intend, then that means they’re working directly against our mission.
In a call this week, you said something about how you were struggling to balance your values as an American with your values around human decency. Can you explain more what you meant by that?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
I think this is something that a lot of people in the United States are going through right now.
When we started Reddit 15 years ago, we didn’t ban things. And it was easy, as it is for many young people, to make statements like that because, one, I had more rigid political beliefs and, two, I lacked perspective and real-world experience.
Over the years, we’ve been increasingly confronted with difficult decisions, and we have to weigh these trade-offs. And so here we are, believing that free speech and free expression are really important, and that’s one of the things that makes Reddit special, but at the same time, seeing that allowing everything is working against our mission.
The way out, for us, has been through our mission: What are we trying to accomplish on Reddit? And what’s the best path to get there?
You used to joke that you were Reddit’s “totally politically neutral C.E.O.” For a long time, it seemed like neutrality was sort of the aspirational goal of being a social media platform. And now it seems like a lot of platform leaders, you included, are admitting that that’s not a good goal, or at least not one that produces good outcomes. Do you think the era of the neutral platform is over?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
I’m going to reject that statement just a little bit, in that banning hate and violence and bullying and harassment is less a political statement and more a statement of what are largely common values in this country. And there’s certainly the political debate over how far free speech should go. But just as in the United States there’s no such thing as unfettered free speech, there are limits. And I will point out that the Supreme Court has also wrestled with this over hundreds of years, because these are really challenging debates.
I’m baiting you a little bit, so don’t ask the obvious follow-up question, but … although I have political views, they don’t surface through Reddit. And nobody, in all of my years on Reddit, has actually asked me my political views.
Well, OK. What are your political views?
You’d have to give me a specific case. But I think my previous point stands, which is that working in service of our mission is not a hot take. Banning harassment is not a hot take.
But in today’s political environment, even saying something like “Black Lives Matter” places you on one side of a cultural divide and political divide. So how do you think about the fact that even if you don’t mean for these to be partisan decisions, people will interpret them as such?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
You know, I think the answer is in your question. I think making statements, or making changes to our policies in the name of human decency, may be perceived as political statements. But for us, it’s doing the right thing and doing the practical thing.
In the past couple of weeks, the president has threatened to revoke legal protections for online companies, and he’s gone after Snapchat and Twitter and other platforms that have taken action against him. Are you worried about becoming a target of the president and his allies?
Well, I believe the latest thing through the Department of Justice was demanding that these platforms consistently enforce their terms of service. And so we are simply doing what he asked by enforcing our own terms of service.
I’m sure that will be a satisfactory answer to everyone in the Trump administration.
[Laughs] I think we’re good, right?
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
One thing that was said about social media for a long time, and that some platforms are still saying, is that social media is just a mirror for society. Like, the problems that exist on social media are just a reflection of the problems that exist in society, and the good things are a reflection as well. Do you think that analogy still holds?
Yes, but let me expand on that a little bit.
So when one looks into a mirror, the first thing they do is they see themselves. And the second thing they do is they fix their appearance. They brush their hair a little bit, or whatever. Mirrors aren’t one way, in that sense. It’s an opportunity to see what we really look like and decide is that what we really want to be?
Nilay Patel, the editor in chief of The Verge, had an interesting tweet. The conversation was all about the political and legal and financial reasons that platforms might want to crack down on objectionable speech. And he said, “Sometimes the answer is as simple as people looking at the thing that they’ve made and deciding that they would like to be more proud of it than they are.” Does that resonate with you?
It does. And to be honest, I’ve said those words at Reddit. When I came back my first day of 2015, I told the company, “One of my goals is for you to be proud to work here.” Because back then, the company was not in a good place. The people who worked at Reddit simultaneously loved Reddit — you wouldn’t be at Reddit in 2015 unless you loved Reddit — and were not willing to wear their swag in public.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Like, their Reddit sweatshirts and T-shirts?
Precisely. And that made me sad. It’s, I think, a very natural human thing to want to make the world a better place. I know those words are cheap in this town, but some of us believe it.
Your general counsel said on Monday that there’s a place for President Trump on Reddit. But given how the president has been testing the limits and rules of all the platforms that he’s on, and creating all these headaches for their leaders, do you really want Mr. Trump on Reddit?
Look, nobody wants to be in an echo chamber, right? It’s boring and unhelpful to read a one-sided view of any issue. So we welcome political views across the spectrum. I think Trump’s rhetoric and campaign style is deliberately antagonistic, and that makes it easy to run afoul of our policies. But we have many conservatives on Reddit, and we have Trump supporters on Reddit who are perfectly capable of staying within our rules. And we hope that continues to be the case going forward.
