Thankfully, red states (starting with Texas) are making it illegal for them to censor shit. And it's already legally established as something that can be done.
Soon we'll be able to have fun again. Link, ping, say the gamer word. Whatever!
Contrary to popular reddit opinion, the government can and has already imposed first amendment protections on private property and entities.
Feds first did it in Marsh v. Alabama and I believe it was Pruneyard that established states can go even further if they want to.
Trump was going to do it federally but his general incompetence and inclination towards pussy footing around businesses kept him from getting it accomplished.
I don't know, I've known a lot of surprisingly broke attorneys. It seems to me that you can make good money in law, but only if you're cutthroat, very gifted, or very connected. And if you're any of the three, the world's kind of your oyster anyways. Didn't make sense for me, anyways.
If you ever reconsider and want some advice, feel free to PM me. There's a bunch of things I wish I knew before law school, and the Internet gave me terrible info.
That's great. If you can make a similar amount with less debt and school that's definitely preferable.
I only bring it up because I talked myself out of it for years based on dumb shit I had heard or read. If it wasn't due to a conversation I had with a coked out lawyer across a bar on a random night, I may well be dead or locked up right now.
I had an attorney friend and he used to talk about the number of students coming out of law school compared to jobs out there. There are a ton of broke attorneys and lots of law schools that are just there for the money. It's a cash cow for schools.
That was more of an issue circa 2009. It stopped being one long before I finally went. Some fields can be overcrowded and I wouldn't recommend paying to go to a tier 3 program (those would be where you're hitting schools there for the money) but aside from that it's much less of an issue than you see with most fields.
I do t think either of those cases go close to the level of forcing sites to keep shitposting up.
The first case basically said people could distribute religious materials in company towns and the second allowed for people to gather signature petitions in public spaces (but that were also private property). I think your willfully misconstruing what happened in both of those cases if you think that’s enough to support this level of protection.
No, I'm not. They're also not the only cases, they're just the foundational ones for those issues. The ultimate holding in each set precedent that applies to the first amendment, not the very narrow issue that began each.
Some cases are decided very narrowing of course, applying only to the very specific issue, but these ain't it queen.
More importantly, they're also not the only examples. Certain states already apply further protections related to political views as far as employment.
But we're not talking about whether or not something is a good idea. We're talking about if what's being attempted can be accomplished legally. It can be.
I know it's an old topic now, but since federal law supersedes state law, what do you think the chances are of it being pushed up to the Supreme court? There's like, 20-something states trying to do what Texas is also trying to do so I imagine the chances are fairly high once it gets inevitably challenged.
Given how high profile it is, I would have told you not long ago that I thought there was a very good chance of it getting to the Supreme Court. But I've been wrong a lot about what cases they'll take up lately, so I really couldn't say.
I was referring moreso to the application of these precedents to online activity. That being said, in retrospect, it does seem like a silly thing for me to point out.
Did Alabama violate Marsh's rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments by refusing to allow her to distribute religious material in the privately owned town of Chickasaw?
Conclusion
In an opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black, the majority ruled in Marsh’s favor. The Court reasoned that a company town does not have the same rights as a private homeowner in preventing unwanted religious expression. While the town was owned by a private entity, it was open for use by the public, who are entitled to the freedoms of speech and religion. The Court employed a balancing test, weighing Chickasaw’s private property rights against Marsh’s right to free speech. The Court stressed that conflicts between property rights and constitutional rights should typically be resolved in favor of the latter.
Imho, seems like a stretch. Physical territory seems pretty fundamentally different from an Internet domain, does it not? Interesting case law and thoughts, though.
Its the foundational, and still valid, case applying the first amendment to property from the 40s. The internet didn't exist yet. It's not the last case on the subject, obviously.
It would also be more of a stretch if it was approaching from the same avenue. But it doesn't have to. In this case an actual law is being passed.
No, which is why this isn't being applied absent a law. If someone tried to apply Marsh to social media (something I've suggested for years, but much more legally dicey) there wouldn't be a need for a law.
