Reddit is the testing ground for the future of the controlled internet.

This is not a test

I can definitely see that.

I don't see what makes reddit so special.

Really? Account creation with nothing but a username and password? Globally known? Extremely high traffic? Contained within is a sub for virtually every interest/ topic ever? This is the IDEAL test bed for controlling information flow digitally, because here you have every kind of Internet user, bar ones that do not use reddit. But honestly, the ones that don't know how to use reddit are the ones not very likely to "dig deep" when they are browsing and therefore unlikely to ever come across alternative news. They just stick to Facebook where everything they say can be traced back to their real name and their immediate family and friends.

Just my take on it, anyway.

EDIT: spelling.

You could save yourself a lot of time if you skipped the TIL subreddit altogether and just read directly from Wikipedia.

But then how can one push one's agenda to the frontpage with equal ease?

Consult the book of knowledge!

[deleted]

I find "Batty-Koda"'s reply above to be dishonest:

Your link didn't support your headline, it was removed.

The link in question is an excerpt from a book. The author of the book is presenting the excerpt on his website.

I find it curious and inaccurate to claim that the link doesn't support the headline.

But regardless, you should post a comment on your link directing Russ Baker & his readers to this page. I'm sure he'd find it very interesting.

It also removes anything with the word "Obama" in it.

Again, you're missing the point. Funny how you omit my message asking it to you.

More importantly, I didn't see the headline backed up within the source. Without that, whether or not it's a reliable source is a moot point. Can you quote where the headline was backed in the source? I might have overloooked it.

You have not answered that. Your headline says

TIL that GHW Bush claims he could not remember where he was when Kennedy was murdered

Where is that supported within the linked article, as the rules require? Or is this just another of those "my post broke the rules and was removed, so I'll make a post omitting the blatant rule violations and try to imply the mods are evil" post?

"The information is all out there" is also irrelevant. Read rule one again, you need to link directly to the source. Even if your post said the sky was blue, if your source doesn't also back that claim, then the post is removed. That's what directly means.

Why is there a bot that has the Bush family singled out for "special attention"?

For the same reason it removes "Obama". Rule 4. Previously we didn't have Bush on the list as it's also a word, and we wanted to avoid false positives. Since this is the first it's come up, the false positive thing doesn't seem to be a huge issue. It isn't "special attention" (I like that you put it in quotes, quoting yourself as though it was us that had first said that.) It's using the bot to remove rule violating posts. The "special attention" is just you assuming it's being treated differently than other topics.

Edit: Upon further investigation, we've actually had "bush" getting removed by the bot for awhile now, and yet this is the first someone has brought a false positive to our attention. So yea, not special treatment, just a political topic. Doesn't seem to be a false positive issue in general. If the bot's false positive had been the only issue, this post would have been put up when we were messaged, as OP was told in the first response to him. However, because it had other issues (source does not back claims in headline) then it does not get to stay up.

[deleted]

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/10/02/bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-3-where-was-poppy-november-22-1963/

So... NOT the link of your source? Directly means that when you click the link, it's on that page. You just provided a link that isn't the page your source took you to. Thank you for further showing that you didn't link directly to the source, and this was removed under the most basic part of rule 1.

I hate to say it, but you really are a sad excuse for a human being. Your stated justification for blocking his factual post on the great many horrendous crimes committed by Bush is entirely incorrect. Backing and enforcing such blatantly bullshit censorship.

Just doing your job, huh? The old Nuremberg excuse. It didn't work then, and it certainly doesn't work now. By controlling a default sub, you are an active participant in the crippling of an amazing tool for humanity. One that allows a large number of people to share critical information with one another. instead, with your active support, it us used to propagate lies and state propaganda.

I could never do as you're doing. To claim ignorance to such immoral actions is unacceptable. Dante said the innermost ring of hell is reserved for your kind. Those who can so easily betray their fellow man.

[deleted]

Actually, it does. That is the very meaning of the rule. Please don't be the guy that thinks he knows what the rule means better than the people who wrote it. It's really a ridiculous level of arrogance.

(ninja edit?) And for the record, it's not "dishonest" to have overlooked your response. I asked for a quote, and you responded with a link to something that wasn't the source. I overlooked it because I don't look at links that aren't the source, because they do not matter. You get one click on the source link. That's it. If your headline isn't supported there, then the post is removed. No extra sources, no "oh it's elsewhere." Just your source. Your link didn't support your headline, it was removed.

There is a place for everything, and while I don't agree with any censorship, it has to be had on the larger subs to keep them even functioning, if anyone could post what they wanted, the job of the mods would be running the subreddits, which doesn't pay the bills at all. It is merely an imperfect system for an imperfect people.

Keep them functioning. The most beneficial and useful subs are the ones that self regulate, with no outside administration whatsoever. Anarchy in a sub has been proven to be the most effective.

Claiming that blatant censorship is necessary to "keep a sub running" is 100% false. I love how you talk out both sides if you're our face. "Now I don't support censorship, but u support censorship."

I like how you put words into my mouth, how many of the people complaining have any idea of what they are really talking about when non of them have ever modded before? (I haven't either). Point is I think that this is one of those problems your gonna have to put up with and work around, until we can actually prove a conspiracy, without a doubt. smart people always know how to work around things.

Words in your mouth? That was entirely unnecessary, as you said it all. The moderation is but an excuse to cover the blatant control efforts. You actually buy it as functional and purposeful sub moderation?

No, but you have nothing but a assumption here. non of us are mods. Don't like whats happening? Become one, fix it yourself, or leave, or suck it up. we waste far to much time bitching about it to be quite frank.

But then how can one push one's agenda to the frontpage with equal ease?

Consult the book of knowledge!

No, but you have nothing but a assumption here. non of us are mods. Don't like whats happening? Become one, fix it yourself, or leave, or suck it up. we waste far to much time bitching about it to be quite frank.