CNN has a reddit account?

The owners of their content are against Reddit TOS. Shall we host that content?

You can post links to 4chan, and you can bet your sweet ass that's against ToS.

Those are rules for users, not what the users discuss.

Reddit isn't hosting any content.

Do you even know how this site works?

In addition, I propose we implement a bot that alerts threads that it has been X-posted to another sub.

There is a bot that does that.

Not here.

Shit, I haven't seen it on this sub. Weird.

I back the banning of all CNN links. They've breached site rules regarding doxxing.

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Those rules are for users.

You people, seriously.

But we want to entertain content from an agency that completely disregards a rule that would have you banned? An agency that is supposed to be a champion of free speech but would quash you with a threat if they don't like what you say? How can you trust that source to begin with?

Which reddit rules would apply here?

Please quote them.

Would you apply this request to all news sources here? Why single out CNN?

There is a sitewide anti-doxxing rule. CNN publicly admitted to doxxing a user account of this site. I'm not sure what you are missing.

They didn't release his details so he wasn't doxxed.

Do I need to explain to you the meaning of the word?

How about you go read the site rules yourself.

"Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule."

Great. Now how does this apply to CNN?

Is CNN a user here? Did they actually doxx anyone?

No and no.

Your narrative is ridiculous.

They're threatening to release this dudes identity, are you purposefully this hard headed, or is there another reason for your ignorance?

The rule you quoted literally said that you'd have to release the information.

It says nothing about threatening to release something.

English. Do you speak it?

Also the rule is aimed at users.

CNN is not a user, the proposal is to ban links to CNN.

So, how exactly is this rule applicable?

Go take a nap or something, you're cranky.

Only if we apply this standard to all other sites that are used as sources here.

We wouldn't want to be hypocrites, right?

Disregard Basic Privacy Rights and Principles

If that was a reason for a ban, then all posts about pizzagate and Seth Rich would have to be banned.

Youre gonna get us all doxxed. My girlfriend absolutely cannot find out about my wife. This is ludacris

Counter-proposal. We only post CNN for their benevolence in not showing how racist Trump supporters can be.

Nope. Not at all. Ever.

http://imgur.com/a/zIGKy

You sure?

I'm sure.

Really? That doesn't bother you?

OP doesn't care about the racist crap that was posted by that kid. This is all about shutting down any criticism of Trump.

Yeah I know, their cultists have been on attack mode all night. They are quite emotional about the manlet racist.

It's such a putty display of squabbling and grasping at straws that hardly exist. Sound like a bunch of whiny kids. What does this have to do with conspiracy at all? I come to this subreddit for conspiracy, not to see a bunch of whiny racist act like they've got a leg upon the leftist media arm. Any true liberal with a brain hates CNN just as much as anyone else. Stop spamming this sub with this shit go back to T_D echo chamber.

What good would this honestly do? Deny them traffic?

Getting rid of clicks isn't worth stifling honest discussion imo.

It makes a statement. You'd be permanently banned for publicly doxxing a user here. CNN shouldn't get better treatment.

I think we're all in agreement here. Fuck CNN.

From the perspective of "News and Journalism sources should be ethical" what could use this is a large subreddit like /r/worldnews. Sometimes bluntness, even if broadening too much, is just effective for teaching. I agree.

But... then there's the problem that this is just censorship on /r/CONSPIRACY. If we did this to a subreddit like /r/worldnews, then why stop there? Why not infowars? Why not breitbart? Why not [x] news source the mods deem unethical?

I think we're all in agreement here anways. Fuck CNN.

We can find ways of mirroring content. Their crap is mostly regurgitated ap noise, anyway. I honestly believe boycotting them in the spirit of privacy and free speech is worth a "censorship" accusation. It's the precedent of real, serious censorship that I'm concerned about.

So shouldn't we ban you since you're so comfortable with censorship and posting lies?

Fragile snowflake needs protecting from the slings and arrows of a hostile press? You appear to be as thin skinned as your president.

Thin skinned? That is an odd way of putting it. I'm proposing that we fight back against a multi-billion dollar corporation that would stoop to doxx a citizen for expressing an idea that wasn't breaking a law, regardless of it's distasteful nature. They may have broken several laws in doing so.

You are bugging me right now. Is is ok if I doxx you and threaten to expose your social media transactions now?

doxx me do it. some dude is calling me racist so you have reason

Is is ok if I doxx you and threaten to expose your social media transactions now?

Grow up.

OP posted a news story saying Putin was banning adoption from the U.S. that was an absolute lie.

Why believe anything OP posts?

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6l62ck/in_2012_putin_banned_adoptions_to_the_us_because/

Putin put an absolute ban on adoptions to the US in 2012. He is considering loosening up the ban as of this year.

Yes, he did put a ban but you said it was because of pedophilia. That was a lie that you stated that has not been backed up by any reports.

It was to do with child deaths I think. American couples not looking after their Russian adoptees.

You really think pedophilia doesn't happen with adoptions?

I never said that wasn't possibility in adoptions. Putin made the adoption ban citing a case where the American couple were neglectful to the child. Any reasonable person would agree that people like that shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

The OP that I made the comment about posted articles about the Russian adoption ban but lied about the reason for the ban to push their belief. When called out about it, the OP stuck with the lie rather than admit to it.

If you want to be technical you lied in your original comment saying op lied about Putin banning adoptions which is true.

And he absolutely cited pedophilia as the issue. Unfortunately, since last night, all video of his 2012 speech have been taken down. I can show you evidence tmw. I have to sleep now.

He cited pedophilia. Hit me up tomorrow and I'll give you links.

RMS thinks kids before puberty should be allowed to pick their sex partners so should /r/conspiracy purge articles written by him and ban them?

Why did you delete your thread?

Before you all get your dicks out and start rubbing away, this sub is full of trumo supporters that downvote any CNN link to 0 immediately. I've never seen a CNN article on the front page of this sub. So ban it if you want to make some feeble statement, but in reality it doesn't matter at all. Regardless, you'll never see CNN stuff gain any traction in this sub.

Ban all MSM articles, unless they are archived. Then they can be posted.

Dont give them revenue

Apart from being an alcoholic you have posted links to the NYTimes and the daily beast.

Maybe we should just ban you.

Lol, I'm an alcoholic? What?? Interesting history, btw.

Nice deleted post!

Removed. Rule 4.

You can't ban anyone here, BTW.

CNN isn't a reddit user, therefore they didn't break any rules under the ToS.

I'd agree with banning their content from the subreddit, but let's at least get the reasoning to be sound first.

So, that was a nifty honey pot. Goodnight all.

There is a bot that does that.

http://imgur.com/a/zIGKy

You sure?

Thin skinned? That is an odd way of putting it. I'm proposing that we fight back against a multi-billion dollar corporation that would stoop to doxx a citizen for expressing an idea that wasn't breaking a law, regardless of it's distasteful nature. They may have broken several laws in doing so.

You are bugging me right now. Is is ok if I doxx you and threaten to expose your social media transactions now?

Nice deleted post!