Your co-founder, Alexis Ohanian, recently stepped down from Reddit’s board, saying that he wanted to make space for a Black board member. And when he made that announcement, he said that part of the reason that he did that was so that he’d have an answer when his daughter asked, “What did you do?” I don’t think you have kids, but when you’re making decisions like these, how much are you thinking about how future generations will look back on Reddit?
You know, when I look back on this time, and — hopefully — if I get to tell my kids about it, I can say that I didn’t quit, I was a part of this, and I did everything I could to stand up for my and our values, even though at times it’s very difficult.
Kevin Roose is a technology columnist for The Times. His column, "The Shift," examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture. You can find him on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, or Instagram. @kevinroose • Facebook
A version of this article appears in print on July 1, 2020, Section B, Page 5 of the New York edition with the headline: Reddit’s C.E.O. on Why He Banned the Subreddit ‘The_Donald’ . Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
The Shift
Kevin Roose examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture.
Social Media Giants Support Racial Justice. Their Products Undermine It.
June 22
On Thursday, President Trump issued an executive order threatening to remove legal protections that shield tech companies from liability for what gets posted on their platforms.
The President Versus the Mods
June 9
The anti-vaccine community is more organized and strategic than many of its critics believe.
Get Ready for a Vaccine Information War
June 3
More in Politics
Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist who was convicted on charges of fraud, corruption and conspiracy, will be returning to jail.
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Disgraced Lobbyist Jack Abramoff Headed Back to Jail
June 25
Roger J. Stone Jr. was sentenced in February to 40 months in prison.
Judge Orders Roger Stone to Report to Prison Next Month
June 26
Continue reading the main story
Editors’ Picks
Margeaux Walter for The New York Times
Don’t Hate Me, but I Hate My Job
June 26
Tolstoy’s views, particularly his strong invective against state-sponsored violence, riled authorities who consequently placed the writer under near constant police surveillance.
Leo Tolstoy vs. the Police
June 25
Dr. Todd Bertman working with a patient at Advanced Dental Arts in Manhattan on Monday. Experts say dentists and hygienists are at greater risk from the coronavirus than patients.
Is It Safe to Go Back to the Dentist?
June 26
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Access more of The Times by creating a free account or logging in.
Access more for free.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 24 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,340
Meh the subreddit was mostly dead anyway. They all moved offsite once it was quarantined.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,407
@OP
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/reddit-bans-steve-huffman.html
The weren't censored at all. They were completely banned from Reddit. When you violate terms of service of a message board, you are subject to banning.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/reddit-bans-steve-huffman.html
The weren't censored at all. They were completely banned from Reddit. When you violate terms of service of a message board, you are subject to banning.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 52 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,419
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
> When you violate terms of service of a message board, you are subject to banning.
You'd think Bert would know this by now.
> When you violate terms of service of a message board, you are subject to banning.
You'd think Bert would know this by now.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 39 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,454
exactly. It's like if you have a board set up for motorcycle enthusiasts, but some shitheads decided it would be great to have threads about their local KKK club too. Like, fuck off.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,465
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
No...its like if you have a site controlled by intolerant liberals who only believe in free speech as long as they dont disagree with what's being said.
No...its like if you have a site controlled by intolerant liberals who only believe in free speech as long as they dont disagree with what's being said.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,468
@previous (A)
> No...its like if you have a site controlled by intolerant liberals who only believe in free speech as long as they dont disagree with what's being said.
what's with the pussy talk
stop that pussy talk
if you don't like these people and dismiss them so casually like that, as "liberals...", then be done with them and go somewhere else where you can ban them if they shit in your sandbox.
> No...its like if you have a site controlled by intolerant liberals who only believe in free speech as long as they dont disagree with what's being said.
what's with the pussy talk
stop that pussy talk
if you don't like these people and dismiss them so casually like that, as "liberals...", then be done with them and go somewhere else where you can ban them if they shit in your sandbox.
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,472
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Wasn't there already an alternative reddit anyway from when all the loli subs and whatnot were banned?
Wasn't there already an alternative reddit anyway from when all the loli subs and whatnot were banned?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,477
@1,139,468 (Sheila LaBoof)
They are incessantly trying to ruin the country. I'll be damned if I will not oppose them. SMD.
