Good call.

It's in contest mode now because all the top posts aren't one's of support.

It's in contest mode.

this thread is in contest mode - contest mode randomizes comment sorting, hides scores, and collapses replies by default.

Cool, thanks. First I've noticed / saw it.

But why?

To deliberately obfuscate the discussion.

+1 for the mods. Let's see how long til the admins delete this.

Have we figured out if Vice ducking around being archived is legit? And if so, can we throw them on the list? I feel that behavior lowers them down even further than the glorified tabloid they were to begin with ...

Usually those still allow google cache, which last I tested can still be archive.is'd.

then they will get rid of google cache :D

Then we will use Bing caches.

get them on the list

oh r/conspiracy

[removed]

Or all the major MSM players. I would back that.

More of a grey list - info is welcome, but choke off their relevancy & ad revenue.

So it begins. The precedent has been set.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. -Friedrich Nietzsche

I, for one, have never been more proud of this community's mod team than this moment. Huzzah!!

The guy apologised himself CNN didn't coerce him.

Slippery slope banning news outlets.

That line you are fixated on is a bit of legalese to protect CNN, nothing more.

But you're the mod, I'll be interested to see how this saga unfolds.

Is the ban permanent?

There won't be any legal action because no laws were broken. The press has rights also.

They don't have the right to coerce others in the practice of exercising their first amendment rights. Now, I know leftists don't care much for the 1st amendment, unless they are promoting one of their divisive pet causes, but the ability to exercise that right sans coercion is a fundamental plank our nation was built on.

The first amendment protects you from the government prosecuting you for what you might say. Doesn't apply here. And it doesn't guarantee you can remain anonymous when you publish what you say. Posting online is publishing.

Read the test of the NY Law and get back to me.

The NY law? All of them? Lol

Here you go, compliments of an actual journalist:

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/882430554544713728

He has no legal expectations of privacy when publishing on a public forum. It's not CNN's fault that the material he published things that would be embarrassing to him if he were identified, especially since he publicly published enough personal information about himself to be able to identify him.

He has no legal expectations of privacy when publishing on a public forum.

This isn't about privacy. This is about coercion.

It's not CNN's fault that the material he published things that would be embarrassing to him if he were identified, especially since he publicly published enough personal information about himself to be able to identify him.

CNN's actions are CNN's fault. I think when you have a global news platform like CNN going after individuals who have broken no laws, in order to shame them in public for having the wrong politics, then I have to wonder what kind of society we are becoming when people actually cheer lead for that.

I believe he has the right to say whatever he pleases. And I believe the press has the right to report whatever they please.

You really haven't bothered to read the law I linked. Try reading and comprehending what it says (to assist you I have bolded the relevant sections of the statute):

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or

2. Cause damage to property;  or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

Questions?

Pretty thin case to bring to court. He has no legal expectation of privacy on a public forum. Of course he will never bring it to court, because he'll be identified with all of the crap he posted.

Pretty thin case to bring to court.

You hope. I tend to disagree.

He has no legal expectation of privacy on a public forum

I never suggested he did. But he does have an expectation of not being compelled to disengage from legal activities under the threat of publishing to the entire world his assertions, whether they are facts or not, which would obviously subject him to that which is described in the statute.

Had CNN simply reported this information without threatening the individual, then maybe you'd have a point; but once the threat of exposure was tied to a forced apology, with the added bonus of CNN boldly and publicly "retaining the right" to expose this guy further if ha makes any more "bad" posts, is about as clear cut a case of coercion as I think you are likely to see.

CNN, damn you dun fucked up this time.

We will never know. Evidently the person isn't very proud of being an anti Semitic racist troll, judging by his actions. If he were to take it to court, he would identify himself with all of the crap he posted.

We will never know.

Uh I tend to think we will know, and very soon.

Evidently the person isn't very proud of being an anti Semitic racist troll, judging by his actions.

Probably not, but that doesn't excuse what CNN appears to have done.

If he were to take it to court, he would identify himself with all of the crap he posted.

For me it would be worth it for a slam dunk lasuit against CNN. They don't want to have to go to court for this. They are already reeling from a ton of other stupidity on their part, including hundreds of former employees part to a class action lawsuit alleging systemic racism, the fake news label cinching tighter around their necks...the last thing they would probably want is to go into court and have to explain their coercive crusade against an edgelord 15 yr old 4channer. Remember, the SCOTUS just affirmed there is no "hate speech" exception to the 1st amendment.

Ugh

Neither CNN nor the OP of the CNN gif reside in NY.

The first amendment does not protect blackmail and threats. Try again, CNN defence force.

He has no legal expectations of privacy when publishing on a public forum. It's not CNN's fault that the material he published would be embarrassing to him if he were identified, especially since he publicly published enough personal information about himself to be able to identify him.

That's his plan. He knows no laws were broken, so he has nothing to worry about in regards to unbanning them. Just misdirection to shield a personal agenda.

It's his usual M.O.

Blackmail and coercion are against the law regardless of the fact that your hero CNN committed those crimes.

He has no legal expectations of privacy when publishing on a public forum. It's not CNN's fault that the material he published would be embarrassing to him if he were identified, especially since he publicly published enough personal information about himself to be able to identify him.

In the mods and t_d's ideal world, the press doesn't.

in light of any statements by law enforcement and or a criminal trial

And what if there is neither?

Its not a real ban, only an archive only ban.

Anyway serves them right for their non reporting of big issues and false Russian crap

Russia stuff isn't false though. There's literally investigations going on right now about their attempts to influence the election.

Of course they tried influence the election, anyone with a brain knows this. Many countries influenced that election. But they didn't hack anything or anyone. CNN has been caught reporting fake shit so much in the last few months that it makes you wonder how long they've been at it.

http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/

...

When sometimes there's just no words...

Russia stuff isn't false though. There's literally investigations going on

Claims "MUH RUSSIA" isn't fake, immediately states a lie about it.

Brilliant argument.

Uh, what was the lie?

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/08/531940912/there-are-many-russia-investigations-what-are-they-all-doing

You can't be serious, can you?

And there's still no evidence.

CNN could discover who the Reddit user was in under a week but they've had over a year to find a solid piece of reporting in regards to Russia and can't come up with shit.

CIANN could solve all the drugs and human trafficking cases in a few hours if they weren't the culprits.

Spin

Its petty that's for sure. I almost feel like this whole thing was a setup

"CNN reserves the right to reveal his identity if he changes his ideological views or public statements"

That is not what the text says. That is literally a fake quote.

That's not paraphrased. That is your personal interpretation.

Or the dictionary's.

Well you are using it as a justification of banning submission from a website. So accurately representing things should be done.

Someone should have sent that memo to CNN. I for one laud the mods on this one. CNN has done this to themselves, and the backlash has just begun. A grassroots boycott will now target CNN advertisers, and you paid attention to gamergate, it is a very effective tactic.

I find this all to be glorious.

Found the 14 year old and/or neck beard guys

I felt it was a paraphrase

Can we agree that facts matter and not feels?

100% bullshit.

Plus he lied about MLA/APA

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Seems like a pretty good instance of paraphrasing to me lol

Wanna know how we know you’re now just making things up to CYA when called out?

APA Style

MLA Style

Notice how neither says anything about requiring quotes and how you didn’t follow either standard despite your claim you want to follow MLA/APA.

You're spreading false information to back your narrative.

Your comment is fake news! http://imgur.com/a/02aQw Archive

That literally shows that I am right.

No, its another way to phrase it. If you want to see a fake quote go hit up Anderson Cooper.

First, I feel like lawyers trying to tell trump what a ban is.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban

Second, They did not violate that code. You are using something that didnt happen to justify your actions.

This is the scariest and saddest thing. Knowingly banning CNN under false pretenses.

it's almost like bullshit stupidity runs rampant where rules are based on reality yet content is just retarded assumptions.

crazy!

You banned them from submission... But its not a ban?

So whats the point of your ban if you ban doesnt do anything?

Who are you trying to win points with right now?

Apparently ad revenue from r/conspiracy traffic funds the propaganda machine which is bad for MAGA.

Those6 milliojn subscribers from the_donald must generate a lot of revenue.

Right???

Their*

"According to some journalists" -but they are wrong.

Bullshit. They are basically saying they would reveal if they are forced by law. What a joke you are. Banning direct links is banning them as a source in a roundabout chicken shit way. Hey a lawyer so you'll understand legalese statements. Reddit itself is becoming more of a joke everyday. Random bans, ghost bans, and stupid shit like this us nothing more than limiting free speech that a select few don't like.

Well firstly they are not banned

"ban direct links to all CNN"

What are you, kellyanne conway?

direct

We all know that you're smart enough to understand what archive links are. We also all know why you're pretending that you don't.

Adding extra steps to post links from a certain news source is, at the very least, suppression.

You're wrong.

When will we be renaming /r/conspiracy to /r/establishment. Now that only pro Trump stories are allowed I think this will be necessary.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

This is directly from CNN. You can interpret it how you'd like, but I see them saying that the only reason they didn't doxx somebody is because they happened to fall in line - whether by their own choice or not. Seems scummy enough.

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1499239479812.jpg

Both of those tweets can be true and still doesn't mean he's being coerced.

Wrong. Stop lying, CNN defense force.

If you actually look at the image you'll see that those were posted to /r/imgoingtoshellforthis ,what exactly do you expect to be posted there?

CNN did not contact him through reddit messaging. They somehow dug up his personal information. They then called him and e-mailed him, which is inappropriate in and of itself. The following day, he issued the apology and took down all his posts.

Note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to anonymous speech is a fundamental First Amendment right.

Do we know how that "reporter" got the user info? Has Reddit admins anything to do with it?

He had enough identifying info to find his facebook

Why the hell does CNN care this much about who the OP was? Isn't the real problem that the president, in his infinite lack of wisdom, tweeted it as a threat to the press?

Because the president retweeted it. If it had been a quote or a photo, wouldn't you expect a news source to look into original attribution. The outrage here is ridiculous.

Slippery slope calling CNN a news outlet.

Yea, seriously. The Clinton News Network lost credibility decades ago, how they are stil considered news by anyone really is a head scratcher.

The guy apologised himself CNN didn't coerce him.

This is a lie and there are screenshots to prove it. Nice talking point though.

