全 132 件のコメント

[–]moratnz 38ポイント39ポイント  (3子コメント)

Was the article removed by admins for breaching site rules, or by mods for breaching subreddit rules.

Given that it was removed for being 'tabloid news', and rule 4 of /r/nottheonion is:

"4. Use original, reliable sources. Find the source of your story before you submit it, simply by checking for references or googling the subject to locate the original piece. Websites that frequently re-host viral news stories or contain misleading information are on automatic removal. Blogs are not reliable sources."

I suspect the latter.

In which case put away your pitchforks folks, this is as unremarkable as the regular comment-slaughter-fests in /r/askscience.

[–]BorisYeltsin09 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's still conspicuous that mods ban just this article for tabloid news but other pieces by the Washington examiner are a-ok. Sure it's not pao or the admits directly, but it's still censorship.

[–]Nerindil 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hush, dear, you'll upset the hivemind.

[–]Kareem_Jordan 58ポイント59ポイント  (44子コメント)

You know, I rolled my eyes when people complained about the fat hate subs being removed, but this right here really makes me want to leave reddit.

[–]10tothe24th 68ポイント69ポイント  (6子コメント)

First they came for the shitlords, and I said nothing..

[–]DrPoopingPooperson 24ポイント25ポイント  (5子コメント)

To be fair they went after the jailbait stuff a few years ago and people didn't throw a fit for too long. People will say fat people hate is going to be the downfall but no one will be talking about it in a week.

[–]MonkeyCB 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

People did throw a fit. The problem is that nobody cared. They were too scared to say anything. But violentacrez (or whatever his fucking name was) being doxxed, a sub that posted shit you see in any sears catalog being banned, and the SRS "reddit bomb" finally taking down /r/jailbait was quite the clusterfuck. At the end of the day, the problem was that there were fewer people who knew what the fuck was going on than people who did, so a piece of reddit died.

[–]L3SSTH4NTHR33 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I was more okay with jailbait getting taken down because it was easier to see that causing legal problems, it made a bit more sense than taking down something like FPH.

[–]Stalked_Like_Corn 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The thing is, no laws in the sub itself were being broken. Like said, you can see this shit in catalogs for Sears or JC Penny. There was an incident that someone posted pictures of an ex who was underage but the ones he posted were of her clothed. Someone asked for the rest of the nude ones and so did others. He was dispersing those via PM but the moderators of the Sub immediately started banning people and those people were reported to the admins.

Then, it just snowballed from there. The sub tried to clean up the mess but Reddit would just rather nuke everything instead. I mean, they took down creepshots that broke ZERO rules. They were pictures taken IN PUBLIC and again, no laws broken. The Fappening thing I could be MORE understanding of if their banning procedures weren't so random and vague.

Then they ban /r/fph that I detest but feel that it has a right to be there. Now this and her removing and banning others for calling her out on bullshit? She needs to go and Reddit needs to right its ship before voat gets the servers they need.

[–]CACKENBOOLS 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The issue as I saw it was violentacrez being doxxed by a post that was a link to the OP'S blog. Not a damn thing was done to this person, let alone the sub.

[–]10tothe24th 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I think this is a little different, not because of the FPH drama but because of the way threads about Pao are being actively censored at the same time. Reddit does feel really different now. I don't know if it feels different enough that I'd want to leave, but it's starting to feel less like a community run by its own members and more like a conference hall run by a private corporation... which, of course, it always was, but the beauty of Reddit has been that it's always felt like one giant spontaneous hangout.

I also think /u/MonkeyCB has a point. Nobody wants to defend jailbait and FPH, and they shouldn't feel compelled to, but that doesn't mean that a lot of petty, cruel, and unfair shit didn't go down as a result of it all.

[–]Codeshark 30ポイント31ポイント  (25子コメント)

If a male CEO eliminated paternity/maternity leave because "men don't tend to benefit from it as much as women", he'd be sued.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 3ポイント4ポイント  (19子コメント)

Nothing's stopping reddit employees from suing over the 'no negotiating for raises' thing.