Pruneyard is the more directly applicable precedent.
I'm not a lawyer but I see how Pruneyard and Marsh could apply. Both are cases of public speech in publicly-accessible common spaces that happened to be privately-owned (a company town street and a mall). Both cases were ruled in favor of free speech. Neither one was someone standing on your front porch or in your office, they were places where the public was free to enter and leave as they pleased with no fees or membership.
You could conceivably argue that any free social media site that doesn't require an account or payment to view posts (like Twitter or Reddit), would also fit those criterion, just in a digital form. Given that the vast majority of individual speech and expression happens in these freely- and publicly-accessible "spaces" in {{Current Year +5}}, you could make a similar case for the First Amendment pre-empting property rights in these spaces as well.
You go ahead and take a company to court because you got banned for breaking terms of service then. Even if you paid for a service, you don't have a chance in hell of winning, because you broke a contract.
Obviously the terms have to be reasonable and within the lines of the law, so you have to suck my dick.
I can sure tell you Twitter's isn't, because it doesn't remotely follow the requirements court cases have set in regards to when terms of services are legally binding. Slapping the words "terms of service" on something doesn't make it legally binding.
No, they wouldn't, I literally just checked by making a throwaway account on Twitter. They don't present the terms of service when signing up and they don't have clear "I agree" or "I disagree buttons", all of which are usually important to a court when push comes to shove.
Yes, by most judgements regarding this issue, "you agree to our privacy policy" and a sign up button instead of listing it with an "agree" option is not enough. I would spoon feed you these court decisions but you should have to work for it.
It tells you right above the button you are clicking that you are agreeing to the terms of service and provides links to the terms and in no way tries to hide or obscure it. That is typically enough to hold in court.
Like seriously, if this wasn't sufficient, Twitter of all places would be in court nonstop. I don't understand how you aren't wrapping your head around that.
First, they do that all the time. I can't deny you service because you're a Jewish woman or whatever.
Second, no it's not like that at all. It's primarily applied when the private property serves a governmental function or acts as a de facto public square.
I don't think that makes sense at all. At the end of the day reddit isn't free there is an economic model here. Part of it is internet points or gamification of attention the other is data collection and advertising. There are also legal consequnces too. Just a couple that I can think of:
-It is illegal to post obscenity content. Think CP>
-It would be illegal (I think) to organize violence or terrorist activity.
-It would be illegal to harass someone or post revenge pornography.
The other thing is Reddit doesn't just serve the US.
I just don't see how what your saying is even possible. Add to the fact that every other off shoot has shutdown for lack of moderation.
Anything that has arguable political value (amongst other things) isn't obscenity.
Who determines that though? Again this law sounds absurd and would be very costly to enforce. It makes more sense for reddit or whoever to determine what type of content and community, which they do.
That's true, but doesn't matter. They would either have to stop operating in those states or conform to their laws.
I am talking about other nations here. Again I just don't think it is plausible. What happens when someone wants to post something about the king of Thailand, and they ask for it to be taken down? Not only that but what about moderation on subs? That is at the whim of individuals.
I think it is wishful thinking, and if a possibility it would be a severe blow to social media business and quite possible the technology hegemony that the US enjoys.
The bounds of obscenity have been well established (sort of at least, the rational for identifying pornography was a meme) for quite some time. Again, it's a narrow exception.
Costly to enforce
Not at all.
I was talking about other nations
I'm perfectly aware. There seems to be something you fundamentally don't understand. We all use the same Reddit.
What about moderation on subs
Probably done for, thankfully. That was why Reddit mods were so aggressively against Trump's attempt to do something similar.
I think this is just wishful thinking
That's OK.
Texas is already actively doing it and Twitter is already suing them over it.
Thankfully, red states (starting with Texas) are making it illegal for them to censor shit. And it's already legally established as something that can be done.
Assuming that's true, would we have had even stronger free speech enforcement had DDR remained in?
For example, would more states have joined Texas in enforcing free speech, or perhaps Texas would have been able to enforce free speech even more strongly?