It's not a lie. The tweets don't contradict it either.

but there's screenshots of unsourced 4chan anons!

Oh look, more lying.

Yea they do, who do you think you're fooling?

Bullshit.

Based mod team, keep up the good work fellas

Cool! Now call CNN cucks!

Good work.

Why hasn't reddit banned all CNN contributors from posting here? I had my account shut down by reddit admins for PMing someone and insinuation that there was PII in his account and suggesting he delete a post where he was bullying an underage user. Reddit was right to admonish me even though I didn't directly threaten the guy the way CNN is doing.

Threatening DOXXING is not ok according to the site rules, and the admins have made that abundantly clear- it's for a very good reason. This isn't a case of an individual person being a momentary asshole- this is a multibillion dollar media corporation targeting someone who isn't a public persona.

The admins, as you rightly point out, would chastise any user for such behavior

IMO if they give CNN a pass they need to reinstate every sub they banned for doxxing.

That'll never happen.

I suppose it's beyond them to be fair

Admins should stand between Reddit's users and outside organisations threatening to dox them. Imagine how many people will leave if they feel there's potential for this to happen again, particularly if they don't see solidarity from admin at this point.

Will look it up, thanks!

3 moths ago you guys said that banning CNN/FOX stuff in here is a far cry. Now you decided you are doing it. I welcome this and it makes me feel like I had a part in this. Thank you anyways, whether I made a difference in your reasoning or not.

If that status quo had been maintained, they would not have been banned. CNN crossed a line and are going to pay the price. Literally, we are going to strip them of their ad revenue.

Love the username and attitude.

No you aren't. CNN barely ever gets posted here anyway, and even when it does it's always downvoted into no-visibility.

This is a PR move, and a power-play, and a terrible precedent for this sub to set.

This action isn't limited to this sub or even just Reddit. CNN is committing journalistic suicide

You won't make them lose shit. The vast majority of people never even click on the article, and the ones that usually have ad blockers on. Add to that the fact that CNN is never posted here anyways and it always gets downvotes when it is

We just put a blinder on and are acting like its cool.

Terrible precedent? Hardly

Out of the loop here... Why were CNN posts downvoted before this crazy crap happened?

Because a lot of people here hate the MSM and instead they prefer their information from blogs or people who are not professional journalists that speak to their echo chamber.

Thanks!

Now CNN and Fox will be insulated from critique. We should be able to post links to b.s. so we can call it out.

Good. CNN can fuck off w their shitty propaganda narratives and hate programming. CNN has become the everything that America IS NOT. CNN and MSM are dead. Majority of Americans aren't even paying attention to the fake bullshit narrative, CNN failed to push.

TO CNN: How does it feel to have lose control? To know, no matter how much you lie and no matter how much money your throw around, Americans just aren't soaking up the lies you feed. We all called it, we all saw it coming and its FUCKING GLORIOUS to watch you burn to the fucking ground. The best part is, we fucked you up, No money , no shills, no hacks, no paid gold, no upvote rigging.. All free! No body under 40 watches your dumb ass "cable TV" program. CNN is irrelevant. Go ahead, keep digging yourself a bigger grave. Every Time you dig low, we will make sure to pound you even farther.

HEY CNN! fuck you, come find me, you fake news pieces of shit propaganda.

HEY, fellow Internet Americans: Fuck these mother fuckers. They are pissed bc they lost control and they want to shut us up... Well too bad.. FUck these cocksuckers! Call me out. Don't go quiet. Don't be silenced by these cock bags

I feel like your name is ironic paired with your rabid support of this particular mod decision.

Censorship when you can still post non-direct links, effectively keeping the avenue open to post any info hosted by CNN here? Lol.

You don't have to block all avenues of getting information from a media site for it to be censorship. Blocking direct linking is decidedly a form of censorship.

No, it's not. Their content is still 100% allowed.

It's simply not allowing CNN to benefit from viewing their site directly.

decidedly - smh lol

Theyre not censoring anything

The hand wringing by folks that never contributed to this sub until now is very odd.

I lurk, and you'll note in my history my comments in this thread are not the first comments I have posted in this sub.

Thank you mods for standing up for what's right.

Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange gives you the latest breaking news on the #CNNBlackmail story as the many people on the left and right are outraged at the CNN "news network" for using coercion in order to stop a Reddit user from making memes of Donald Trump slamming CNN. The journalist Andrew Kaczynski of CNN is facing a massive backlash as /pol, 4 chan has just now declared vengeance on the new network and the entire situation is leading many to speculate the actual end of CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN-5ePiBmWM

And now the very concept of "meme" is going to spread to people who can barely spell "www"! Baaaaackfire.

No Luke spam pls.

This must be why BuzzardFeed is going after 4chan. 🍿

Donald Trump Jr.‏

If only @CNN spent as much time tracking down info on IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, Iran deal etc as they did a meme writer!

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/882585678453854208

Trump Jr. also lied about the age of the person. So there's that.

WHAT THE MAGA EMPEROR SON SAID IS IRREFUTABLE!!!!111ONE

Removed. Rule 6.

Right because of one post saying something about 1990. Because no one has ever lied on the internet before. Gtfo

He didn't lie. A lot of people were confused about his age, we saw many different numbers spouted out. His age is irrelevant anyways.

Nice username, obviously no bias here.

We have an official response from CNN.

Please, add to your post, OP.

To read their full response, click here

Hear hear!

Awesome! Thanks mods

Which other subreddits are joining the ban against CNN links?

/r/uncensorednews

So TD 2.0 and 3.0. Anyone else?

/r/Bernie_Sanders

Absolute joke. Uncensorednews is basically ran by t_d

Absolute joke because this place I don't like is run by people I don't like and I wont consider anything they do or say because of their political leanings.

Partisan politics at work.

Uncensored news is racist as fuck.

So /r/uncensorednews is censoring news?

No. CNN isn't news, it's propaganda, as their own employees admitted on video last week.

Checking out /uncensorednews I could see a lot of news propaganda. What news sources, especially national tv ones, are not pushing propaganda? Might as well ban them all.

CNN isn't a propaganda outfit. Good grief.

Well, I mean they did push that Russia shit in bad faith just for ratings / a (not completely unjustified) personal vendetta. It's certainly not Goebbels, but ffs they were literally lying to us. They are definitely Vox/Buzzfeed levels of trust for me. Which is none. I'll always verify with another source when I see something from them now.

If you're referring to the O'Keefe video from last week, I'd refer you to O'Keefe's previous videos, virtually all of which have been debunked or found to have been grossly edited.

In the case of the CNN guy, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that there is a wide spectrum of opinions held by people at every network, regarding the level of complicity and Collusion by members of Trump's campaign with Russian state actors. He's just one guy, speaking off-hand in a private conversation. He's not an authority on the subject. He's just dealing with the same information that most of the public has.

I'm not taking it as Gospel truth that there's nothing to the Trump-Russia story just because one guy said he hadn't seen evidence. I'm not saying it definitely happened. I'd prefer that it not have happened. But, I'm finding myself growing more pessimistic about the situation by the day.

Also, I change my opinion on this pretty frequently. Lacking hard evidence but seeing a pretty even smoke to fire ratio.

I am aware of O'Keefe's prior videos. I can tell when they're bullshit and when they're not. Acorn was not bullshit. This clearly is not bullshit. Especially with Van Jones and his reaction to it. They've shown us zilch. Nada. Nothing. I'm not wasting my time being concerned about any of this collusion shit anymore. They've let go more employees for misreporting this shit than they've produced substantive articles supporting it.

CNN makes Comcast look like they're pro-consumer.

I bet the donald is one what they are referring to.

Just seemed weird that it was stated multiple subs had banned CNN links. Yet a list of all subs wasn't given.

Hahaha thats because they would have to admit they're following the far right subs lead.

/u/AssuredlyAThrowAway will you provide links of other subs blocking CNN links? Since in the above post you claimed multiple subs had banned CNN links.

Trumptards and Russian trolls salute your decision.

But I repeat myself.

I hear you. The optics of this aren't the best, especially considering how this sub has become a haven of sorts for Trump fans to cry foul about his treatment from the MSM. Still, this is bigger than who is more corrupt: CNN or FOX. They're obviously both bought and paid for, it's just that one of them just tried to use their power to doxx a private individual.

The most important takeaway from this is whether the mods follow through with the below addendum should FOX, MSNBC, WSJ, HuffPo, etc. issue similar threats to doxx people over free speech:

As a small addendum; if you come across another news outlet engaging in similar behavior, please send any relevant info to the modmail of this subreddit. We will review the information and update the list of excluded "threaten to doxx" sites as such.

The sub is at the edge of the slippery slope of censorship and the mods just took the first step on to it. Lets see if they have kept the other foot on solid ground.

What about sites that have doxxed, and not just ones that threatened to? That is a much broader list--are they going to be banned too?

According to the logic of the mods, any site that has either doxxed or threatened to doxx someone should be banned here. I'm not familiar with examples of this from other major media outlets, hoping others might be aware of some examples...

ok idiot, so you think it's ok for a national news organization to release the personal information on someone online because they made a meme? Yeah, you are just as big of a fascist as Trump and his supporters are.

I would say no, if said news organization did more than put together information already released by the guy.

The guy put his information out there.

THEY SAID THEY WOULD RELEASE HIS FUCKING NAME! THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

If you weren't so interested in making up your own story, you'd read about the timeline of events:

1. CNN found his identity, sent him an email, received no response

2. The guy apologized , deleted posts, etc

3. The guy followed up with a call to CNN. THIS WAS FIRST CONTACT, AND AFTER HE ALREADY APOLOGIZED

The guy did what he did because he was scared that CNN knew. Period. And understandably.

Best guess: this guy is worried for his RL reputation, alot. His job is on the line if he's found out.

BTW I'm not saying CNN behaved wonderfully here. They didn't. I'm saying you guys are blowing it out of proportion, calling it "blackmail", etc

CNN reported Tuesday night it has agreed not to reveal the guy’s name, but reserves the right to do so should he ever repeat his “ugly behavior on social media.”

WHAT THE FUCK EOULD YOU CALL THAT?!