[–]spewin 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

Sure there is. How in the world would they win that suit? They don't want to waste money.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer -4ポイント-3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Well for one, by proving there's discrimination. Which you really can't, because it's putting everyone on the same level playing field.

[–]rsresnor 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

They were already on a level playing feild, there was nothing stopping women from negotiating before and many likely did. All they did was take more power away from new employees seeking fair compensation for their work. If anything, this has tipped the scales in favor of the employer over the employee under the guise of "feminism".

Which is exactly why you're not wrong. There was no discrimination before and none now, the only thing possibly discriminatory was the statement made claiming male privilege as the reasoning behind the change, which wasn't even true in the first place and is only some weak rhetoric. It's not worthy of a lawsuit at all.

[–]zeabu 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

because it's putting everyone on the same level playing field.

No, it isn't. It's not to raise the women's level up to the men's level. It's lowering the men's level down to the women's level. It's false and burgeoisie feminism with the only goal to break workers ability to negotiate.

[–]Codeshark 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

True, but in addition to being sued, he probably wouldn't last very long as CEO or be heralded in the media.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yeah, but it also probably wouldn't happen.

[–]Codeshark 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Exactly, because it is stupid to implement sexist policies.

[–]wooq 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

What if an anonymous mod removed a post for breaking a forum's rules? The same gender-war-baiting opinion piece is still up in several other subreddits. It didn't fit the criteria for posting to the sub.

[–]Codeshark 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I am not referencing anything about someone removing a post. Ellen Pao removed pay negotiations because women aren't as good at them.

[–]wooq 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think I meant to reply to a different comment... my point still stands, but is entirely irrelevant to your point, which is also a good one.

[–]Codeshark 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

For what it is worth, considering Pao tried to link her inbox on Reddit, I doubt she is removing posts personally.

[–]CACKENBOOLS 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe they should get better at them?

[–]cal_student37 20ポイント21ポイント  (2子コメント)

Unsubscribe from /r/nottheonion ? Every subreddit is it's own fiefdom. The removal was an action by the mods of that subreddit who are not employed by or related to Reddit's administration at all. Subreddits often enforce pretty "unfree" rules on content and mods are the lords of their fiefdoms.

[–]Kareem_Jordan 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm still posting here, so I'm obviously not going to leave over that one example. But if it becomes a common thing outside of subs that are safe spaces... I don't know.

[–]cal_student37 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to blame all of reddit on one subreddit's moderators. Reddit is full of subreddits where the mods love to play god over their little kingdoms.

[–]Clbull 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

http://www.snapzu.com
http://www.hubski.com
https://voat.co/

Enjoy.

Also, the part about the /r/NotTheOnion article being removed was a problem with their moderation and not the Reddit admins. They've deemed a lot of sources to be untrustworthy including

  • Daily Mail
  • The Sun
  • Daily Mirror
  • Anything from Gawker Media (damn, they're salty about what happened to Violentacrez...)
  • Huffington Post
  • Boingboing
  • Washington News
  • BuzzFeed (Which is classed as not-a-news-site, even though they're invited to the White House press briefing room as of this year and they actually do news articles.
  • The Metro (which, despite being owned by DMG Media, is nowhere near as tabloid-y as other British papers, primarily because of its editorial stance and the fact that it's distributed freely.)
  • Union Gazette
  • Russia Today (probably due to the notion that they're state-sponsored Russian broadcasters.)
  • and many others...

And guess what? The Telegraph and The Guardian are guilty of doing clickbait articles. Why not remove them too?

Because snobbery.

[–]nimbusnacho 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you this needs to be upvoted. This article is insane, it goes from a problem with a subreddit mod to suddenly flipping to being an article about Pao being a horrible CEO and digging up trash in her personal life. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is barely an issue at all. I mean the original article was already barely even NottheOnion material anyway (I mean, it's a shitty situation, but really? onion material?),

[–]agentlame 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Anything from Gawker Media (damn, they're salty about what happened to Violentacrez...)

Can you explain this logic to me? This entire thread is screaming about SJWs, yet you claim Gawker is blocked due to support for VA, not because it's self-defined as a blog network.