(If Tr∪mp had remained in power, compared to Bid£n).
That women's shelter fundraiser was genius. That was the move which made me think "You know what, maybe this sub will survive." Nope! Leave it to this site's highly competent admins to ban a community after it raises thousands of dollars for charity.
Lack of seething > abused women not being homeless
The Vancouver women's shelter had to cough up $30k because they wouldn't accept ftms (yes, even after some heckin valids nailed a dead rat to their door and wrote "t*rf" in their own shit all over the windows). If the admins had left the sub alone for another 15 days I have 0 doubt they would have been able to donate $30k minum to make up for it.
And there's the Janny himself. You had quite the venture there. Any regrets or stories? That one post reached 7k upvotes and the admins removed it calling it spam. We all know their real motive since it must've got beat the front page of Reddit.
Wish I saved a screenshot/archive, but basically it said something like "This post has been removed because it contained content which looked similar to spam". I had to visit new.reddit to see it.
I think it's important to see the bigger picture here, read the ban description again "The community had become increasingly exclusionary with hateful content that is counter to its original satirical intent and was in violation of our policies."
This is basically a tip of the hat with an Icarus warning to all the lovefor subs and that one parody sub AHS that satire is allowed.
Fine with me. The entertainment levels plummeted within a couple days. Nobody wants to relive ur words words words rape experience hun and nobody wants to read ur unironic "slay xweens" 🤮
Yeah, after like a day, the sub's only worth was to make people seethe. But the concept of superstraight exploded enough that the seethe will keep going without the subreddit.
The rightoid seriousposting was so lame and boring, but it still generated seethe so whatever. Our friends that Archive Helpful Statements are going to be seething about this for a long time tho, so there’s still plenty left to farm
Supersexuality has now been formally upgraded to Confirmed Shitlord Dogwhistle so now you can just slip it in to any apparently-serious SocJus rant in order to induce lactation in the lolcows
They absolutely refuse to communicate it in writing like normal human beings, but the admins do have a fairly consistent standard and you know where the line is after a while.
You bring up one of the important things that I've found seems to either goes over some moderators's heads or is deliberately misinterpreted by them. It is also something that's difficult to explain directly to users too.
They do kinda tend to say what they mean without actually saying it (there are probably good hard power, soft power reasons for this), and I've found that most people when having discussions with the admins will straight up refuse to take anything but what is literally written. Implications, reading between the lines, and somewhat working within the "spirit of what they say" rather than the "letter of what they say" has a much greater positive impact long term.
I've worked with mods who will refuse to do this, and lo and behold, those subreddits tend to get sanctioned the most. Even if they fall under the "correct" political view or whatever. And on the flipside, relatively controversial subreddits that do do this tend to still stick around, even if (usually due to an outside force) somewhat neutered.
I know you're joking, but I'm saying the exact opposite actually. You have to be able to read between the lines and infer what is meant from what is said, not just what is said itself.
Disappointing but understandable. It was over for the sub as soon as the users began drifting away from their original goal of heterosexual advocacy by accepting Super Lesbians as allies.
Superlesbians are radioactive, they were expelled from 109 communities and any community that causes superlesbian swarming will be overrun and swiftly banned.
147 comments
32 alphetaboss 2021-03-10
I'm sick of the internet. Anything that's actually fun gets y'alled.
16 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Thankfully, red states (starting with Texas) are making it illegal for them to censor shit. And it's already legally established as something that can be done.
Soon we'll be able to have fun again. Link, ping, say the gamer word. Whatever!
15 alphetaboss 2021-03-10
Don't you dare get my hopes up
9 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2021-03-10
how does that even work?
22 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Contrary to popular reddit opinion, the government can and has already imposed first amendment protections on private property and entities.
Feds first did it in Marsh v. Alabama and I believe it was Pruneyard that established states can go even further if they want to.
Trump was going to do it federally but his general incompetence and inclination towards pussy footing around businesses kept him from getting it accomplished.