[removed]

Your fucking idiot CNN said it reserves the right to publish his fucking identity! That's what they literally fucking said you stupid piece of shit! Now at the end of the day if they walk that shit back because the public backlash it doesn't mean I'm going to fucking trust them. It only makes fucking sense you because you're an idiot who doesn't thonink organizations like CNN will ever lie.

Removed. Rule 4.

Tell us more totally legit user who happens to love propagandist MSM /s

Well done, mods. Very appropriate response.

Why not ban all MSM. They all suck.

Don't worry, they probably will. This is just testing the waters to see what the people here will accept. Stricter rules will likely go into effect over time as the idea of censorship becomes normalized among the posters here.

Except this isn't a form of censorship. Any opinions expressed by CNN can still be shared here in the form of an archive link. This is literally just an issue of "We refuse to support N."

Don't worry, they probably will.

Hopefully.

Especially if it triggers MSM-loving propagandists like yourself.

Aww, you're so cute.

I think we should all sources but everything should be archived before posting. We shouldn't censor information.

I would welcome this as it would encourage archiving, which is very important

Here here.

Lol. If you r/politics would follow your lead

I don't know if I appreciate this targeted attack.

The whole corporate media is fucked. CNN deserves no clicks from anyone ever, but neither do many other horrible propaganda outlets. Banning all major corporate media outlets might not be practical though. Bleh. I guess this is ok, it just feels kinda wrong.

don't worry, it's just the beginning haha

It's going to be ok. You don't need them...shhhhh

but neither do many other horrible propaganda outlets

Do we know of any other incidents of doxxing/threatening to doxx from any other major outlets? Surely it shouldn't matter how recently it occurred in order to have their links banned here, right?

I'm not saying CNN doesn't deserve to be blocked. I'm saying that many more also deserve it even if they're not guilty of the same specific offense.

Breitbart is state run media, that pushes out purposeful disinformation to further Trump's narratives. I think that's worse than doxxing, but doxxing is the only red line?

Either have a whitelist, or no list. But this is bullshit, and will likely be beginning of the end of this sub.

I'm not the mods but I'm assuming that since doxxing is against Reddit ToS whereas pushing out garbage propaganda is not. I hear you though; this wreaks like a Trump takeover of /r/conspiracy. Sure CNN is terrible but let's not pretend that FOX and Brietbart aren't worse.

CNN isn't on Reddit, and so they're not breaking any TOS. This is complete bullshit.

It will insulate them from critique.

Agreed, witch-hunts are stupid. Its like hastily assembling video footage of some poor guy and linking him to the Boston bombing... .... ... ... oh wait.

In that case why are direct links to Trumps tweets allowed?

He doesn't receive any monetary compensation per view?

Feeds the $hit$torm either way. If going to take a stand, stand on two feet...

Twitter is prolly floating on the whole divide as it is.

They are banning direct links and not archived links. So I take this as an action to prevent financially supporting CNN in any way.

His brand gets advertising.

He also tweeted that "buy L.L. Bean"

... so? There is a bigger game being played right now between the ruling families and factions. Obviously the ll bean tweet went over your head.

Trump doesnt threaten to doxx and he is YOUR President.

so he's not focusing on doxxing "leakers" then? whew. had me worried for a minute.

Doxxed private medical info, in the form of a shame post, from some one who wanted to visit his private club, via the Pubic White House handle for fux sakes.

Does trump receive ad revenue for his tweets? If so I would recommend you organize a boycott of his advertisers. See how it works?

Wtf?

Go ahead and boycott them.

I'm devastated.

really?

no

good, i feel better now.

...but it's AOK for the rest of the MSM Dirty Dozen to continue propagandizing for more War? Lying the nation into decades of useless war has killed over 1 million Iraqis, created millions of refugees, and cost the USA Trillions of dollars. Even just this year US-led forces have killed hundreds (if not thousands) of civilians in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. US forces also victimize entire populations by spying on them in their own sovereign country.

MSM Dirty Dozen=NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, Fox, msnbc, AP, Reuters

I feel the Reddit community is reacting because "one of ours" was threatened--but the much bigger offense to me is the continuous pro-war propaganda which The MSM Dirty Dozen pumps out on a daily basis. The USA is sacrificing the health and well-being of our soldiers and the long-term financial stability of our nation. (we are now $20 Trillion+ in debt--yet the PentaCon wants almost $700 billion for 2018 budget, an increase of almost $100 billion from 2017)

Honestly, archiving any article is important if it is to be shared. It is way too easy for a web page to be changed once it gets enough traffic and they realize the opinions voiced on said page are not being.. appreciated.. They can simply rewrite the page and the outrage goes away.

Shouldnt be banning ANY content FULL STOP.

Look at the people praising this just because its against CNN. Not because they did something wrong and are getting banned from submission but are just happy CNN is banned.

+1

The only thing more ridiculous than your premise is the assertion of censorship. Nothings being censored. You're lying. You're a Liar. Fuck Off.

What a load of bull.

The whole point of a ban is to destroy the company. A destroyed company will soon stop producing content.

Please also ban users who distribute misinformation and troll legit users.

Is there a definitive list of MSM? How about MSM that pro-trump?

As if this place isn't already overloaded with Republican partisans. This is the date that r/conspiracy official becomes a tool of the Republican Party. I am surprised to see how quickly this decision to turn off a perceived enemy of Donald Trump took place.

"After discussion with the community"?? Bull.

Donald Trump and voter suppressor in chief is doxxing the nation's voters to steal elections, and the mods here are banning CNN? Bull.

Which subreddit are the nonpartisan conspiracy analysts going to?

MSM Dirty Dozen= PBS

LOL oh wow

They just meant anything without a hard-right slant and then it makes perfect sense.

Ikr? What is even more bizzare that FUCKING REUTERS is on that list. Reuters is THE most unbias/neutral news outlet out there

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

You are on this sub and believe Reuters is legit/unbiased? Wow. What can I say..

unlike you, I'm still grounded in reality, and not sucking on what the lord maga emperor says.

MSNBC is usually pretty decently unbiased too.

No they are not. These days their shows are either centrist right or hyper left. Reuters is perhaps one of the few unbias source of news ever. They purposely avoid using baid emotive expressions in their articles.

Then why'd he include Fox?

hard-right

Not hard enough.

No it isn't. I would recommend we archive all MSM pages by default.

Use archiving for all links. We shouldn't give any MSM revenue.

man I am torn about this. Fuck CNN big time. But doing this does a few things that concerns me greatly.

1. Censorship should not be OK when it works in your favor. People can easily avoid reading or taking anything from CNN seriously. They can down vote posts to hell so that they will not show up. In other words, they can completely avoid CNN on their own, but still retain the ability to access it if they so choose.

2. This is helping Trump and his attack on the media which will lead to his control of the media. This would not be good. Thats like step 2 of Becoming a Dictator or something.

Why not just call it out, expose it, make them accountable for what they publish, but ultimately leave the decision making process on the consumer to take in the info they want to. If we all know and believe CNN is complete and utter bullshit, we will laugh and make jokes when some genius decides to post a CNN article. But censoring it from being able to offer their "opinion" on the internet is one of the exact things most users of /r/conspiracy would not be OK with.

I do not trust anything CNN publishes, but stooping to their levels is not the direction this sub needs to go in.

I agree. Are any other domains banned? If not, we should strive to keep it that way.

On the other hand, vote manipulation is real. We can't rely on the voting mechanism as a tool to punish. And you know, fuck CNN.

Ultimately I hope the mods understand that this action is serious. I sincerely hope that this doesn't become a trend.

yeah the vote manipulation is definitely a problem. I think the use of Tags can quickly and easily bring to peoples attention where the info is coming from, and will help them to either skip clicking altogether, or down voting. Essentially automatically down voting something because of where it came from is in itself a form of vote manipulation, but general avoidance will start to make people less likely to post links from CNN since no one will be contributing to the discussion in the thread.

There's a huge difference between hundreds of users downvoting a post vs hundreds of bot accounts doing so. One is organic, the other is not.

I didn't think I made that claim, but tagged, exposed vote manipulation will make it much less effective.

Agreed.

It's not censorship so much as a boycott. The archived pages can still be posted, the 'information' is still accessible. Banning direct links to CNN just prevents them gaining any revenue from site traffic.

In my opinion, tagging links to CNN would allow users to down vote or avoid the links altogether, effecting a proper boycott at the user level, not forced upon them by their environment/platform. I dont think a subreddit banning a website is going to take away a significant amount of their click traffic, but forcing users to become aware of why they are purposely avoiding something will probably end up having a bigger impact. Then they know about it, they talk about it with others, share information about why they are staying away, pointing out the issues and exposing what CNN does so that bigger groups of people realize there is a problem.

This is why I am torn though. I am not entirely against it, I just don't feel like forcing something on people jives with the foundation of this sub.

Is it really such a hardship though?

To post an archive link rather than a website link?

If you feel CNN has something relevant or even truthful to say, you can still post their article, you can even say it came from CNN, you just can't direct users to their website from Reddit.

It seems reasonable, and no one is being prevented from doing or seeing anything...

But it is still infringing on freedom of speech by not allowing me to post the link I want to, right?

I don't think so, because the information you are trying to get across with the CNN link is still conveyed with the archived link. If anything it's more akin to bureaucratic red tape, than censorship: A couple extra steps that aren't technically necessary, but the rules say that's what you have to do.

sure, the information still is getting across, but not how I want to. If you'd ban the use of some words I still could get my point across by using synonyms, but you are effectively banning me from expressing it how I want to

If anything is being banned (IF) it is traffic travelling directly from Reddit to CNN. No info, no words, nothing of your message is being changed or prevented.

It just simply is not surrounded by ads, which your visit to their site makes more valuable and therefore increases their income.

No censorship, just a refusal to reward them for their possibly illegal and definitely fascist actions...

If anything is being banned (IF) it is traffic travelling directly from Reddit 6 subreddits, 2 of which would never have reason to link CNN anyway, to CNN. No info, no words, nothing of your message is being changed or prevented.

I'm confused about your point.

Ya, it won't prevent a vast majority of traffic to CNN, it's not like this is an attempt to bankrupt CNN. It's just our way of not rewarding CNN for their probably illegal, definitely fascist behaviour.