They are incessantly trying to ruin the country. I'll be damned if I will not oppose them. SMD.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 41 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,478
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,482
@1,139,477 (A)
> They are incessantly trying to ruin the country. I'll be damned if I will not oppose them. SMD.
sounds like you are repeating bullshit you heard somewhere
you are slave to your media habits
> They are incessantly trying to ruin the country. I'll be damned if I will not oppose them. SMD.
sounds like you are repeating bullshit you heard somewhere
you are slave to your media habits
dw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 16 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,637
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,639
@1,139,482 (Sheila LaBoof)
You must have a little doll you keep in a box under your bed that tells you about the news of the day, right?
You must have a little doll you keep in a box under your bed that tells you about the news of the day, right?
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,674
@previous (A)
apparently yours tells you a bunch of stupid shit to get angry about and blame the people who don't even have any fucking power in this world
apparently yours tells you a bunch of stupid shit to get angry about and blame the people who don't even have any fucking power in this world
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,699
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,702
@previous (I)
you shithead, I obviously made up an example and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort? fuck you
you shithead, I obviously made up an example and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort? fuck you
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,703
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,848
@OP
Fag
Fag
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,856
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,867
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,880
Oh Noes! Racist shithead violence forum gets banned! Huh I guess everyone tuned in to racist bullshit will just have to go over to the dark web and listen to their white-nationalist monoculture bullshit from a dark web source like they were already doing.
Tough break. I suppose major platforms wanting to have nothing to do with you means you're winning. Cool. Keep doing what you're doing. It's obviously working.
Tough break. I suppose major platforms wanting to have nothing to do with you means you're winning. Cool. Keep doing what you're doing. It's obviously working.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,881
@1,139,702 (Sheila LaBoof)
> you shithead, ... fuck you
Rude. Calm down.
> I obviously made up an example
Yes, and your example was made of straw.
> and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort?
Well then, why did you poke your head in at the door if you feel that way?
What's wrong? Are you used to people just agreeing with everything you shout at them (probably because they'd rather not pick a fight with a loud, obnoxious, rude person)?
> you shithead, ... fuck you
Rude. Calm down.
> I obviously made up an example
Yes, and your example was made of straw.
> and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort?
Well then, why did you poke your head in at the door if you feel that way?
What's wrong? Are you used to people just agreeing with everything you shout at them (probably because they'd rather not pick a fight with a loud, obnoxious, rude person)?
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,889
@1,139,880 (L)
They'd long since left for https://thedonald.win and shuttered the subreddit, so the ban was essentially just a symbolic move by reddit.
They'd long since left for https://thedonald.win and shuttered the subreddit, so the ban was essentially just a symbolic move by reddit.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,909
How do you feel about bakers refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,919
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,925
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,928
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,931
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 5 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,947
@1,139,928 (A)
Seriously. What's the difference? Why is it not a problem when a private business refuses service to gay people, but it is a problem when a private business refuses service to Trump fans? Are you unable to articulate some feeble justification for your inconsistent beliefs?
Seriously. What's the difference? Why is it not a problem when a private business refuses service to gay people, but it is a problem when a private business refuses service to Trump fans? Are you unable to articulate some feeble justification for your inconsistent beliefs?
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,958
@1,139,928 (A)Go smoke another Marlboro, drink another Budweiser, and listen to a Garth Brooks CD, you piece of fucking garbage!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,967
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,975
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,993
@1,139,881 (I)
> > you shithead, ... fuck you
> Rude. Calm down.
>
> > I obviously made up an example
> Yes, and your example was made of straw.
>
> > and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort?
> Well then, why did you poke your head in at the door if you feel that way?
>
> What's wrong? Are you used to people just agreeing with everything you shout at them (probably because they'd rather not pick a fight with a loud, obnoxious, rude person)?
Don't be an asshole. You play the idiot so I waste time explaining elementary shit to you, eat shit. I just fucking told you that I obviously made up an example of a forum that you were not meant to think was a specific instance and you choose to pretend not to understand. FUCK YOU
> > you shithead, ... fuck you
> Rude. Calm down.
>
> > I obviously made up an example
> Yes, and your example was made of straw.
>
> > and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort?
> Well then, why did you poke your head in at the door if you feel that way?
>
> What's wrong? Are you used to people just agreeing with everything you shout at them (probably because they'd rather not pick a fight with a loud, obnoxious, rude person)?