10 Goes_Down_on_Women 2021-03-10
There are so many lawtists here
6 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Lawyer is the obvious profession for trolls and the dramatically inclined.
9 HodorTheDoorHolder__ 2021-03-10
Ironically there's a lot of WORDS WORDS WORDS
7 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Effort posters have always been the lifeblood of this sub. Bot oppression was just autistic jealousy.
1 loli_esports 2021-03-10
There's a difference between wordswordswords on reddit and something with actual information
1 Jeb4Pres2020 2021-03-10
I actually considered going to law school, but then I decided that I wanted to make money.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Sounds like someone tricked you.
1 Jeb4Pres2020 2021-03-10
I don't know, I've known a lot of surprisingly broke attorneys. It seems to me that you can make good money in law, but only if you're cutthroat, very gifted, or very connected. And if you're any of the three, the world's kind of your oyster anyways. Didn't make sense for me, anyways.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
If you ever reconsider and want some advice, feel free to PM me. There's a bunch of things I wish I knew before law school, and the Internet gave me terrible info.
1 Jeb4Pres2020 2021-03-10
I'm settled in to something else that has been very good to me, not looking to make a change. Thank you, though.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
That's great. If you can make a similar amount with less debt and school that's definitely preferable.
I only bring it up because I talked myself out of it for years based on dumb shit I had heard or read. If it wasn't due to a conversation I had with a coked out lawyer across a bar on a random night, I may well be dead or locked up right now.
1 istural 2021-03-10
Is this offer to pm open for anyone? I’ve always considered it but I’ve been concerned about the money making potential.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Of course
1 Lysis10 2021-03-10
I had an attorney friend and he used to talk about the number of students coming out of law school compared to jobs out there. There are a ton of broke attorneys and lots of law schools that are just there for the money. It's a cash cow for schools.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
That was more of an issue circa 2009. It stopped being one long before I finally went. Some fields can be overcrowded and I wouldn't recommend paying to go to a tier 3 program (those would be where you're hitting schools there for the money) but aside from that it's much less of an issue than you see with most fields.
1 Lysis10 2021-03-10
This was circa 2013 and I thought you were an MD?
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Lmao no way, JD. Don't know where you would get that idea.
1 canipaybycheck 2021-03-10
^
1 aqouta 2021-03-10
Reddit has lawtists, softcels and the unemployable. If anyone claims otherwise don't believe them.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2021-03-10
I do t think either of those cases go close to the level of forcing sites to keep shitposting up.
The first case basically said people could distribute religious materials in company towns and the second allowed for people to gather signature petitions in public spaces (but that were also private property). I think your willfully misconstruing what happened in both of those cases if you think that’s enough to support this level of protection.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
That's OK
No, I'm not. They're also not the only cases, they're just the foundational ones for those issues. The ultimate holding in each set precedent that applies to the first amendment, not the very narrow issue that began each.
Some cases are decided very narrowing of course, applying only to the very specific issue, but these ain't it queen.
More importantly, they're also not the only examples. Certain states already apply further protections related to political views as far as employment.
This isn't the leap you believe it to be.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2021-03-10
You also thought repealing section 230 was a good idea so I’m not inclined to believe you on this tbh.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
It was.
But we're not talking about whether or not something is a good idea. We're talking about if what's being attempted can be accomplished legally. It can be.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2021-03-10
Your right that it was good, but mostly because this hellhole would finally be banned for good.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Not really, but it's immaterial. This effort is a fundamentally different approach.
Also, the Beatles are wildly overrated.
2 PacificSpices 2021-03-10
I know it's an old topic now, but since federal law supersedes state law, what do you think the chances are of it being pushed up to the Supreme court? There's like, 20-something states trying to do what Texas is also trying to do so I imagine the chances are fairly high once it gets inevitably challenged.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Given how high profile it is, I would have told you not long ago that I thought there was a very good chance of it getting to the Supreme Court. But I've been wrong a lot about what cases they'll take up lately, so I really couldn't say.