And the overarching point of this little comment thread is that what is going on is not censorship. Like I said, I'm confused about your point.

my point is clarifying that it is not a reddit wide ban, as was indicated by your post.

Fair enough.

Boycott is voluntary. This is not.

So the mods get to decide if I want to boycott something? People here can just ignore cnn.com posts or even filter them if they wanted to.

But no, the mods have decided for me on what I want to do.

Yes, they do decide that.

CNN isn't banned. Just archive their page and share that instead.

It is literally banned.

You spelled "figuratively" wrong...

Nothing is being censored. Archived links are still allowed.

Bullshit. This is censorship.

A boycott is not censorship.

Boycott is voluntary. This is not.

Seems like more people are for this than against it. It's a community boycott. There are numerous other subs that accept cnn links.

Oh, so you're using the alternative facts approach to the word boycott.

Boycott: withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.

Seems to be exactly what this is. I hate Trump (and all politicians on both sides), but I don't agree that releasing someone's private information because they created a meme that somebody doesn't like is the right "punishment" at all. The fact that a company is threatening this against a person boggles my mind and sets a scary precedent.

A boycott is an act of voluntary and intentional abstention from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social, political, or environmental reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behavior.>

Literally the first search result.

Go virtue signal somewhere else.

We have different results: http://i.imgur.com/bQICfTm.png

Nothing is being censored. All the same information can be posted, viewed and shared. The only difference is the link and ad revinue. It doesn't take any effort to archive something. CNN broke terms of service and I'm surprised that even archived links are allowed

lol why is CNN being held to Reddit's TOS?

Also how can CNN break the TOS by not doxxing someone?

Holy shit this is ridiculous. You guys will just repeat anything you hear.

If that's so then why not archive all sites

Were all sites engaged in doxing of people (particularly reddit users), and blackmailing them for the release of said dox? Subs do and have been banned for simply linking to other sites that have doxed people, and such sites typically get admin-level banned. It's a bit telling that reddit isn't banning CNN.

Yes, why not?

remember that you are talking with hypocrites

Censorship should not be OK when it works in your favor.

Nobody is censoring CNN. To quote the OP

After reviewing user input during that discussion, and coming to consensus as a mod team, we have decided to ban all direct links to any cnn websites going forward. Instead, please use http://archive.is/ if you are inclined to share a piece of information from that outlet.

What is being done is the mods have decided not to provide any direct links to the CNN because those clicks give CNN money. Why support CNN when they behave like this?

The mods have specifically said CNN content is still allowed, it just has to be archived.

This is helping Trump and his attack on the media

The mods should concern themselves with what's best for the subreddit and for truth. Whether that decision helps Trump or not should not be a concern.

According to Reddit rules, it's illegal to post personal/identifiable information https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205183175-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay-

It's also against Reddit rules to threaten users https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205701155

CNN should already be banned/censored/whateveryouwannacallit from this site.

why, they have violated none of those rules, so where does your logic come from?

I assume you actually read the link you posted right? It is strange it comes from Zendesk and not Reddit, but it seems you missed a point:

We do not tolerate the harassment of people on our site

I hate that you are making me defend CNN here because that is not what I want to do, but everyone makes such a big deal about the truth and facts, why don't we stick to them?

Thus far, CNN has said this:

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Shitty fucking thing for them to say, but still not in violation of any bannable offense on Reddit.

I assume you actually read the link you posted right? It is strange it comes from Zendesk and not Reddit, but it seems you missed a point:

Please research before you post. Click on the following bullets and see where it takes you https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/

Threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so

Is personal and confidential information

https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/

Shitty fucking thing for them to say, but still not in violation of any bannable offense on Reddit.

They are threatening a user on their site. It's not like they are threatening a Facebook user... this person is a Redditor.

wait a minute, you are telling me to research before I post when I am commenting on the very link that YOU posted? And then you go and post a different link? Wtf?

And you are still wrong. Their content policy is a CONTENT policy. CNN tweeting is not reddit content.

Reddit does not protect its millions and millions of users from things happening outside of their forum.

They are threatening a user on their site.

I believe you are misinterpreting that sentence. If Reddit was taking responsibility for protecting all of its users from any malicious attacks outside of Reddit, I would be quite impressed with their loyalty.

What they are saying, is that you are not allowed to threaten someone on their site. They are not saying "You are not allowed to threaten a person on another site, if they use our site"

wait a minute, you are telling me to research before I post when I am commenting on the very link that YOU posted? And then you go and post a different link? Wtf?

• https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205183175-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay-

• https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205701155

These 2 links are found on the bulleted list at the top of this page https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/

Reddit does not protect its millions and millions of users from things happening outside of their forum.

If you believe that CNN did any direct research to doxx the user then they must have verified it on Reddit's own website.

Reddit does not protect its millions and millions of users from things happening outside of their forum.

Yes it does.

reddit is designed and supported for personal use only. You may not use reddit to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights.

https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement/

I believe you are misinterpreting that sentence. If Reddit was taking responsibility for protecting all of its users from any malicious attacks outside of Reddit, I would be quite impressed with their loyalty.

How did CNN verify it was him if they didn't use Reddit?

What they are saying, is that you are not allowed to threaten someone on their site. They are not saying "You are not allowed to threaten a person on another site, if they use our site"

They are also saying that you may not use Reddit to "violate an individual's privacy", which it sounds like they did. CNN is threatening to reveal this user's name.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

dude... you linked to the cnn domain... archive that!!

Reddit rules =/= what is and isn't legal in the real world, man.

According to Reddit rules, it's illegal It's against Reddit rules to post personal/identifiable information https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205183175-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay-

It's also against Reddit rules to threaten users https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205701155

CNN should already be banned/censored/whateveryouwannacallit from this site.

edited for clarity. wasn't talking about US law

Did CNN do any of this on reddit? If not reddit rules mean fuck-all.

You may not use reddit to violate an individual's privacy

https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement/

The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA..holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA..holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.

http://archive.is/MR7J9

So yes, they used Reddit to violate his privacy. If he wanted to be ID'd we'd know his name right now.

They are still threatening to doxx him if he retracts his apology it seems.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

You may not use reddit to violate an individual's privacy

I don't want to quibble over semantics, but they're not threatening to doxx him on reddit, and reddit has no say over what's done on the airwaves.

They used Reddit. Nobody forced CNN to go to reddit.com and USE THEIR WEBSITE to doxx him, which is against Reddit's own rules.

It's not against Reddit rules for some random person to find out the source of a video. Why would Reddit have any say in the matter if you doxxed someone using Google.com? But the moment you get on Reddit.com and start the doxxing process you're breaking the rules.

Yeah, they violated Reddit's rules by using info posted on reddit to doxx someone. Agreed.

Depriving them of ad revenue is the only real way to hold them accountable for what they do

is it though? How many /r/conspiracy users are really hitting cnn.com on a regular basis? Enough to make even a slight dent in their ad revenue? Likely not. Therefore in my opinion, educating people on why they are staying away from something, rather than just forcibly keeping them away goes a lot further. They talk to their friends, their family, coworkers, etc. It will end up being more effective to have a concerted effort to expose this shit, rather than just blocking it.

I don't agree that blocking direct links from a subreddit will be the only effective way to hold them accountable for what they do. In fact I do not believe it will be at all effective if you actually want to make a difference.

So the mods here have decided for everyone here that they do not deserve ad revenue?

Lol who cares? You're free to go to their website and give the cretins ad revenue yourself if you want to. Everyone on this sub complains about the media but then when someone wants to take actual action people bitch about it. I can't think of a single thing wrong with this. If anything it'd be better if we did it for all of them.

It's crazy that this sub turned into government worshiping and pro-censorship. You don't see anything wrong with it because its pro-trump

They're not censoring anything

So if the US government started banning particular outlets from the web would you be ok with that too?

No, because that's not even remotely similar?

lolberals.

If anything it'd be better if we did it for all of them.

yeah. there are some sites (and subreddits) that only allow archived links to news outlets (no matter what outlet).

i would agree to that.

So many myths going around. Reddit's hivemind was completely wrong.

Reddit user was middle-aged, not 15 as the hivemind is claiming.

There was no blackmail. That man deleted his account before even talking to CNN.

CNN did not make any deal with him. The controversial line was a shitty attempt at highlighting that no arrangement was made.

The meme-maker himself called CNN after Reddit got triggered, confirmed he wasn't threatened/blackmailed.

This is helping Trump and his attack on the media which will lead to his control of the media.

It's been obvious which way the mods here lean for a long time. This shouldn't surprise you.

2) - While this is true to an extent, the media is directly responsible for intentionally dividing the country. Free speech is a must, but when the elites use it to destroy the country from within it must be stopped.

They didn't even fucking dox the guy. They withheld his name, said they have a right to publish it because the guy reached out to CNN, asked them not to, apologized, even wrote this up in /r/t_d, and they gave the guy a break.

This feels very orchestrated to take away CNN's credibility, which the president has been trying VERY hard to do.

Of course this sub will ignore it since a conspiracy sub worships the countries leader.

What the hell is going on with this sub??

People have been misled by the brigade it seems here. You can link all the articles to CNN you want, but you just use archive.is instead. You can still read all of the disinformation you want on CNN. In no way is this censorship in any form

while the banning of CNN is welcome. could this not be used against us further down the line....

this feels like psyop to me... all the fakes are all over it.

How could this possibly be used against us? We're not disallowing all CNN content, only direct links to them in order to show our disapproval of their behavior the best way we can - limiting their ad revenue.

Just use archive.is or google cache and link that instead of a direct link to their site.

Oh so distributing their work without crediting them, nice.

Not being credited with the crap they publish is almost doing them a favour.

Doesn't matter what they are publishing, if you don't like the content don't spread it. You shouldn't take someones work and just use it without their credit. How would you feel if people just took your work, copied it and started spreading it?

without their credit

The archived links will have all of the marks of identification that are normally on the article. The content will still clearly be CNN's. All we're doing is stopping them from getting direct traffic.

Poor CIA

because today its cnn next year its x

its called mission creep

If an individual doxxes someone they get banned from Reddit. Seems only fair to extend that same rule to corporations to me

So many myths going around. Reddit's hivemind was completely wrong.

Reddit user was middle-aged, not 15 as the hivemind is claiming.

