←back to thread

668 points wildmusings | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.284s | 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?

dglass ◴[] No.13028273[source]
I believe the streisand effect is picking up steam with Pizzagate. I would encourage others as well to approach it with an open mind.

Also, this has potentially far reaching implications not just for comments on reddit, but any comment made on any forum on the internet. Without a way of proving a comment has not been tampered with, how can what you write online be used against you in the court of law?

replies(2): >>13028335 #>>13028601 #
wfo ◴[] No.13028601[source]
Without a way of proving someone isn't lying about what you said, how can what you say be used against you in a court of law? How could evidence gathered by police be used in a court of law? It could be fabricated! We are just trusting they found those drugs in that car! They could be from anywhere!

Every online interaction that's ever been used in the history of the internet is malleable. There is crypto technology to prevent this, but it isn't being used.

We still try people just fine, based on trust and belief. You can check to see if something's been altered.

Why are people pretending this is new or a big deal? Of course online forums aren't reliable. Of course they are owned by the administrators and can be modified at will. Did an administrator do it to mess with a bunch of screaming blubbering nasty and horrible trolls calling him a pedophile, and institute a silly find/replace rule as a kind of petty revenge? Yeah. Was it childish? Sure. But seriously, who cares? Who really believes that reddit is serious business? When online forums take your swear word and replace it with symbols do you throw a hissy fit about "freedom of speech"?

replies(1): >>13029124 #
1. Sacho ◴[] No.13029124[source]
> How could evidence gathered by police be used in a court of law? It could be fabricated! We are just trusting they found those drugs in that car! They could be from anywhere!

I think this sarcasm is misplaced given the number of scandals surrounding trust in police and the evidence they put forward.

For example, the mishandling or tampering of evidence in crimina labs:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/forensic-techniqu...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/16/sjc-hear-argume...

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/02/new-jersey-lab-...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a...

And of course there's fabricated police reports and officers lying under oath - http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/perjury_usa_rampant_police_l...

There's also the tons of Brady violations which are lies by omission - http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_vio...

A lot of these situations have the same parallel of trust - we trust prosecutors to produce all exculpatory evidence, because it is very difficult to determine that they haven't(since the defense doesn't have access to the evidence like prosecutors do). We trust labs to not tamper with the evidence, because the defense does not have the resources to challenge every lab analysis. We trust police officers to not lie under oath, because they are often the sole "untainted" witness of a crime, especially in controversial police shooting cases. When that trust is broken, it is difficult to rein in the backlash - there is no way to know just how often it was broken in the past without us knowing.