1 PacificSpices 2021-03-10
wack
1 ballrot 2021-03-10
If they can take away craigslist sex, they can do anything
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-03-10
This kind of shit doesn't really stick until it's challenged in court and upheld. I'm not holding my breath.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
I literally just cited two cases ya dip
2 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-03-10
I was referring moreso to the application of these precedents to online activity. That being said, in retrospect, it does seem like a silly thing for me to point out.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-03-10
From Oyez:
Imho, seems like a stretch. Physical territory seems pretty fundamentally different from an Internet domain, does it not? Interesting case law and thoughts, though.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Its the foundational, and still valid, case applying the first amendment to property from the 40s. The internet didn't exist yet. It's not the last case on the subject, obviously.
It would also be more of a stretch if it was approaching from the same avenue. But it doesn't have to. In this case an actual law is being passed.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-03-10
Have other SCOTUS rulings compared the websites to owned land?
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
No, which is why this isn't being applied absent a law. If someone tried to apply Marsh to social media (something I've suggested for years, but much more legally dicey) there wouldn't be a need for a law.
Pruneyard is the more directly applicable precedent.
1 Funkyduffy 2021-03-10
I'm not a lawyer but I see how Pruneyard and Marsh could apply. Both are cases of public speech in publicly-accessible common spaces that happened to be privately-owned (a company town street and a mall). Both cases were ruled in favor of free speech. Neither one was someone standing on your front porch or in your office, they were places where the public was free to enter and leave as they pleased with no fees or membership.
You could conceivably argue that any free social media site that doesn't require an account or payment to view posts (like Twitter or Reddit), would also fit those criterion, just in a digital form. Given that the vast majority of individual speech and expression happens in these freely- and publicly-accessible "spaces" in {{Current Year +5}}, you could make a similar case for the First Amendment pre-empting property rights in these spaces as well.
oh shit i mean dude bussypoasting lmao
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
You need to create an account to post on the website which requires you to sign terms of service.
This is r-slurred.
1 Funkyduffy 2021-03-10
k
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
Pretty much.
1 whatinconservation 2021-03-10
Terms of service have no legal standing, r-slur. You could say "you have to suck my dick" in the terms of service and it means jack shit.
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
You go ahead and take a company to court because you got banned for breaking terms of service then. Even if you paid for a service, you don't have a chance in hell of winning, because you broke a contract.
Obviously the terms have to be reasonable and within the lines of the law, so you have to suck my dick.
1 whatinconservation 2021-03-10
Terms of service aren't a contract, they've never been a contract lmao
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
It's a legal agreement if you want to be a pedantic redditor about it.
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
It's a legal agreement that is enforcable in court. What word do you call that?
1 whatinconservation 2021-03-10
I can sure tell you Twitter's isn't, because it doesn't remotely follow the requirements court cases have set in regards to when terms of services are legally binding. Slapping the words "terms of service" on something doesn't make it legally binding.
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
If that were true, the people frothing at the mouth for being banned from Twitter would be suing them.
Some of the terms might not have legal standing if challenged, but most of them would.
1 whatinconservation 2021-03-10
No, they wouldn't, I literally just checked by making a throwaway account on Twitter. They don't present the terms of service when signing up and they don't have clear "I agree" or "I disagree buttons", all of which are usually important to a court when push comes to shove.
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
R-slur, please
1 whatinconservation 2021-03-10
Yes, by most judgements regarding this issue, "you agree to our privacy policy" and a sign up button instead of listing it with an "agree" option is not enough. I would spoon feed you these court decisions but you should have to work for it.
1 ManBearFridge 2021-03-10
It tells you right above the button you are clicking that you are agreeing to the terms of service and provides links to the terms and in no way tries to hide or obscure it. That is typically enough to hold in court.
Like seriously, if this wasn't sufficient, Twitter of all places would be in court nonstop. I don't understand how you aren't wrapping your head around that.
1 whatinconservation 2021-03-10
I don't know if they have been in court over this issue. Maybe they have.