Don't be an asshole. You play the idiot so I waste time explaining elementary shit to you, eat shit. I just fucking told you that I obviously made up an example of a forum that you were not meant to think was a specific instance and you choose to pretend not to understand. FUCK YOU
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,139,995
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,013
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,027
@1,139,993 (Sheila LaBoof)
> > > you shithead, ... fuck you
> > Rude. Calm down.
> >
> > > I obviously made up an example
> > Yes, and your example was made of straw.
> >
> > > and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort?
> > Well then, why did you poke your head in at the door if you feel that way?
> >
> > What's wrong? Are you used to people just agreeing with everything you shout at them (probably because they'd rather not pick a fight with a loud, obnoxious, rude person)?
>
> Don't be an asshole. You play the idiot so I waste time explaining elementary shit to you, eat shit. I just fucking told you that I obviously made up an example of a forum that you were not meant to think was a specific instance and you choose to pretend not to understand. FUCK YOU
Jeez.
Tell me, how is going through life behaving like a complete bitch to people working out for you? Not too well I imagine.
> > > you shithead, ... fuck you
> > Rude. Calm down.
> >
> > > I obviously made up an example
> > Yes, and your example was made of straw.
> >
> > > and you turn it into some nerdy debating club retort?
> > Well then, why did you poke your head in at the door if you feel that way?
> >
> > What's wrong? Are you used to people just agreeing with everything you shout at them (probably because they'd rather not pick a fight with a loud, obnoxious, rude person)?
>
> Don't be an asshole. You play the idiot so I waste time explaining elementary shit to you, eat shit. I just fucking told you that I obviously made up an example of a forum that you were not meant to think was a specific instance and you choose to pretend not to understand. FUCK YOU
Jeez.
Tell me, how is going through life behaving like a complete bitch to people working out for you? Not too well I imagine.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I double-posted this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,040
@1,139,993 (Sheila LaBoof)
By the way, I didn't misunderstand you, deliberately or otherwise. You should look up the meaning of "straw man argument" some time, and you'll see it's exactly what you did. You begin with an extreme example of something which misrepresents the thing you want to attack, then you quite comfortably attack it, because yeah, who wouldn't agree that the KKK is a completely and utterly odious organization?
By the way, I didn't misunderstand you, deliberately or otherwise. You should look up the meaning of "straw man argument" some time, and you'll see it's exactly what you did. You begin with an extreme example of something which misrepresents the thing you want to attack, then you quite comfortably attack it, because yeah, who wouldn't agree that the KKK is a completely and utterly odious organization?
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,041
I'm gay. lol.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,046
@1,140,040 (I)
> By the way, I didn't misunderstand you, deliberately or otherwise. You should look up the meaning of "straw man argument" some time, and you'll see it's exactly what you did. You begin with an extreme example of something which misrepresents the thing you want to attack, then you quite comfortably attack it, because yeah, who wouldn't agree that the KKK is a completely and utterly odious organization?
nonsense. that's not it at all, fool. I can just as easily say someone makes a forum for topics relating to A but some shithead gums up the board with shit about B, so that guy is out on his ass. take that generic statement if you prefer it, and shove it up your ass.
> By the way, I didn't misunderstand you, deliberately or otherwise. You should look up the meaning of "straw man argument" some time, and you'll see it's exactly what you did. You begin with an extreme example of something which misrepresents the thing you want to attack, then you quite comfortably attack it, because yeah, who wouldn't agree that the KKK is a completely and utterly odious organization?
nonsense. that's not it at all, fool. I can just as easily say someone makes a forum for topics relating to A but some shithead gums up the board with shit about B, so that guy is out on his ass. take that generic statement if you prefer it, and shove it up your ass.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,055
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Well you're right about one thing - inside an ass is where your statement belongs.
Well you're right about one thing - inside an ass is where your statement belongs.
wade (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,061
I am not wade(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Anonymous R replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,063
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,154
@1,140,055 (I)
> Well you're right about one thing - inside an ass is where your statement belongs.
right back at you chief
> Well you're right about one thing - inside an ass is where your statement belongs.
right back at you chief
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,199
Anonymous R replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,213
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 5 years ago, 14 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,140,341
Anonymous L replied with this 5 years ago, 2 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,141,141
@1,139,889 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
It's fun watching people who espouse freedom decrying private businesses making sensible business decisions by refusing to host hate forums. It's like these people hate private business or something. They cry about government a lot, but honestly the government, if anything, is spurring social media on. It's fucking weird because those people seem to LOVE private business in any context where they can make martyrs out of it and HATE government control of the media.