There was no blackmail. That man deleted his account before even talking to CNN.

CNN did not make any deal with him. The controversial line was a shitty attempt at highlighting that no arrangement was made.

The meme-maker himself called CNN after Reddit got triggered, confirmed he wasn't threatened/blackmailed.

How many times are you going to copy/paste this?

Its relevant to the person I'm responding to. I can open a conversation with these people with the same comment. What is the problem?

I don't care if your comment was copy/pasted, but how do you know those things?

https://twitter.com/perlberg/status/882629134668713985

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882418323673239553

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882410932365930496

https://twitter.com/perlberg/status/882629134668713985

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882418323673239553

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882410932365930496

Wonder where the Perlberg screen grab is from. Did you verify the apology time, etc?

Working tbh so I plan to do some digging later. I'm not trying to say this is everything that should be used to prove otherwise but it definitely should be considered. Although the hive mind at the moment is pitchforks and torches.

Yeah. It's the usual reaction. Full context and primary sources are super important when looking at this kind of stuff.

The one thing that gets me is when T_D did the "boycott," many came here and stayed. All good, Welcome. But anything that goes the opposite way is bashed hard. I dont care for either side myself. But when I see that mods are asking the masses if CNN should get banned of course the right and all T_D are going to be the loudest. Thats whats happening here to be frank.

Yeah. I don't really get the point of banning CNN. I figure chances are, if you're browsing this sub, you're probably skeptical of most media outlets anyway, and you're probably a fan of free speech. Isn't banning a particular site like that a tactic that "sjws" would use?

It's getting pretty tiresome seeing the primary rebuttal to any comment from one "side" or the other be "we're being brigaded by shills! See?!"

They arent banning it if you "archive," it. So you can still use their links but have to do it a special way. Regardless, just feel like the situation with CNN and people not looking at the facts is the bigger problem. We are conspiracy yet we arent evaluating what has been given. Just seeing JFK shot and seeing one shooter :D

Welcome to 2017 where news is made up and the facts don't matter.

I just saw this in another sub.

There is absolutely no difference between MSNBC, FOX, NBC, BBC, CBC and CNN they are all horrible propaganda outlets that produce fake news and slant stories.

Yet only one threatened to publicly doxx someone for their ideas.

But they didn't publish his identity did they?

Yet they threatened to in order to police his expression.

But he was posting a bunch of hateful and racist content wasn't he?

Don't know. Does that matter? Itself still protected under the Constitution, isn't it?

Protected from the Government not from a private entity.

Shhhh.

Facts are not welcome here.

There is absolutely no difference between MSNBC, FOX, NBC, BBC, CBC and CNN

Well there's the blackmail, that's a difference.

The user before deleting his account said he called CNN and sorted it out. That he wasn't blackmailed

The hostage, after renegotiating his will said: "I am not being coerced."

The blackmail threat is right there in the article.

They are all bad but CNN has proven themselves to be much much worse than the others, not just from this recent fuckup but over the course of the entire 2016 election.

And in 08 and 12 with Ron Paul.

Not so. CNN was dumb enough to get CAUGHT in the propaganda, the others have enough common sense to at least pretend that they're not propaganda outlets. So far.

Name one news story where the BBC purposely misrepresented facts?

The BBC never reported Jimmy Savile as a pedophile so that he could continue molesting children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/12172773/Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-report-to-be-published-live.html

Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC at the time is now CEO of the NY Times that claims they debunked pizzagate without ever debunking anything.

that's true. so we take them out, one at a time

protip: shoot the guy in the back first, that way the others don't see what's happening

Normies, get out!

Redpill, normie, reeee, maga, wall.

Translation:

Non-Trumprs LEAVE NOW

no, it means Bolsheviks RAUS!

Thats the most effective way to strike the beast. Less traffic means less advertising income.

A conspiracy sub allowing its mods to blacklist certain sites.... and the community loves it.. This sub is dead.

It's called "a slippery slope" for a reason.

So you're concerned that we will have to link indirectly to all big corporate news outlets? The horror!

Let me use a different scenario where slippery slope is relevant that will maybe help you see the persepective I'm coming from:

So you're concerned that law enforcement will have to access indirectly to all your metadata and some communications in order to fight against terrorism and protect Americans? The horror!

See how easy that is?

Nice apples to oranges argument you have there. You forgot "Think of the children!" though.

http://i.imgur.com/Upm4c6Z.jpg

"Let be back up my slippery slope logical fallacy with a false analogy!"

It works on /r/politics all the time.

Maybe you guys should start actually moderating the obvious brigading shills coming here from there.

Start with all the morons defending CNN and pretending that r/conspiracy "Used to be for skeptics and used to LOVE CNN!!!"

What are they contributing AT ALL other than derailing threads with their pro-MSM talking points? Oh right, nothing.

They are trolling and breaking the rules constantly, yet receive no action.

Yet if one of us says "Hey fuck off MSM trolls", INSTANT MODERATION.

Look at our modlogs. Everyone is working extra hard today.

You're just mad that we away everyonr here.

If you see rule breaking use the report feature.

Look at our modlogs. Everyone is working extra hard today.

I can see you're working overtime banning anyone who says a single thing against the regular CTR/Shareblue shills, at least.

I shouldn't be surprised, you've been protecting the shill narrative for months now. Fucking pathetic.

Look at our modlogs. Everyone is working extra hard today.

I can see you're working overtime banning anyone who says a single thing against the regular CTR/Shareblue shills, at least.

Calling a user a shill is against the rules.

I shouldn't be surprised, you've been protecting the shill narrative for months now. Fucking pathetic.

Yikes. That's gonna hurt.

I'd give you gold, but fuck spez.

Fuck him indeed.

just wait, maybe he will come back to Triple down on his fallacies and stupidity!!

Yeah- like what.?

Say it ain't so

What's wrong with conspiracists defending the ad revenue of MSM? /s

He's concerned the mods are deciding what we are allowed to see here. Censorship of certain sites because of their political affiliation goes against the entire mission of a conspiracy page.

What do you suppose the slope is of a major news outlet threatening private citizens over jokes ?

Fallacy Fallacy.

/r/conspiracy announcing is allegiance to Trump.

I honestly want to know where the so called discussion you wanted about this went. It went from a sticky in the main post to this sticky saying you are banning submissions.

Also why does it seem like an agenda being driven by only 2 or 3 mods? Where are the rest in this whole thing?

It was here

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6lb94b/z/djswh46

Funny how when all the PROVEN BOTS from T_D came here and spammed all the Macron emails etc the mod team was "split" so they didn't ban them - but ban an entire news domain no problems. You have to laugh really.

Give me a break.

You guys really let this sub go to shit!

CNN has been nothing but propaganda for years and the links are still allowed but CNN won't see the AD revenue. This is a brilliant move and I'm not sure why you have a problem with it?

If we're going to bad MSM websites for overt bias then ban FOX as well. The issue here is this subreddit's gradual slant towards the right and the mods enoucraging said slant.

bad

I'm sure you mean ban.

No, no MSM is being banned.

Weird how banning submissions isnt a ban. Its like Trump saying his ban isnt a ban.

Define ban.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban

: to prohibit especially by legal means ban discrimination Is smoking banned in all public buildings?; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of ban a book ban a pesticide

I feel like a lawyer explaining to Trump how a ban is a ban even when he says its not.

Nothing is banned here besides directly linking to the domain itself to reduce clicks/ad revenue in response to their behavior against another redditor.

I suggest you reread the thread and go /r/outside for a bit.

I promise you'll feel better.

So you are not prohibiting the submission of CNN links?

As long as they go through an archive filter, no.

So the ban is just a PR move? Why even bother?

It hurts their wallet. Less clicks means less ad revenue from site ads and their video ads.

Jesus. Stop being so dense and practically illiterate. Read for yourself and look up the words you don't understand, then you will have an accurate meaning to all of this.

Nothing is banned here besides ...

perhaps clear up that contradiction by saying the "only" thing that is banned might help..

Direct links are banned. For now.

Links are not banned.

Is this seriously that hard of a concept?

i just like precise language. Saying nothing is banned then telling me what is banned makes me drink more.

I hope you're thirsty.

I hope one day you understand definitives and absolutes in the english language.

That was condescending as fuck. His/her opinion is valid.

Cut out the passive aggressive bullshit before I start asking how old you were when your father stopped beating you?

My father left when I was 9.

So.

Nine. And his opinion is as valid anyone's (whatever that means) which isn't much to be honest.

Get shit wrong and you'll get called out. Don't like it?

Lurk more. Post when knowledge is acquired.

So you really do have authority issues. Typical of enraged radicalized republicans.

Still hate Daddy, don't you?

nothing is banned - why are you lying?

Can you submit a link from cnn?

you can submit archived material from cnn - yes.

anything that resides on cnn can be submitted without exception - just not directly from cnn

you already know this.

So no you cant submit links from CNN. You can submit links from archive.is because they are not banned. It is a fancy little loophole that many people will not jump through, lets be real no one was posting cnn links anyways, so the mods can say we didnt censor them.

is it your job to not understand this? it's weird that it won't sink in to your brain.

use the "fancy loophole" or please shut up.

The title says "ban" right there.

Oh, you just read titles. That explains so much.

Says ban twice in the content too.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/topmindsofreddit] Top Mod pulls a “Trump” and tries to explain how a ban isn’t a ban in a thread explicitly stating CNN links are banned.

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Cool new account. Keep trying to push that narrative though.

I've been around this site for some time but I delete accounts and create new ones fairly often. This subreddit should respect that since I did it for the sake of my own privacy but if you want to continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is getting paid then whatever makes your life easier I suppose.

Tell us more totally legit r/conspiracy user that just happens to love globalism, the MSM, the TPP, CTR and ShareBlue.

You're forgetting George Soros and the federal reserve.

I don't care that you disagree, I care that you're wrong. You implied CNN was banned from /r/conspiracy and that's not true. Links to their website have been banned, not the info of the article. You can still archive. So you sitting there complaining about reddits non existent slant to the right just makes you look stupid. If anything this site leans left- so what- because you found a subreddit that doesn't lean left like you want it to, you're gonna make a fuss about something you didn't even read properly into? No. Not today. Lol.