1 ballrot 2021-03-10
Good thing law operates on pure vulcan logic!
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Ooo is this the first bit of cope? Gimme some seethe bb
5 LEFTOID_DESTROYER 2021-03-10
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBiyGDvX4AU5Qdn.jpg
4 HodorTheDoorHolder__ 2021-03-10
Finally, being a straight, white, American male will mean something once again.
5 Leylinus 2021-03-10
It will still suck to be an American, but we can call Biden racial slurs.
1 Funkyduffy 2021-03-10
That Senile Hibernian Meance!
2 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-10
Isn't that like taking away the right of a business to deny you service or some shit?
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
First, they do that all the time. I can't deny you service because you're a Jewish woman or whatever.
Second, no it's not like that at all. It's primarily applied when the private property serves a governmental function or acts as a de facto public square.
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-10
I don't think that makes sense at all. At the end of the day reddit isn't free there is an economic model here. Part of it is internet points or gamification of attention the other is data collection and advertising. There are also legal consequnces too. Just a couple that I can think of:
-It is illegal to post obscenity content. Think CP> -It would be illegal (I think) to organize violence or terrorist activity. -It would be illegal to harass someone or post revenge pornography.
The other thing is Reddit doesn't just serve the US.
I just don't see how what your saying is even possible. Add to the fact that every other off shoot has shutdown for lack of moderation.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
That's OK
Obscenity isn't protected speech. But nothing we'd be talking about in obscenity. Anything that has arguable political value isn't obscenity.
Yes, those would still be illegal.
That's true, but doesn't matter. They would either have to stop operating in those states or conform to their laws.
That's OK
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-10
Who determines that though? Again this law sounds absurd and would be very costly to enforce. It makes more sense for reddit or whoever to determine what type of content and community, which they do.
I am talking about other nations here. Again I just don't think it is plausible. What happens when someone wants to post something about the king of Thailand, and they ask for it to be taken down? Not only that but what about moderation on subs? That is at the whim of individuals.
I think it is wishful thinking, and if a possibility it would be a severe blow to social media business and quite possible the technology hegemony that the US enjoys.
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
The bounds of obscenity have been well established (sort of at least, the rational for identifying pornography was a meme) for quite some time. Again, it's a narrow exception.
Not at all.
I'm perfectly aware. There seems to be something you fundamentally don't understand. We all use the same Reddit.
Probably done for, thankfully. That was why Reddit mods were so aggressively against Trump's attempt to do something similar.
That's OK.
Texas is already actively doing it and Twitter is already suing them over it.
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-10
I guess we see how this play's out
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Someday soon I'm going to call you the n-word.
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-10
I bet white guy's look at you and go fuck I hope "I don't end up like that guy."
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
I bet no one even notices you.
1 __TIE_Guy 2021-03-10
I don't act like a loser so really there is no reason to.
1 Alicesnakebae 2021-03-10
Super straight up coping
1 aqouta 2021-03-10
This country is going to end in a Texas VS Cali war.
1 RedPillDessert 2021-03-10
Assuming that's true, would we have had even stronger free speech enforcement had DDR remained in?
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
What do you mean?
1 RedPillDessert 2021-03-10
For example, would more states have joined Texas in enforcing free speech, or perhaps Texas would have been able to enforce free speech even more strongly?
(If Tr∪mp had remained in power, compared to Bid£n).
1 Leylinus 2021-03-10
Trump was already trying to accomplish the same goal through different means, so probably.
9 idio3 2021-03-10
Well, there are backup, totally unrelated, independent locations. We just have to keep them somewhat well-behaved...
5 alphetaboss 2021-03-10
Share it with your super brother.
7 idio3 2021-03-10
EDIT: We're private for the moment. Message for approvedcel status.
1 hi_0 2021-03-10
Just monitor AHS for new fun subs
1 [deleted] 2021-03-10
[removed]
2 AutoModerator 2021-03-10
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 searingsky 2021-03-10
1 fameda 2021-03-10
Shit makes me wanna glowpost.