I guess businesses making realistic decisions about dropping hate forums in the interest of profit and capitalism is what these people HATE and the government enforcing standards of CENSORSHIP about how you must be free to praise the government is what these people LOVE after all. It's almost like they wanted a fascist state all along. It's bizarre. I can't imagine how anyone would have thought that with them waving Nazi flags and shit at that rally. How could anyone have predicted this??
Oh wait. Yeah. A bunch of people did.
It's fun watching people who espouse freedom decrying private businesses making sensible business decisions by refusing to host hate forums. It's like these people hate private business or something. They cry about government a lot, but honestly the government, if anything, is spurring social media on. It's fucking weird because those people seem to LOVE private business in any context where they can make martyrs out of it and HATE government control of the media.
I guess businesses making realistic decisions about dropping hate forums in the interest of profit and capitalism is what these people HATE and the government enforcing standards of CENSORSHIP about how you must be free to praise the government is what these people LOVE after all. It's almost like they wanted a fascist state all along. It's bizarre. I can't imagine how anyone would have thought that with them waving Nazi flags and shit at that rally. How could anyone have predicted this??
Oh wait. Yeah. A bunch of people did.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,141,167
@previous (L)
The only thing that gets me is when left-leaning people suddenly become Ayn Rand libertarians on this one issue. I wouldn't mind if they demonstrated some consistency but they switch suddenly between "BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE BIGOT" to "iT's A pRiVaTe CoMpAnY tHeY cAn rEfUsE sErViCe tO aNyOnE"
Ultimately this is of little importance given the smart people at r/The_Donald saw this coming months ago and moved to thedonald.win
The only thing that gets me is when left-leaning people suddenly become Ayn Rand libertarians on this one issue. I wouldn't mind if they demonstrated some consistency but they switch suddenly between "BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE BIGOT" to "iT's A pRiVaTe CoMpAnY tHeY cAn rEfUsE sErViCe tO aNyOnE"
Ultimately this is of little importance given the smart people at r/The_Donald saw this coming months ago and moved to thedonald.win
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 7 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,141,236
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Use your head. A dude baking a cake shouldn't give a rat's ass about someone's cock habits who walks into a cake shop and behaves himself and conducts himself respectively. Contrast that with some fuckhead who comes into your forum and shits it up with fucked up content that casts the whole fucking business in a bad light.
Use your head. A dude baking a cake shouldn't give a rat's ass about someone's cock habits who walks into a cake shop and behaves himself and conducts himself respectively. Contrast that with some fuckhead who comes into your forum and shits it up with fucked up content that casts the whole fucking business in a bad light.
Anonymous L replied with this 5 years ago, 13 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,141,425
@1,141,167 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
It's funny because I went the other way. I started as an Ayn Rand drooling libertarian and suddenly became disillusioned with the whole movement when they started inserting their own morals into the equation. Why wouldn't the baker bake that faggot cake? He's running a business to make profit, right? Why, in the Ayn Rand sense of things, would a businessman refuse a paying customer?
In some imaginary, perfect libertarian world we can imagine Nazi bakers baking cakes for bar mitzvah parties and pro-life Baptist restaurants serving Muslim women who run abortion clinics. That's a fucking imaginary world the doesn't exist though. Instead we get kids marching around with swastikas and people saying "Well, I have to respect their speech!" and then shouting down anything they don't actually like instead of... you know... "respecting their speech" at the end of the day. Forgive me if I start thinking that they don't actually respect anything but their own agenda. The whole thing starts to sound like a bunch of bullshit leaning heavily on some imagined notion of "rights" that, apparently, only some select people have.
I mean. Shit. Forgive me if it seems like a fucking pipe dream, but I imagined a world where we could all agree to disagree and go our own ways. I don't have that. Instead I have a bunch of angry culture warriors shouting about how they are so oppressed after spending four years calling everyone "cucks" for complaining about shit. Pardon me if if I don't take them seriously because I smell their bullshit. I have a world of grievance politics and propaganda now. I wanted more from this movement. It's supposed to be freedom for all.
It's funny because I went the other way. I started as an Ayn Rand drooling libertarian and suddenly became disillusioned with the whole movement when they started inserting their own morals into the equation. Why wouldn't the baker bake that faggot cake? He's running a business to make profit, right? Why, in the Ayn Rand sense of things, would a businessman refuse a paying customer?