CNN is now explicitly treated differently than FOX, msnbc, the Wall Street Journal, and other MSM sources, all of which have done things and pushed agendas that are considered repulsive by this subreddit. Even if the articles can still technically be posted there is blatant favoratism at work here.

ALso

I don't care that you disagree, that's your prerogative. I care that you're wrong.

Is very different from

Cool new account. Keep trying to push that narrative though.

You started off by calling me a shill, and only after I called you on your bullshit did you try to switch strategies.

Oh, and one more thing. I never said that reddit leans right. Read more carefully.

You claimed CNN was banned. It is not. Hence the remark about your narrative and the following remark about you being wrong. .
2, I never called you a shill. Read more carefully. And I didn't "switch strategies" just explained why you're wrong. And you're still wrong CNN isn't banned.

Yes, you can still post articles but linking directly to the website is banned, meaning is held to different standards than FOX. I've already stated this, and you're getting way too hung up over a semantics argument right now. And you absolutely implied that I was a shill. Do you think I'm fucking stupid? Why else would you mention the age of my account?

Damn y u mad bro? Calm yourself. Read more carefully right? Never called you a shill. And CNN should absolutely be held to a different standard. They've proven themselves over and over again to be manipulative liars. So yeah. They should be. And you're getting hung up on having to archive instead of giving the site ad revenue. Lol. What's it to you, if the information is still accessible? Seems like you're backpedaling because you stuck your foot in your mouth. You said " If we're going to bad MSM websites for overt bias then ban FOX as well. " I informed you that you were wrong and that they're not banned, and here we are. Just take the L and continue on. Lol.

They've done it to themselves.

Everytime a left wing rag is caught, you leftists attack Fox. Sit down, the adults are here. CNN is wrong.

CNN really isn't 'leftist', and what they did doesn't even compare to the shit that the Murdoch media empire ois pulling around the world.

Pretty sure it has nothing to do with the slant, as both CNN and Fox have been slanted forever. Are you daft ?

This has to do with CNN's unethical behavior towards private citizens exercising their rights.

Gradual? Hahahaha. It's funny because thoughtful non bias comments are starting to rise to the top while posts themselves are still heavily brigaded to slant right. The problem here is the mods are blatant supporters of the alt right. Bots only bother with posts not comments. /r/conspiracy/controversial and the comments section still reflect what this community used to be. Not until #45 is old news will this sub return to its roots but even then it'd probably make it worst. The good mods left and took their paychecks over a year ago and I really can't blame them, I'm sure the going price was undeniable

Breitbart, fox, and infowars are all still able to post. Clearly not about propoganda.

CNN is still allowed to post.

Someone posts directly, post gets removed, they don't go find the archive.

A certain view is then taken away. It is just an added layer of inconvenience that keeps a certain viewpoint off the board.

Do you have any idea what oppression of information is? CNN has been propaganda for years? Fox was literally started as a voice for the right...with talking heads for whatever right-wing, capitalist, or globalist scheme was being cooked up at the time. It is sad and disgusting that this agenda is so accepted and cheered on in such a hallow fashion. The only hope the sub has is that the top rated comment here is calling this shit out!

I was talking about CNN. I never said anything about Fox. You just assume that I'm on the other side because everyone has to fit into two boxes right? I dont get my news from the TV. If anything, I'll watch Fox Business or CNBC for market information. Thats it.

What this sub needs is more content that doesnt involve politics so much. Its getting overwhelming and great content is getting hidden like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/695cz9/the_two_bloodlines_of_cain_and_abel_the/

Don't give me that two box bull shit argument everyone tries to use all the time and hope to sound independent in the debate. There was no assumption of your political side in my comment, seriously? Just a disappointment that you sounded okay with CNN's crucification, but not extending the same critique to others. The point I was hoping you would deduce was that if CNN is propaganda and it can be handled like this and Fox has been considered to be propaganda also, why not treat all main stream media outlets the same here for their obvious opinions and alternative info agenda. Makes more sense, make them all hurt. That is a great conspiracy post, but it has a good amount of politics in it as well. It is hard to get away from politics and conspiracies. The sub's definition of Conspiracy brings us into this realm. Most of them, not all, are driven, silenced, exaggerated, began, or ended by some form of political ideology or agenda.

CNN picked a war with Reddit. The rest of the MSM did not. Most posters here don't link to Fox News or CNN anyway so I dont know what the big deal is.

CNN is going to lose a lot of money if more places follow suit. I've never seen so many people fall on their sword for CNN.

[insert any media organisation] has been nothing but propaganda for years and the links are still allowed but [insert any media organisation] won't see the AD revenue. This is a brilliant move and I'm not sure why you have a problem with it?

Why single out CNN?

There's a problem that the mods are banning a website because it is anti-trump. How does that fit a conspiracy page?

Well, maybe if they admit they abused their power to threaten someone for their ideas, violated Reddit TOS and publicly apologize, they can come back. They aren't above the rules, are they?

Why would CNN be bound to abide by the Reddit terms of service?

They don't even feel themselves bound by actual criminal statute, that's not the question. The question is why are people so upset that the mods are going to cost CNN a few cents and still allow the exact same content to be posted in the form of archive links.

I don't think many people give a shit about CNN, it's just the hypocrisy of it. R/Conspiracy has never really cared about other times Reddit uses have been identified by media, but now that it's some racist dude who got Trump in trouble it's different for some reason.

This is not doing much to dispel the notion that r/conspiracy has been fully taken over by TheDonald.

The argument isn't about Reddit's terms. This is about ethics violations and violating state and federal laws.

but we would reserve the right to ban them if anything changes in the future

CNN didn't post here so they haven't violated reddit's toc.

You people, seriously.

Regardless, they haven't been banned. Their money stream from this sub has been cut off.

Maybe you could ask them to issue a public apology, describing how their actions have been antithetical to the spirit of the freedom of speech and expression, that they abused their power to control an individual and his right to speak freely. Do you disagree?

Their money stream from this sub has been cut off.

Yeah, there were so many links from this sub. I'm sure CNN will gnash their teeth over the couple of cents they were making from here.

Regardless

So facts don't matter as long as we get the desired result (ban CNN).

Good to know.

When then did you claim that they violated the TOC? What ever motivated you to make such a claim?

Seth Rich

Jake Brewer

Madeleine McCann

Danielle Van Dam

JonBenet Ramsey

Rebecca Zahau

Max Shacknai

Caylee Anthony

Hannah Anderson

Did you reply to the wrong comment? That has nothing to do with my question.

When you bend over do you prefer lube or do you take it dry?

It's dead because it was overrun by people like you

You cant doxx people or threaten to doxx. All sites that do that get banned at the admin level

I could see your confusion if cnn had distanced itself and punished the author.... but theyre standing by doxx threats. No longer safe to have their content here

Punished investigative reporting???!!!???? WHAT? Why would CNN do that? The story started out as who is Trump retweeting. When they found said person it was a nobody with a racist comment history. They got in contact and choose not to release his information. Their statement everyone is up in arms about was them saying we choose to do this our selves.

If investigative reporters dug up some dirt on you and then said "If you dont act a certain way, we'll tell everyone"... that would be blackmail.

And that is what CNN did

It's a ban to direct links to the site. In absolutely no way does it hinder the ability to research or discuss conspiracies. It just stops CNN from making money off of people linking their garbage but you can still discuss and see it through archive links.

A conspiracy sub which went out of it's way to avoid getting a consensus (didn't make a post, had the discussion in one random thread) before making a partisan choice, then when it makes that choice is does so in a way that prevents organised discussion of it (contest mode).

Also, the mod involved selectively ignored certain people against the idea based on their infrequent posts here but likely never checked the supporters for the same. Some "discussion"

This whole charade is what a real conspiracy sub would talk about.

What happens if we continue to post censored websites? Will they use automod to remove them? Will there be banns?

People have been misled by the brigade it seems here. You can link all the articles to CNN you want, but you just use archive.is instead. You can still read all of the disinformation you want on CNN. In no way is this censorship or blacklisting in any form.

The sub died when "people" here started defending CNN and Hillary.

Who the fuck gilded this?

Hallelujah.

Daily obligatory 'his name was seth rich' comment.

Seth rich.

We have an official response from CNN.

Please, add to your post, OP.

To read their full response, click here

Bill Clinton is a Rapist

This is conspiracy, not The_Don...

They also could be subject to penalties regarding New York law (their headquarters is in NY).

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or

2. Cause damage to property;  or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business;  except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or

7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense;  or

8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;  or

9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Source

No they cant.

Stop posting BS to justify something.

It's incredible how they are literally copy/pasting from Assange about a law, like they themselves are lawyers or a judges.

You a lawyer?

I'm not the one making up justifications for my actions by quoting laws.

Are you?

I'm not the one making up justifications for my actions

Who did this?

by quoting law text with not even an argument connecting and justifying them.

Did you read It? Why do I need to connect NY law with a NY company? Do you need me to spell it out to you?

Are you a lawyer or a judge?

Do I have to be?

Only when your own opinions stray from the official narrative.

It appears you are confused.

Who did this?

Originally it was Julian Assange. It seems like yourself and /u/AssuredlyAThrowAway copy/pasted and didn't even provide a legal argument with it.

Did you read It? Why do I need to connect NY law with a NY company? Do you need me to spell it out to you?

Have you ever seen a trial? They don't consist of you opening a law book and pointing to a judge. You especially don't ask stupid shit like "do I have to spell it out for you?"

Yes, yes you do have to spell it out. Otherwise known as an explanation among normal people.

Otherwise you are just saying you're right because you're right and that's that. Which isn't very convincing to anyone with critical thinking abilities.

Do you know how trials and laws work? Do you know how any of this works? You're embarrassing yourself tremendously here. Good to see you and /u/JamesColePardon being on the same deflection tactic though.

The burden of proof is on you, the accuser. Not me. You prove that the law you quoted is relevant and broken.

Or, since you're the one using laws to justify your actions:

Are you a lawyer? Which bar did you pass?

Do you have a Ph.D and a J.D.?

The burden of proof is on you, the accuser. Not me. You prove that the law you quoted is relevant and broken

I noticed you didn't do that anywhere. You just made accusations and personal interpretations and quoted a law in the OP.