16 BasicallyADoctor 2021-03-10
RIP!
28 AntiLuke 2021-03-10
Gonna aks the admins why they banned a community raising money for a women's shelter?
12 red1dragon588 2021-03-10
Our good friends that are against homeowners societies are just ignoring that.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-03-10
That women's shelter fundraiser was genius. That was the move which made me think "You know what, maybe this sub will survive." Nope! Leave it to this site's highly competent admins to ban a community after it raises thousands of dollars for charity.
Lack of seething > abused women not being homeless
1 lol_te_gusto 2021-03-10
Any controversial sub can get banned by just going in there and stir some shit
1 Alicesnakebae 2021-03-10
It wouldnt be a controversial sub if it wasnt already shit tho mdes were already on a timer
1 Pinksister 2021-03-10
The Vancouver women's shelter had to cough up $30k because they wouldn't accept ftms (yes, even after some heckin valids nailed a dead rat to their door and wrote "t*rf" in their own shit all over the windows). If the admins had left the sub alone for another 15 days I have 0 doubt they would have been able to donate $30k minum to make up for it.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-03-10
Actually not one but TWO dead rats!
15 tenebrous_cloud 2021-03-10
I bet the badmins didn't even read the debunk thread. It would have cleared up everything.
1 lol_te_gusto 2021-03-10
They're paid to act, not paid to think
1 RedPillDessert 2021-03-10
And there's the Janny himself. You had quite the venture there. Any regrets or stories? That one post reached 7k upvotes and the admins removed it calling it spam. We all know their real motive since it must've got beat the front page of Reddit.
1 SayNoToTenantRights 2021-03-10
It’s because reddit hates w!men (which is a good thing)
1 BurdensomeCount 2021-03-10
How tf was that post spam? Literally how?
1 RedPillDessert 2021-03-10
Wish I saved a screenshot/archive, but basically it said something like "This post has been removed because it contained content which looked similar to spam". I had to visit new.reddit to see it.
1 BurdensomeCount 2021-03-10
It was a twitter screenshot, no different to any other twitter screenshots on bpt etc. This is just motivated reasoning from the admins.
1 RedPillDessert 2021-03-10
I know. Their political agenda is obviously interfering, if not consciously and directly, then subconsciously and indirectly.
16 AntiLuke 2021-03-10
It was inevitable. The rhetorical line they couldn't cross was obvious but they kept doing it.
1 lol_te_gusto 2021-03-10
Lack of jannies lol
16 DaySee 2021-03-10
I think it's important to see the bigger picture here, read the ban description again "The community had become increasingly exclusionary with hateful content that is counter to its original satirical intent and was in violation of our policies."
This is basically a tip of the hat with an Icarus warning to all the lovefor subs and that one parody sub AHS that satire is allowed.
5 Goes_Down_on_Women 2021-03-10
Fine with me. The entertainment levels plummeted within a couple days. Nobody wants to relive ur words words words rape experience hun and nobody wants to read ur unironic "slay xweens" 🤮
3 Doesnt_Draw_Anything 2021-03-10
Yeah, after like a day, the sub's only worth was to make people seethe. But the concept of superstraight exploded enough that the seethe will keep going without the subreddit.
1 red1dragon588 2021-03-10
The rightoid seriousposting was so lame and boring, but it still generated seethe so whatever. Our friends that Archive Helpful Statements are going to be seething about this for a long time tho, so there’s still plenty left to farm
3 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2021-03-10
Their thread on reporting ban evasion just gave me a laundry list of new subreddits to join.
1 lol_te_gusto 2021-03-10
I really like u think this way
1 Funkyduffy 2021-03-10
Supersexuality has now been formally upgraded to Confirmed Shitlord Dogwhistle so now you can just slip it in to any apparently-serious SocJus rant in order to induce lactation in the lolcows
1 lol_te_gusto 2021-03-10
Baited, catched and fried
1 Lysis10 2021-03-10
They seemed to have gotten the rightoid crap off but it was the GC types who seemed to be pushing limits.
