Most active commenters
  • tptacek(7)

←back to thread

Reddit CEO admits to altering user comments that were critical of him

(www.reddit.com)
668 points wildmusings | 14 comments | 24 Nov 16 00:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
throwaway420[dead post] ◴[24 Nov 16 04:49 UTC] 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?

tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 05:30 UTC] No.13028390[source]▶
How is the top comment on an HN thread about Reddit one that burns two paragraphs contemplating whether there is actually a conspiracy running from a DC pizza parlor?
replies(3): >>13028407 #>>13028408 #>>13028645 #
redthrowaway ◴[24 Nov 16 05:34 UTC] No.13028407[source]▶
It's probably been linked outside of HN. Doesn't take too many votes to push it to the top.
replies(1): >>13028425 #
1. tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 05:40 UTC] No.13028425[source]▶
Do any of these people know how unbelievably batshit crazy this pizza parlor stuff sounds to people who don't live on the "The Donald" subreddit?

This is --- not exaggerating --- the most batshit thread I have ever seen on HN. And I seen some shit.

replies(4): >>13028465 #>>13028471 #>>13028477 #>>13029236 #
2. CephalopodMD ◴[24 Nov 16 05:50 UTC] No.13028465[source]▶
It's not all that much crazier than what we know to be true. Pamela Anderson visited Assange to give him a sandwich the day before his internet git cut off and he more or less disappeared off the face of the planet. Truth is stranger than fiction.
replies(1): >>13028487 #
3. ◴[24 Nov 16 05:51 UTC] No.13028471[source]▶
4. redthrowaway ◴[24 Nov 16 05:53 UTC] No.13028477[source]▶
In fairness to the nutters, it's not like the notion there's a massive pedophile ring operating at the highest levels of government is absurd. We've seen them exposed in several Western countries, and both candidates had ties to Epstein. It's just this particular accusation seems to be bonkers.

I would be more surprised if there wasn't a pedophile ring in DC. But I don't think that case will be blown open by Podesta's emails and squiggles on pizza shop walls and a moon and star which is apparently Baphomet?

replies(1): >>13028499 #
5. tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 05:55 UTC] No.13028487[source]▶
Wait did Pamela Anderson give Julian Assange a poisoned Internet sandwich
replies(1): >>13029553 #
6. tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 05:57 UTC] No.13028499[source]▶
We're talking about a conspiracy that runs from a pizza parlor, the credibility of which is bolstered by a first-principles analysis rooted in the dynamics of pizza parlors as the top comment on an HN thread. This is some Tim and Eric stuff here.
replies(1): >>13028633 #
7. hubert123 ◴[24 Nov 16 06:34 UTC] No.13028633{3}[source]▶
There should be a term for your kind of comment, I propose "betterguy trolling", it's very similar to concern trolling but at its core is the belief that you are better than the other person. Your commemts have zero value here, all you said was to point fingers and laugh at the other guy's views. "It's PIZZA how can it be bad" is the extent of your research that you are letting on over the course of what - 4 comments. Maybe there is still a better word for it, it's not just about pretending to be better - ah I think I got it: "in-person trolling". You simply act like your viewpont is the sane normal accepted view.
replies(1): >>13030172 #
8. flowaway ◴[24 Nov 16 09:22 UTC] No.13029236[source]▶
While I agree with you, this type of argument doesn't persuade a person from falling to confirmation bias. And the number of people who'd believe such a thing, far exceed the number of people obsessively posting (and trolling) online about it.

The New York Times is only going to magnify this effect. The skeptical argument has to acknowledge the inappropriateness of some of the pizza shop's Instagram posts.

9. rtx ◴[24 Nov 16 10:31 UTC] No.13029553{3}[source]▶
No, but don't down play accusations about child explotation. This kind of behaviour allows pd rings to run in Norway for so long.
replies(1): >>13030226 #
10. tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 13:19 UTC] No.13030172{4}[source]▶
The story we are talking about, it turns out, is even dumber than I made it sound.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13029262

replies(1): >>13032426 #
11. tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 13:33 UTC] No.13030226{4}[source]▶
By the power vested in me by the Internet board of governors and Archer Daniels Midland I hereby downplay this particular accusation about child exploitation and may God have mercy on your soul.
replies(1): >>13032032 #
12. rtx ◴[24 Nov 16 18:48 UTC] No.13032032{5}[source]▶
May God have mercy on those forsaken children.
13. hubert123 ◴[24 Nov 16 20:03 UTC] No.13032426{5}[source]▶
That is not even close to being a summary of the story. Sorry. It's not just about mentioning pizza in an email. Your comment was once again completely pointless, I have already told you that what you are doing is only virtue signalling. You just call other people dumb and then link to people agreeing with you with 0 information or content.
replies(1): >>13032846 #
14. tptacek ◴[24 Nov 16 21:23 UTC] No.13032846{6}[source]▶
Do not accuse people on HN of "virtue signaling". That's simply a way of saying that someone is lying, or commenting in bad faith, not because they believe what they're saying but because they're trying to curry favor with some other group of people. It's semantically indistinguishable from accusing someone of "shilling", and that's one of a very few arguments that's specifically forbidden on HN:

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20shillage&sort=by...

There's also no way to make such an argument civilly, and civility is a basic requirement for commenting on HN.

Making arguments on HN is trickier than making them on Reddit, and you may find it's not worth the energy. There's nothing wrong with keeping your discussions there.

replies(1): >>13034875 #