So which is it? SJWs or supporters of sexualized images of minors?

[–]Clbull 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

When Violentacrez had his real-life identity outed by Adrian Chen (which then resulted in him being harassed, nationally shamed on multiple news networks, and losing his job) a significant number of major subreddits initiated a boycott of all Gawker Media domains as a protest.

I even recall a very brief admin-wide decision to block Gawker Media domains, which was short lived because the press decided to spin the whole story to make the Reddit community look worse and portray them as 'protecting child porngraphy'.

[–]agentlame 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm very aware of that. But you didn't explain your logic. reddit's SJW were absolutely elated at the outing and fall of VA. Yet you claim that Gawker is banned in support of him.

[–]Clbull 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe not for that specific subreddit. That was more of a tongue-in-cheek joke at the over-reaction to VA's doxxing.

[–]SecTrono 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

i'm seriously considering leaving reddit after the past couple days. i don't want to support what reddit seems to be turning into. and that says a lot considering how big a part of my day is devoted to surfing this site.

[–]himit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I remember reading a different article on this a few days ago on reddit, and that one wasn't removed.

I cannot find it for the life of me now, though. -.-

[–]Huwbacca 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

this is a sub-reddit issue surely? /r/news and /r/worldnews will remove lots of stories if they're too frequent, too specific or any of the myriad of arbitrary rules that the subs enforce.

[–]raytendo 21ポイント22ポイント  (1子コメント)

um.... article about a mod deleting something from a subreddit is news now? This is super silly.

[–]raytendo 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

holy shit i just looked around the site this is from. THIS PLACE IS INSANE. "Is there any group more reviled than the modern day feminist? Honest question. I only ask it, because it would appear that every time a feminist raises blue-dyed-armpit-haired hell against..."

YEAH, COOL, REAL GREAT WRITING, DUDE. NOT CRAZY-SOUNDING AT ALL.

[–]Zulban 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I truly have no idea what's going on except I do see a massive shitshow.

[–]seancarter 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

People hating on fat people got pissed when Reddit took away their sandbox because they too frequently kicked sand out of the sandbox. Also, apparently, a female Chinese-American lawyer/CEO is the reincarnation of a male Austrian painter/Nazi-warmonger.

[–]jayjaywalker3 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reading about how the author described the brief banning of whale watch was a huge red flag. It's pretty crazy how upvoted this article is here while most of the comments are calling it out as ridiculous.

[–]TortusW 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

This article, and the website it comes from, are trash. I'm no fan of Pao, but

Pao has a clear social justice bias. It’s a bias that has strong roots in the radical feminist movement of today which tends to be blatantly anti-male.

Pao was brought on as CEO of Reddit last January, and has since set out to make Reddit a more social justice friendly place by setting a new set of rules for Reddit users.

This is just more bullshit red scare type stuff. SJW is the new communist, and once you "out" someone as one you're essentially saying they are literally the devil.

Where the site was once a bastion of free speech, no matter how obscene and hateful that speech was – under the new guidelines laid down by CEO Ellen Pao – the site has targeted certain articles and subReddits for deletion due to their “offensive” nature.

When have they ever said they were targeting articles for being offensive? Mocking quotes or not, that is just a complete fabrication. Whether you believe their harassment story is completely true, quotes here do not apply. Mocking quotes imply that the person you are discussing thinks the term applies, even if you do not. For example: This "article" contains more of the author's opinions and biases than actual fact.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

SJW is the new communist

I don't remember when the communists controlled the media in a western country. But I agree both the articles are poorly-written but the point it brings forth-about censorship - is a valid concern.

[–]BlooregardQKazoo 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

wait, seriously? there was actually a time 60 years ago or so when members of the media were accussed of being communist of communist sympathizers if someone wanted to discredit them. considering you're using the SJW label to attempt to credit the media in general is seems like a great comparison.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's always easier to label something as conspiracy, pulling a vague analogy from the past, than logically attack the argument right?

