←back to thread

668 points wildmusings | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.703s | source
Show context
JorgeGT ◴[] No.13027099[source]
And without an "edited" mark, which means that any comment of any user can be covertly modified by an admin. Very concerning since Reddit comments have provoked even Congress hearings: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-pan...
replies(7): >>13027119 #>>13027125 #>>13027136 #>>13027240 #>>13027734 #>>13028391 #>>13033721 #
dvt ◴[] No.13027125[source]
It's more concerning that Congress is that stupid (one can only hope the Courts haven't been making rulings based on untraced emails and anonymous tweets). Social media is a canonical exemplar of hearsay.

There's a reason Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source in college-level courses.

replies(6): >>13027147 #>>13027170 #>>13027187 #>>13027263 #>>13027329 #>>13028742 #
1. Natsu ◴[] No.13027329[source]
> It's more concerning that Congress is that stupid

Congress was looking at evidence of what that particular user was doing online at the time, because /u/stonetear posted questions that look rather incriminating in retrospect based on what we've learned since then.

This kind of thing is why it's important to establish a chain of custody for evidence.

replies(1): >>13030526 #
2. jessaustin ◴[] No.13030526[source]
This episode makes clear that uttering "Reddit" and "chain of custody" in the same sentence should get one laughed out of court.
replies(1): >>13031780 #
3. Natsu ◴[] No.13031780[source]
Maybe. It depends on what internal controls they have (or don't) and whether it was evident to other admins that the comments had been altered.

There's a lot we don't know without knowing the internal workings of Reddit, though I agree that you can't have to think that if one rogue person (even someone like that) can just do such things, they don't have robust internal controls at all.