First, Section 241 is read in conjunction with Section 242. You can't just pull the statute out of the ether without context, especially not one as old these two. See e.g., US v. Price, 383 US 787 (1966). Despite its language, the statute is far more narrowly applied than you think.

Second, because of the conjunctive reading, the deprivation of rights has to occur under color of law. That hasn't happened in this case. The statute was enacted to enforce civil war amendments. It basically exists to prevent the southern states from enacting laws that permit self-help by former slave owners, or otherwise permit them to screw with the former slaves' rights.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, what constitutional right has CNN violated, even if all of the this is true and I'm wrong about the first two things? There is no constitutional right to free speech uninhibited by private parties.

My understanding is that 241 creates a conspiracy offense with respect to 242's substantive offense, such that you need to conspire to violate 242 in order to violate 241. At least that's how I'd charge it, but I've not seen many of these offenses charged.

And, regardless, my other point is dispositive: there was no constitutional right interfered with.

I've not made any indication that I feel there is any "offense in question." And the answer to this question is more speculative than the answer to your 241 issue because the reason this statute doesn't apply turns on a closer examination of the facts, few of which can be reliably determined in an internet slap-fight.

Blackmail is fraught with defenses and "exceptions," because it's so closely related to a defendant's First Amendment rights (and Lord knows how the enhanced protections the press get are implicated here). Consider the purpose of this statute: to prevent people from demanding money/things of value in exchange for keeping quiet about crimes. Did the redditor commit any crimes? Did the CNN employees say they wouldn't inform law enforcement about the crimes? Did the CNN employees ask for a legitimate thing of value in exchange? All of those questions should be answered in the affirmative.

If I recall, the CNN story actually indicated that they did not believe the redditor had an intent to incite violence or whatever wording they used; how then did they make a claim that they would report him to law enforcement for committing a crime? And, moreover, their only indication was that they would report him (publicly, it seems), if he actually did commit a crime (i.e. inciting violence).

From what I've seen, their threat was this: If you commit a crime, we will report you or publicly expose you, if you do not, we will not. For what I hope are obvious reasons, it's not illegal to threaten to publicly expose someone, or privately report someone, who commits a crime, regardless if they used a handle to do so. Otherwise, I'd be blackmailing you if I said "I'm going to find out who you are and publicly denounce you if you murder my cousin." It's just a nonsensical view of the law.

As a sidenote, there could of course be state-based civil slander/libel liability (also unlikely, if you've ever read the accusations some media publications put out, although more likely here because the person in question is a non-celebrity) if they're wrong and do accuse him publicly of a crime. Or, if CNN decided for some reason to sue the guy, there's penalties under anti-SLAPP provisions.

Can you since you are making the claim that they are possibly in violation and using it as a reason to ban submissions?

Originally it was Julian Assange. It seems like yourself and /u/AssuredlyAThrowAway copy/pasted and didn't even provide a legal argument with it.

This ain't a court.

Have you ever seen a trial? They don't consist of you opening a law book and pointing to a judge. You especially don't ask stupid shit like "do I have to spell it out for you?"

This ain't a trial. And it typically involves a statement if facts (which typically includes the statutes violated). This would certainly be included.

Yes, yes you do have to spell it out. Otherwise known as an explanation among normal people.

Who are you calling a normie?

Otherwise you are just saying you're right because you're right and that's that. Which isn't very convincing to anyone with critical thinking abilities.

I didn't say anything except that they appear to violate this NY law. And the critical thinking comment slayed me. Thanks.

Is Assange an authority on US law?

Maybe. He's had enough time to read up on it, eh?

Why would he be reading up on new york york state law?

Ask him?

I don't know.

So, you're assuming that he does, but when ask why he would do something, you don't know. So, you assume he's doing something, but have no reason to assume it. Sounds logical to me.

What does it matter?

You're the one who made the first post. Why did it matter to you? I was just curious why you thought the way I did. See, that's how discussions work. Someone says something, and then the other person asks something about the thing the other person just said. If you just want to make declarative statements, you could try myspace? There's no one left to argue with you :)

You're the one who made the first post. Why did it matter to you?

Seems like a law that was broken to me.

I was just curious why you thought the way I did. See, that's how discussions work. Someone says something, and then the other person asks something about the thing the other person just said. If you just want to make declarative statements, you could try myspace? There's no one left to argue with you :)

Dude I've been arguing with people all day. There will never be a shortage (at least today).

Are you a lawyer? No? Neither is Assange. I am not a lawyer is a thing for a reason.

Is this a court?

Do I need to be admitted to the bar before I can link to statutes?

You shouldn't listen to advice about what's criminal and what isn't from people who don't understand that law, no. Linking to a statue you only know about because of assange is you taking legal advice from a man who doesn't understand the code he's referring to. Yet, somehow, you axiomatically assume it's true because someone you like has posted it. And when CNN isn't charged, tried or convicted for the law you're sure they broke, you'll claim it's a cover up, or the global elite never pay for their crimes. Simply because one man who doesn't understand the criminal code told you that CNN broke it.

You shouldn't listen to advice about what's illegal and what isn't from people who don't understand that law, no.

Why do you think I don't understand it?

Linking to a statue you only know about because of assange is you taking legal advice from a man who doesn't understand the code he's referring to.

Define legal advice for me please.

Yet, somehow, you axiomatically assume it's true because someone you like has posted it.

I assume the statute is real becauae it goes to the NY legislative archive. If it was repealed recently I'll gladly retract my comment and change it to a GIF of the cat of your choosing.

And when CNN isn't charged, tried or convicted for the law you're sure they broke, you'll claim it's a cover up, or the global elite never pay for their crimes.

What?

Simply because one man who doesn't understand the criminal code told you that CNN broke it.

Why are you so mad?

Yeah, I'm gonna go talk with a brick wall. It might have something interesting to say.

Because mods are using it as justification of banning CNN from submissions.

Nobody is banning CNN submissions.

And what does this have to do with your line of questioning regarding Assange?

Um... This sticky is about how mods are banning CNN from submissions.

Mods are using the Assange tweet as claims that CNN violated the law with no reasoning behind it. Just Assange tweet, no legal or factual information.

Um... This sticky is about how mods are banning CNN from submissions.

I thought it just said to use archive and not directly link to them. Can you show me where it is different?

Mods are using the Assange tweet as claims that CNN violated the law with no reasoning behind it. Just Assange tweet, no legal or factual information.

Well, the tweet links to the law which is legal information.

Do you tire of being wrong ever or is it an all day thing?

Announcement: After discussion with the community and among the mods, we have decided to join with other subreddits and ban direct links to all CNN publications from being posted. Links to CNN publications via http://archive.is/ will continue to be allowed.

I put some bold on the part in the title of the thread.

After reviewing user input during that discussion, and coming to consensus as a mod team, we have decided to ban all direct links to any cnn websites going forward. Instead, please use http://archive.is/ if you are inclined to share a piece of information from that outlet.

And again from the body of the sticky.

The mod team is banning submissions.

Its like trying to explain how a ban is a ban even when you say its not to Trump/Trump supporters.

The mod team is banning submissions.

No. You're omitting the detail here about direct links. Like CNN links het posted here anyway.

Its like trying to explain how a ban is a ban even when you say its not to Trump/Trump supporters.

Again, you're referring to DJT's EO1 which uninformed would call a muslim ban when it was a travel ban.

Wrong on both counts with errors of omission regarding details. This may work in more groupthink hivemind subs but it doesn't work on me or this sub.

No. You're omitting the detail here about direct links. Like CNN links get posted here anyway.

Yes, you are banning CNN submissions just because you allow a loophole with archives doesn't change that fact.

Again, you're referring to DJT's EO1 which uninformed would call a muslim ban when it was a travel ban.

Second, Trump called it a ban and the lead defense of the EO was it wasnt a ban.

This may work in more groupthink hivemind subs but it doesn't work on me or this sub.

I figured mods would be above veiled shill comments.

Removed. Rule 2.

This will be your only warning.

Thank you for visiting r/conspiracy.

Have a splendid day.

Done removed the part you didnt like and left the rest. So back to the topic at hand then.

No. You're omitting the detail here about direct links. Like CNN links get posted here anyway.

Yes, you are banning CNN submissions just because you allow a loophole with archives doesn't change that fact.

Again, you're referring to DJT's EO1 which uninformed would call a muslim ban when it was a travel ban.

Second, Trump called it a ban and the lead defense of the EO was it wasnt a ban.

Done removed the part you didnt like and left the rest. So back to the topic at hand then.

Nothing to do with what I like and don't like. Mind the sidebar.

No. You're omitting the detail here about direct links. Like CNN links get posted here anyway.

Yes, you are banning CNN submissions just because you allow a loophole with archives doesn't change that fact.

Yes it does actually.

Again, you're referring to DJT's EO1 which uninformed would call a muslim ban when it was a travel ban.

Second, Trump called it a ban and the lead defense of the EO was it wasnt a ban.

Nobody questions that it was a ban. It was a mega ban. Who said it wasn't a ban?

Assange

Taking directions from the main Russian propagandist to Western youth

TIL laws are BS.

Can you just ban these fucking trolls yet or what? They're constantly breaking the rules, brigading, spamming CTR/Shareblue (retard) talking points.

They aren't contributing to this sub and NEVER do. Fuckin moderate already.

Removed. Rule 10.

Aww poor baby, the law hurts your feelings so it must not be real /s

If the law that he posted applied to the situation then maybe your poor retort would have been warranted.

TIL 18 U.S. Code Section 241 is about to be retroactively repealed.

What?

So where is the evidence that they actually threatened this dude?

The CNN article itself.

I read the article, they never said they threatened the dude.

If he didn't do what they say it posts any other content harmful to CNN they doxx him

Is that not a threat to you?

I read the article, and it doesn't really seem like a threat to me.

And that's your interpretation.

Others feel differently.

CNN is from Atlanta...? Not NYC...

Bravo /r/conspiracy. Every day this sub seem to be more rational than others.

If you actually get caught up in partisan politics you are a sheep. RIP r/conspiracy, congratulations shills of all stripes

Thanks for your deep insight into my politics. Stupidity’s not a crime, so feel free to go.

Thank you. This behavior is unacceptable. People shouldn't have to worry about a mega-corporation hunting down private info and threatening to release when they post to reddit. Disgusting.