[–]TortusW 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't remember when the communists controlled the media

Man your tinfoil hat is huge. First, I think you're considering SJW synonymous with feminist, which I think is incorrect. Second, if either feminists or SJWs controlled the media, why would they constantly be complaining about the lack of representation in the media? The ability of certain websites to police their content is not the same as "controlling the media." And if you think even Reddit is controlled by SJWs or Feminists I think you're delusional.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

How deluded can you be! Ellen pao definitely fits my definition of sjw, so does Arianna Huffington, so does Hillary Clinton and here you're arguing they're still powerless. Since when did we start taking political whining as valid complaints?

[–]shaggorama 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was the article removed by admins or mods? You can't hold reddit as a company (or even the community at large) responsible for the actions of volunteer moderators in a particular subreddit. That's not "reddit removing articles", that's "the moderators of ___ subreddit removing articles." That's a really, really huge difference.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 19ポイント20ポイント  (56子コメント)

When you say, "Reddit" what do you mean? I highly doubt it's the admins removing the posts. Like with this, it was removed for being tabloid news. WashingtonExaminer.com seems to have a pretty obvious slant, and have a lot of tabloid-style headlines. Seems like a fair removal.

edit, after reading the article:

Yeah, seriously this is garbage. Tabloid would be a pretty fair descriptor. This isn't a news article, it's a propaganda piece.

An Amherst College student blacked out, accompanied a fellow student back to her dorm room after drinking in February 2012. While he was blacked out, she performed oral sex on him.

You can already see the slant from the first sentence. There's no question of doubt here at all; everything is taken at face value. I know someone's going to reply and say, "You wouldn't say that if it was a woman who was raped," but really my problem is that there's no information at all. Anywhere. In the entire article. It's just, "He was blacked out, she blew him and accused him of something." Repeated ad naseum.

Nearly two years later, she would accuse him of sexual assault. And under Amherst's guilty-until-proven-innocent (and even then, as we'll see, still guilty) hearing standards, the accused student was expelled.

See those parentheses? Yeah. That's not exactly the mark of a great journalist. This is just injecting opinion into a piece where just giving a short overview of the known facts would suffice. Unless of course the person who wrote this article doesn't know much other than the guy is counter-suing, but then of course, it isn't journalism.

His lawyer had discovered text messages that prove the accused student did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser. Despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen Doe's case.

This evidence. Which we're just going to assume exists because his lawyer said so.

K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax,

The most impartial source you could find, I'm sure.

The rest of the article is basically pull quotes from this guy, talking about the college's "Yes means yes" policy, and saying that it's not reasonable that someone should be held to that burden of proof. That at least I agree with, but the way it's presented just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

What this issue needs is actual journalists. Not click-bait, sex-war-baiting posts from some right-wing tabloid site which only appeal to a slim range of people who follow the Mens Rights movement. Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.

[–]Munchausen-By-Proxy 34ポイント35ポイント  (33子コメント)

Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.

Sad to see this kind of dishonesty being upvoted on what should be a safe place for men. It is clear that there is no "right" way to advocate for male rape victims, even when we follow feminist standards of "listen and believe" we're apparently doing harm.

[–]FukRPolitics 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Sad to see this kind of dishonesty being upvoted on what should be a safe place for men.

A lot of feminist lurkers, most likely.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

There are a lot more MRAs than feminists on reddit. I don't really think my comment was dishonest at all; basically the only critique is against the subreddit mods who aren't removing similar shit. But that's not my problem, it's theirs. Ask the mods to take down the other content. But there's just no arguing that from a journalistic standpoint that the article that /r/NotTheOnion removed was tabloid garbage.

Or am I not allowed to have an opinion in this subreddit, as a guy, because I don't agree that feminism is the devil?

[–]CheshireSwift 7ポイント8ポイント  (6子コメント)

You're fighting a losing battle, r/OneY is basically turning into a slightly more erudite r/MRA.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. The article is on the level of "all men are rapists, women are only safe around other women" conspiracy/opinion trash.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ah a subreddit called oneY cares about men's issues. Who could've thought!!

