←back to thread

668 points wildmusings | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.408s | 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?

tptacek ◴[] 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 #
1. defgeneric ◴[] No.13028645[source]
Of course most people don't believe the pedo stuff. However, they're totally on board with slandering the DC power-brokers, especially the ones who exemplify the class-culture of the "liberal elite." That's what this is really about: the attacks on art are the main giveaway.

While I "get" the Maria Abramovic "Spirit Cooking" stuff qua art, it pretty clearly also shows art as "high-class trash". When people see Abramovic's art, then see pictures of her with all kinds of elites and celebrities, they're right to see the culture as decadent. But then again bourgeois decadence isn't anything new...

replies(1): >>13029121 #
2. nkurz ◴[] No.13029121[source]
Of course most people don't believe the pedo stuff. However, they're totally on board with slandering the DC power-brokers, especially the ones who exemplify the class-culture of the "liberal elite." That's what this is really about: the attacks on art are the main giveaway.

That's not my read. I think the art is key, but I think the majority involved genuinely believe they have discovered evidence of pedophilia, and consider the art a strong part of the evidence. Consider how the imagery in the Heavy Breathing videos would be received by the authors and target audience of this: http://truediscipleship.com/ten-scriptural-reasons-why-the-r....

One of the discussions that surprised me was genuine concern over a picture showing someone next to a cardboard cutout of the Pope. My guess is that most of the participants don't attend a lot of parties that display potentially blasphemous portraits of religious figures, and tend to make assumptions about the other amoral practices of those who do.