1 Michelanvalo 2021-03-10
...I kinda liked the stories people were posting.
3 Wopitikitotengo 2021-03-10
It was just the same story over and over though and they were written by w*men so were thousands of words too long.
1 AwanBros 2021-03-10
Sounds like you be choking on girl dick, bigot. 🤮
1 preserved_fish 2021-03-10
You sound like a fugee.
2 AwanBros 2021-03-10
You sound like Pizza.
Checkmark.
1 Jeb4Pres2020 2021-03-10
They absolutely refuse to communicate it in writing like normal human beings, but the admins do have a fairly consistent standard and you know where the line is after a while.
1 justcool393 2021-03-10
You bring up one of the important things that I've found seems to either goes over some moderators's heads or is deliberately misinterpreted by them. It is also something that's difficult to explain directly to users too.
They do kinda tend to say what they mean without actually saying it (there are probably good hard power, soft power reasons for this), and I've found that most people when having discussions with the admins will straight up refuse to take anything but what is literally written. Implications, reading between the lines, and somewhat working within the "spirit of what they say" rather than the "letter of what they say" has a much greater positive impact long term.
I've worked with mods who will refuse to do this, and lo and behold, those subreddits tend to get sanctioned the most. Even if they fall under the "correct" political view or whatever. And on the flipside, relatively controversial subreddits that do do this tend to still stick around, even if (usually due to an outside force) somewhat neutered.
3 lickedTators 2021-03-10
The problem is that it takes autistic mods to understand autistic admins. That's why ardrama has survived.
1 justcool393 2021-03-10
I know you're joking, but I'm saying the exact opposite actually. You have to be able to read between the lines and infer what is meant from what is said, not just what is said itself.
1 DrLemniscate 2021-03-10
Even in death SS keeps giving us drama. American Horror Story fans upset with that ban message.
1 32624647 2021-03-10
I knew it from the beginning that even the admins were laughing their asses off with this SS stuff
11 The_Dramanomicon 2021-03-10
I'm not even superbi and this is ridiculous.
6 snallygaster 2021-03-10
dumb zoomer shit but it was funny watching a bunch of kids learn about lesbian culture for the first time
1 DuckSosu 2021-03-10
Where the fuck is Heathcliff?
1 Funkyduffy 2021-03-10
Snally 😭😭😭
1 snallygaster 2021-03-10
holy shit, you're right- Heathcliff is missing!!!
3 johannesalthusius 2021-03-10
Any way the sub can be resurrected with incredibly stringent moderation? The jebait potential is too good
2 Pepperglue 2021-03-10
Took them long enough.
2 kermit_was_wrong 2021-03-10
lol
2 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2021-03-10
They never answered my question whether ponysexuality or animesexuality were also eligible for supersexuality? Fuck ‘em.
1 JeanPeuplu 2021-03-10
I'm surprised it lasted that long.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-03-10
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire
1 johannesalthusius 2021-03-10
All this time, we were ruled by The Godfather Part II
1 Homofascism 2021-03-10
https://old.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/m18vy6/the_sun_never_sets_on_the_drama_empire/gqcdqis/ I was right :3
2 Zero5urvivers 2021-03-10
It was obvious after the first day or two.
1 fernguts 2021-03-10
#ItsOkayToBeSuperStraight
1 911roofer 2021-03-10
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE Me SUCK THE DICK!
-1 dongas420 2021-03-10
Disappointing but understandable. It was over for the sub as soon as the users began drifting away from their original goal of heterosexual advocacy by accepting Super Lesbians as allies.
3 noPENGSinALASKA 2021-03-10
w0men and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-03-10
Superlesbians are radioactive, they were expelled from 109 communities and any community that causes superlesbian swarming will be overrun and swiftly banned.
1 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2021-03-10
Are superlesbians just FDS in denial or is FDS a gathering spot for closeted superlesbians?
1 SayNoToTenantRights 2021-03-10
Within a day of being welcomed they made the sub all about themselves 😕