[–]CheshireSwift -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Men's issues isn't the same as a trashy, misogynistic, "woe is me" echo chamber. Grow a fucking spine and stop blaming your inadequacies on others.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am sorry you find talking about men's issues as "trashy, misogynistic, "woe is me" echo chamber"

May be it's the feminist echo chambers that gave you the idea that talking about men's problem is a hateful thing. I wouldn't say a woman talking about the issues she face is "whining". I expect the same level of decency from you. I guess that's one of the reasons why I am not an angry feminist sjw.

Ignoring the ad hominem with deserving contempt.

[–]CheshireSwift 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't find talking about men's issues a problem, that's why I'm here. I'm talking the specific website linked here, which is unmitigated fluff.

[–]moratnz -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Y'know how people bitch about rabid feminazis?

Rabid masculnazis are just as boring and irritating.

Hypersensitivity to anything that looks vaguely like an injustice, and a tendency to fly off the handle on being triggered are hallmarks of both lots.

I hope it's possible to advocate for gender issues without growing an enormous victim complex, but the behaviour of some MRAs makes me wonder.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah.

Victim complex is a subjective thing though. Whining, victim complex, bitter, etc are just distraction tactics, imo. But I see what you're saying.

Okay.

[–]PetGiraffe 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Are you kidding? Because I feel like you're fucking with me if you really believe what you wrote. I love how outraged a feminist piece can come off as and it's a bunch of "you go girl, give em hell!" And when a piece comes along that has the same outrage about female on male sexual assault, you want to categorize it as essentially sensationalism? I feel like my fellow males are being driven to a sort of "alpha male extinction event". No longer can I be the breadwinner, or date multiple women while uncommitted, or even report when I have been sexually assaulted by a woman, because my thoughts don't matter, and rape only happens TO a woman. God help us all.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I have literally never said any of that, FYI. I just thought that it's ridiculous how there's so much outrage over tabloid garbage like this article being removed, just because it happens to be a hot button issue. If it was an article about Caitlyn Jenner and it was removed, it wouldn't be over here. It's intellectually dishonest to suppose that it was removed for any other reason than just being a shitty article, drumming up page views by appealing to the MRA crowd. It's objectively bad journalism. The reason you don't see me complaining about the other side of the coin is because the other side of the coin almost never comes up on reddit (or at least, on the subs I frequent).

[–]Kareem_Jordan 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

The reason you don't see me complaining about the other side of the coin is because the other side of the coin almost never comes up on reddit (or at least, on the subs I frequent).

Do you frequent this one, because we frequently get that other coin. Luckily, it gets downvoted here, even if other subs upvote it and then link to our discussions.

I guess I'm skeptical that A Rape on Campus would ever be removed regardless of the reports, and we all know it was far from quality journalism.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but at least it postured as real journalism. Until the scandal hit, there was basically no criticism because it's Rolling Stone and obviously they have editorial standards, right? Obviously hindsight and all, but it's a lot easier to spot out an article like this which is pretty blatant versus a cover story for one of the major magazines.

I'm not even accusing the guy who wrote this story of making it up. I just think it was terribly written and deserved to be removed based on the low quality.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

Yeah, seriously this is garbage. Tabloid would be a pretty fair descriptor. This isn't a news article, it's a propaganda piece.

The point is several articles of the same quality from WashingtonExaminer is accepted. Why not this? And why not let the community decide if it's low quality or not? That's why we have the upvote/downvote buttons.

You can already see the slant from the first sentence. There's no question of doubt here at all; everything is taken at face value. I know someone's going to reply and say, "You wouldn't say that if it was a woman who was raped," but really my problem is that there's no information at all.

Still the judgement should be left to the community not a single overlord.

See those parentheses? Yeah. That's not exactly the mark of a great journalist.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

His lawyer had discovered text messages that prove the accused student did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser. Despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen Doe's case.

K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, The most impartial source you could find, I'm sure.

Journalists don't have to stay impartial. Or may be she's not aware of her own bias? Doesn't justify the removal, AGAIN.

What this issue needs is actual journalists. Not click-bait, sex-war-baiting posts from some right-wing tabloid site which only appeal to a slim range of people who follow the Mens Rights movement.

Yeah I remember a time when people wrote such articles and then idiots like Marcotte shot it down with sarcastic tirade.

Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.

Articles such as this have a bigger impact and do a better job at bringing attention to male rape victims than a nerdbashing by self-proclaimed nerd-educators.

Lastly, you are discussing an article that was removed by admin/mod.

The issue here is not the quality of the article, but the basis of removal.

[–]raytendo 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

you're taking issue with AdvocateForLucifer and/or some grand conspiracy when really you should just PM the mod who removed the article and say "here is why i think you made a mistake." one mod removed it, not anyone in this comments section.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

The upvote-downvote system never works. It NEVER works. I've modded subreddits, and trust me. If mods didn't exist, the site would be even more soap-boxy than it is today. People don't upvote based on what's good or bad, they vote based on how they're already biased. Reddit leans more to the MRA side of things, so obviously something like this is going to be upvoted. Even if it's pure journalistic filth.

Most of reddit doesn't look past the title, and they upvote based on emotion. Based on the algorithm which pushes posts to the front, ease of understanding is the best way for something to rise fast. If you have to take the time to see that an article's shit and then downvote, it's already hit the rising page because of the people who didn't click through.

If a journalist is injecting his opinion blatantly into the piece he's writing, it's not journalism. I mean, feel free to cover issues which affect you personally or which you personally support, but I shouldn't be able to pick out any sort of obvious bias from just a cursory look.

The post broke the subreddit rules against tabloid garbage, because that's exactly what this is. Straight filth that would fail a first-year journalism student.

It was removed because it didn't meet the standard requirements set by the subreddit moderators. Just like it would have never been approved if TheWashingtonExaminer was anything more than a conservative clickbait circlejerk.

[–]BlooregardQKazoo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

preach it.

i've had a little back-and-forth on this thread in /r/foodforthought that's very relevant. /r/foodforthought is supposed to be a DepthHub subreddit but a garbage submission that's essentially a blog post (all opinion, no substance) is over +500. and some people defend it as a discussion-starter even though the sidebar specifically states that the sub is not the place for discussion-starters.

once a community gets above a certain (small) size the upvote system doesn't work because people just upvote titles they like or garbage, easily-consumed content, and there are enough casuals to completely overwhelm the people who try to enforce subreddit rules. /r/nottheonion, the sub being discussed here, is another great example of people just upvoting things they like without concern for which sub it is in. these subs would be even worse if not for moderation.

[–]Kaemdar 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah. this seems like something that would have gotten removed regardless of whatever is going on currently.

[–]CACKENBOOLS 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe you should dispute the veracity of it rather than the writing style.

[–]IndividualNo6 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Total non-story aimed at people who have not a scooby how reddit works. /r/nottheonion has rules about what content providers are allowed, the article was by a disallowed provider. It has nothing to do with the content, and the "While other articles from the Washington Examiner, a respected news source, still remain on the site itself" line just seals the deal on this total ignorance, faux outrage piece.

[–]Munchausen-By-Proxy 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/search?q=site%3Awashingtonexaminer.com&restrict_sr=on

/r/nottheonion has many stories from that "disallowed provider". They also have automoderator, so could easily have blocked it completely if they wanted. So it wasn't disallowed before, and is disallowed now. Let's put our thinking caps on and see if we can figure out what might have changed!

[–]IndividualNo6 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not a sub to /r/nottheonion so I'll take your word on that but this is still an issue with the moderation of that sub - not "Reddit" - removing posts in an apparently hypocritical manner.

[–]moratnz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So, this post should be retitled "third party media reports on inconsistent reddit moderation".

Film at eleven...

[–]Lucretian 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is this subreddit also going full retard? Great.

[–]AAAH_SPIDERS 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow. Check out Ashe Schow, the author of the article. She's a Republican and I'm very much not, but I think we could work it out...

I mean, GODDAMN!

[–]NameIdeas 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

How can they justify removing this?

[–]raytendo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

because the source is an unreliable tabloid and the article itself is sensationalist and full of exaggeration.

[–]see_you_soon -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm curious how long this post will last.

30 minutes so far.

[–]Kareem_Jordan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're not a default, so this won't reach the front page.