[TMWNN]

>Remember when we were younger and there was immense pressure on cable news to stop sharing the details of mass-shooting incidents because it was glorifying the shooters and their violent means? What Reddit is doing is what we asked cable news to do.

First, I was never part of said "immense pressure" so don't speak on my behalf.

Second, please read the links I posted elsewhere. /r/news's moderators, and Reddit's own CEO, admitted that the subreddit had completely bungled coverage of the shooting. As the Washington Post article and the replies to the previous posts discuss, they did more than that; for hours it was impossible for /r/news visitors to learn that a mass murder of 50 people in a nightclub had happened at all. I am a witness of the censorship on that subreddit that day.

Third, I question whether there was ever "immense pressure" in the US to do such a thing. Even in New Zealand, where said immense pressure by the government and others caused the manifesto written by the mosque attacker to be universally censored, and overseas sites hosting footage of the shooting itself were blocked, at least the public knew such an attack had occurred in the first place.

>(Also, like, stop blowing your dogwhistle so damn loud.)

Ah yes, the fabled "dog whistle". AKA "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".

[myWindoonn]

Oh, you're not from the USA? So, uh, we have a lot of mass shootings. A common point of discussion is whether we should publically discuss the details of mass shootings, because discussion can easily excuse and glorify the shooters.

The dog whistle in your earlier post is that the mean old liberals wouldn't let you talk about violence committed by Muslims, but fortunately Donald's fans were there to give you a space; how generous of them.

[IX_Hispana]

It's true. The liberal mods of /news banned discussion of a mass murder exactly because of that. Only the other guys gave space for discussion. What's a dog whistle about that? I understand it makes those mods look bad. That's not anyone's fault but their own, is it? Would you rather people just not mention it?

There's an obvious ideological one-sidedness amongst mods on reddit and they do what anybody does after acquiring absolute power. They crack down on dissent. It was the other way around 20 years ago when the neocons were in power. Back then, the liberals were all for free speech and alternative news sources. It's just humans at work.

I'm sorry if you thought liberals were better human beings than the rest.

[myWindoonn]

Atrocities of dehumanization are always started by these sorts of discussions. The USA has perpetuated decades of organized state-level violence against Muslim-majority countries halfway around the world, and the main fuel is stories about the crimes committed by Muslims.

I know that liberals aren't great people. But y'all're cryptofascists, not liberals, and you're far worse.

[IX_Hispana]

The news are the fuel? Right, had reddit banned links to news about 9/11, maybe the US wouldn't have gone to war. It was not the fake WMD's or the lucrative war industry contracts. It was the news reports.

One of the first things the Americans did in Iraq was to shoot at a hotel full of journalists. They killed a Spanish journalist called Jose Couso. His family tried to get justice for 10 years. Even Wikileaks tried to help. They couldn't do anything. He had been effectively silenced and they got away with it. Still, more journalists went and told us what was going on, so you should be thanking the news.

What reddit banned wasn't a smear campaign of fake news. It was an accurate account of something which had happened. They decided the public shouldn't know about it. The only thing that does is people learn about it from media linked to the other side. It just destroys trust. "What else don't they want us to know?" People are going to learn about it anyway. They're just going to read it from a media that's far less sympathetic. So that's a pretty bad own goal. There is no suppressing the news altogether. Can't be done. Have a think about this one.

Hiding stuff and lying is never good for the public. Transparency and truth are good things, even when they don't help your side, because better informed people make better decisions. The trick is to be on the side of transparency and truth, and to update your opinions accordingly, rather than falling in line under a partisan flag or banner and suppressing conflicting evidence.

There is no dogwhistle here. Reddit banned discussion because they're partisan and the news hurt their side. Sorry.

Finally, it's very funny the guy in favour of suppressing the news is calling the guy in favour of transparency and open media a cryptofascist.

[myWindoonn]

Hi, again, we're talking about the USA. A serious number of people believe that Fox News is not only reputable, but the only reputable news organization operating in the USA. CNN is considered trusted and mainstream. Who do you think was pushing fake WMDs? I grew up in the USA during this time, and I recall how the media embraced the neoconservative narrative.

Also, seriously, stop blowing the fucking dogwhistles. "Even Wikileaks tried to help," you say? Did Wikileaks send their peacekeeping forces, raise the issue in UN, wage a legal fight in USA courts to stop the killing? The Yes Men did more to stop the Iraq & Afghanistan wars than Wikileaks.

[IX_Hispana]

You're still hearing whistles? Are you sure is not tinnitus?

Good luck trying suppress the news further. You may find temporary success. But dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And as long as men die, liberty will never perish.

We're done.