←back to thread

668 points wildmusings | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
throwaway420[dead post] ◴[] No.13028201[source]
So within 24 hours of Reddit deleting /r/pizzagate for allegedly doxxing people (which was incorrect by the way, the mods were visibly running an extremely tight ship with regards to personally identifying information as per site policy) it is revealed that Reddit posts have zero integrity and can be silently altered. Very interesting.

If that alleged /r/pizzagate doxxing even happened, how do we know that genuine Reddit users were the ones actually doxxing people? Who is to say that comments weren't altered because the admins were pressured to find an excuse to get rid of that board?

And what pizza place owner has this kind of pull to be in the GQ top 50 most powerful washington people? Also how does a random pizza place owner get a "boo hoo, please feel so sorry for me" puff piece in the New York Times that straw manned many of the arguments or ignored some of the weirdest circumstantial evidence. The evidence is admittedly circumstantial at the moment, nobody is saying to march them in front of a firing squad without a reasonable and fair investigation and trial, but there's something to this when powerful people are trying to brush under the rug.

If you have a brain and are capable of thinking for yourself, you'll see that there's more to Pizzagate than meets the eye. Read about it with an open mind: I initially thought it was a joke too, but this attempt at censorship only raises more questions.

/u/spez's admission further raises interesting legal questions for reddit. What happens with /u/stonetear's and other legal cases now? How do any legal cases involving content on Reddit work now that the integrity of posts are nonexistent? Any defendant's lawyer will have a field day arguing that somebody who did something illegal here didn't do it.

And what becomes of Reddit itself? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties. Well, what happens when who is the content creator is possibly ambiguous? Do Reddit Shareholder's approve of this policy?

1. flowaway ◴[] No.13028403[source]
I initially thought it was a great example of false persuasion.

However, after looking at the Vigilant Citizen article on it, it seems like the ultimate example of false persuasion. It is super bizarre and intriguing, but obviously false.

I still don't understand why a "kid-friendly" place is posting photos on their Instagram with people engaged in sex acts on top of slices of pizza. Not to mention the references to crude sex acts, occult rituals and (objectively) creepy photos of kids.