In some imaginary, perfect libertarian world we can imagine Nazi bakers baking cakes for bar mitzvah parties and pro-life Baptist restaurants serving Muslim women who run abortion clinics. That's a fucking imaginary world the doesn't exist though. Instead we get kids marching around with swastikas and people saying "Well, I have to respect their speech!" and then shouting down anything they don't actually like instead of... you know... "respecting their speech" at the end of the day. Forgive me if I start thinking that they don't actually respect anything but their own agenda. The whole thing starts to sound like a bunch of bullshit leaning heavily on some imagined notion of "rights" that, apparently, only some select people have.
I mean. Shit. Forgive me if it seems like a fucking pipe dream, but I imagined a world where we could all agree to disagree and go our own ways. I don't have that. Instead I have a bunch of angry culture warriors shouting about how they are so oppressed after spending four years calling everyone "cucks" for complaining about shit. Pardon me if if I don't take them seriously because I smell their bullshit. I have a world of grievance politics and propaganda now. I wanted more from this movement. It's supposed to be freedom for all.
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 17 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,141,581
ADVERTISEMENT
Anonymous L replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,141,651
@1,141,167 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I get that there's a reverse side to that where people pretend like Twitter or GoDaddy or YouTube are exerting some kind of moral judgment on their content. The thing some people fail to see is that they mostly aren't. Major tech companies and their executives aren't usually bleeding-heart liberals. Jack Dorsey isn't out there campaigning for BLM or calling for the police to be defunded. What you are mostly seeing is companies responding to public demand. When public outrage about hosting 8chan or The Daily Stormer or Alex Jones' made-up rants about democrats eating children for adrenochrome reaches certain levels, those companies back off that content out of self-interest. They didn't do it at first. That's for fucking sure. They were super willing to do it for the ad hits. They only did it out of self interest after enough people became aware that they were the vehicle by which these ideas spread.
How many times have we seen tech companies back off extremist content following a mass shooting? It's not a fucking coincidence. And recently, it's not like tech companies suddenly became more woke after BLM protests. They are responding to consumer demand. I don't see anything wrong with that in some libertarian paradise world. That's what companies do, right? In the Ayn Rand sense of things, that's just private companies doing what they think they need to do to survive.
In an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution, Twitter or Facebook or whoever aren't Congress and aren't making any laws. So the natural response to some bullshit "freedom of speech" argument is to, much like Justice Antonin Scalia might have pointed out, make clear that it has fucking nothing to do with the US Constitution as it is written.
I don't know that I would compare refusing to serve gay people with refusing to host controversial content. I can already try to pay the New York Times to run my full page "Hang all the Niggers" advertisement. I guess if they refuse, nobody would think that's weird, right? I can already run a lunch counter and try to refuse to serve black people. If I do that, that's called discrimination based on race. And we have laws about that. We don't have laws forcing the NYT to publish whatever trash I send them. I don't think anyone would argue that those two things are the same.
I get that there's a reverse side to that where people pretend like Twitter or GoDaddy or YouTube are exerting some kind of moral judgment on their content. The thing some people fail to see is that they mostly aren't. Major tech companies and their executives aren't usually bleeding-heart liberals. Jack Dorsey isn't out there campaigning for BLM or calling for the police to be defunded. What you are mostly seeing is companies responding to public demand. When public outrage about hosting 8chan or The Daily Stormer or Alex Jones' made-up rants about democrats eating children for adrenochrome reaches certain levels, those companies back off that content out of self-interest. They didn't do it at first. That's for fucking sure. They were super willing to do it for the ad hits. They only did it out of self interest after enough people became aware that they were the vehicle by which these ideas spread.
How many times have we seen tech companies back off extremist content following a mass shooting? It's not a fucking coincidence. And recently, it's not like tech companies suddenly became more woke after BLM protests. They are responding to consumer demand. I don't see anything wrong with that in some libertarian paradise world. That's what companies do, right? In the Ayn Rand sense of things, that's just private companies doing what they think they need to do to survive.
In an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution, Twitter or Facebook or whoever aren't Congress and aren't making any laws. So the natural response to some bullshit "freedom of speech" argument is to, much like Justice Antonin Scalia might have pointed out, make clear that it has fucking nothing to do with the US Constitution as it is written.
I don't know that I would compare refusing to serve gay people with refusing to host controversial content. I can already try to pay the New York Times to run my full page "Hang all the Niggers" advertisement. I guess if they refuse, nobody would think that's weird, right? I can already run a lunch counter and try to refuse to serve black people. If I do that, that's called discrimination based on race. And we have laws about that. We don't have laws forcing the NYT to publish whatever trash I send them. I don't think anyone would argue that those two things are the same.
(Edited 1 minute later.)