Neonazi scum SHOULD have to worry about their friends, family, and employers finding out how they talk about other humans. Especially when it's inciting violence. If a muslim was on here talking about how he wanted to kill all white americans, and fox news found out, would you praise them for keeping his identity quiet?

Reddit and its subreddits have rules and terms of service. If those rules and terms of service aren't followed, then they should be punished accordingly. Doxxing is against those terms of service. A major corporation has no business being the judge, jury and executioner for Reddit, especially when the punishment itself is a violation of Reddit terms of service.

If someone is a threat to their community, they absolutely need to be investigated by the proper channels and authorities. They do NOT need to be coerced by some random third party.

i think a couple people in this thread are missing the point of journalism. What is CNN's business, if not outing racists for who they are?

This guy has admitted the things he said were shameful. Maybe the rest of you should look into that instead of why CNN cares that people are racist scum?

To report news? What do you want them to do, compile a list of racists and out them? That seems to be setting a dangerous precedent.

I think you're the one missing the point. Racism is intolerable, sure. Journalists should be able to report what they want, sure. However, CNN violated Reddit terms of service and should be punished accordingly. Why should they be above the rules that everyone else has to follow?

A case could even be made that CNN violated federal law. Once again, why should they not have to abide by the same rules?

I would be really interested if they compiled a list of racist scum our politicians were viewing and sharing the content of, wouldn't you?

Of course I would be. I read everything. You dodged my question. though. Should we hold CNN to the same standard as everyone else using Reddit, or not?

It sounds like CNN used Reddit to view a users post history. I'm not 100% where it falls in Reddit's user agreement, having just skimmed it, but it seems that to "participate" in Reddit, you have to post or vote, and I don't think CNN did either of those things. IMO subreddits have the right to ban any links they want, but they can't 'ban' a person for reading someone's public posting history and reacting outside of reddit. I tried to find rules surrounding what a user can do outside reddit using knowledge they gain about a person inside reddit, but there don't appear to be any.

Regardless, my distaste is for a subreddit to ban a news source in the /r/conspiracy forum based on defending the privacy of a racist, scummy persons' public posts. There is no guarantee of anonymity when using the internet, and you should be ready to own the things you say. I thought the video of Trump beating up 'cnn' was funny and no reason to doxx a person, but I think in general, the media has a right to report on shitty things people say on the internet.

So there's my answer, if you actually wanted to know. If you just wanted to start some sort of doxx argument, we'll have to end the chat here (:

The point is that it all becomes a slippery slope.

Racism is intolerable. Not just from whites, but also for blacks, browns, yellows, reds, whatever the hue may be. Plainly, it is intolerable and should not ever be tolerated.

However, free speech is an inalienable right.

We must preserve that. If you dislike racism, like I do, then you must use your inalienable right of free speech to counter the racist ideologues that our world is currently dealing with.

When the free speech turns into violence towards others, that is when the law must react to stop violence; but the law must never be allowed to stop anyone's right to speak.

Slippery slope.

Bad move mods,

You just opened the gates to full on censorship of the sub.

And using a false accusation of breaking the law to justify it... Fantastic.

How is this censorship? Content from CNN is allowed. Providing them with clicks/revenue isn't. We really should be using archive mirror for all posts.

Banning submissions is 100% censorship in this case. Its in retaliation for something that isnt happening the way most users think it is and the mods are using BS claims citing the US code to justify their actions.

No we shouldn't be using archive mirrors for ANYTHING but a back up. The article could change or be removed but if you only link the archive you would never know.

Have you even explained how CNN letting is readership know that its not releasing the name of the person of intrest in the story unless something happens in the future make it necessary to release said name violates the variuos US and NY codes that you and other mods have cited as reasons for banning submissions?

How is banning submissions not censorship?

Preventing posts with active links to CNN is not censorship. How the fuck can you not understand that?

If it's not censorship, is it unfettered free speech?

I am not free to post what I like (in a theoretical sense) from cnn.com, full stop.

Let's say I'm new to this sub and I post something about CNN and my submission gets blocked. I may get a notification about it but hey, maybe I don't bother to repost; my theoretical post was just censored.

You're arguing that because this censorship isn't 100% absolute, it's not censorship, which is absurd. Not only that, you're copping an attitude about it, bad form bro.

My auto correct on my phone could cause me to call you a name and my post gets removed. Full Stop! Rules are rules it isn't censorship

Censorship

"The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

At no point in any of the information, the "news" being censored. Traffic is just being directed away from CNNs domains.

As for your theoretical post:

"I may get a notification about it but hey, maybe I don't bother to repost;"

You were theoretically told why your theoretical post was removed, either in the theoretical notification, or on the sub's sidebar it will explain that archived links to the exact same information are completely allowed.

Your decision to engage in self-censorship by not reposting the archive is not fettered free speech. It's laziness.

They are not prohibited! Archive it you dolt! I thought you progressives love divestment and boycotting. Hypocrites.

Um...?

I'ma go with mispost...

At the end of the day, this ban doesn't facilitate discussion, it stifles it. You can't argue that this move makes content more accessible, in fact it does the opposite.

Guess we can agree to disagree.

That's good, because I completely disagree.

This thread contains the longest comment chain I have continually been part of, i.e. the longest discussion I've had on Reddit. So we're definitely encouraging conversation. Which will lead to discussion of the heinous threat posed by CNNs actions, and then to whether you want them to be rewarded by you for such behaviour...

You guys doxxed so many people, now suddenly you care? That's the REAL conspiracy.

Www.cnn.com

You're trying to argue that punishing CNN is the responsibility of this subreddit?

Are you really that dense to not understand that cnn isn't banned , just directly linking.

Banning from submission isnt a ban is what you are saying?

It's not banning posting cnn ,its banning directly linking not that i would expect you to understand that.

They are too brainwashed

You can literally post the same information, just from behind an Archive mirror. The information is not censored. The subreddit just chooses not to refer links to CNN and support ad revenue. The ad revenue generated from /r/conspiracy is trivial so, in all, this is more of a symbolic protest than anything practical. No practical effects will be felt other than having to take an extra step to post content from CNN.

Those aren't my words. You said ban! ;)

Probably computer illiterate.

Nothing is banned. Just archive a CNN link. It's really easy.

I am against archives being used as posts. The source could update the page or change something and if you only go off of the archive then you would never know. But having a back up with the original source is fine in the body of a post.

This a fair point.

I'm against censorship and I'll admit I am biased against CNN. Banning a direct link to their site isn't going to do much or any harm against them, it's more about taking a stand against their corporation, which I'm all for.

But yeah, having a backup would be great.

About the most logical post so far ..

You're delusional

Great rebuttal! You got me with that low effort comment!

High effort isn't needed to rebuttal such a dumb post.

The article could change or be removed but if you only link the archive you would never know.

Isn't this actually a good reason for linking an archive post over the original?

Why is it no one gave a shit when Gawker was banned ? But now that a MSM outlet threatens a private citizen that isn't cause for boycott ?

I can't even begin to understand how liberals process information and facts.

When did Gawker get banned? I have only been on the Sub for a few months now.

It was a couple years ago, it was going around on most of all the major subs. Google : Reddit Gawker Ban.

Haha, same exact shit too. My, my, how history repeats itself. For the record I would have been vocally against it too if I had been around at the time.

I admire your consistency, I'm glad we both can see the hypocrisy. =)

Hopefully that remains the case. But we must be wary of the fact that by banning CNN content we effectively protect them from our own scrutiny. This kind of thing may end up playing directly into the hands of the MSM.

Nobody is banning CNN. I'm sure CNN will get a lot of scrutiny regardless.

It's against Reddit rules to threaten users & to doxx users. CNN should already be banned. But will Reddit actually do it and ban CNN site-wide? Or at least on r/politics?

If an account is breaking Reddit rules you should report them.

Done, reported you for brigading and spam.

Are you stalking my posts now? I'm flattered but not interested.

As far as I know, those rules apply to the users and subs. CNN is not an user not a sub here on reddit.

reddit is designed and supported for personal use only. You may not use reddit to violate an individual's privacy

https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement/

Using identifying information that "HanA..holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

CNN literally admits on their site that they used Reddit to doxx him, violate his privacy, and threatened to expose him if he retracted his apology

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Reddit won't ban you for doxxing someone on your own website, or 4chan, or any place other than reddit. What the fuck are you even on about?

They used Reddit to find out personal identifying things and cross referenced that with Facebook, and thhey are still threatening to release that info if he detracts his apology it seems. Literally against the rules. CNN and its employees should be banned from creating accounts, using Reddit, and arguably content should be banned as well. Archived links or stories about CNN would be fine.

You may not use reddit to violate an individual's privacy

This means do not doxx on reddit. The things han posted were public, no privacy on reddit was violated.

You may not use reddit to violate an individual's privacy

That's what it said. CNN used Reddit. How else did they read what he posted on Reddit?

They(many of the mods at least) don't care, nor do they care about whether or not anyone buys the justification. They just want an excuse to engage in a certain level of censorship as a test of the people here. It has nothing to do with journalistic integrity or they'd have done this many times before.

Then again, it's their sub so by Reddit rules they're perfectly allowed to make it more difficult for people to post things that go against their political views.

Your political views can only be shared if you can link it back to CNN? That is sad and pathetic.

Your narrative is shit and you're not fooling anyone pretending that this sub has been pro-MSM in the past. It never was.

You're thinking of your pro-globalism pro-TPP-slavery echo chamber, r/politics.

Can't stay away from me, can you?

The mods be like "free speech only matters when I need it!"

I think you have the mods confused with CNN.

is cnn infringing on my ability to link articles from wherever I want? no?

No one is doing that here, either. You can archive and link CNN content all day long if you want

why can't I just link cnn articles like usual?

Because they broke the rules and threatened a user and his family with doxxing. Someone has to stand up for freedom of expression.

Because CNN is a propagandist site and anyone who links it is garbage.

So briehart and infowars isn't?

Look at what CNN did. Some buy posted a meme on reddit as a joke and was threatened by CNN. How the fuck can you be okay with that and why the fuck would you want to enable them any further by allowing traffic?

how the fuck could you be supported of ANYONE infringing on your free speech? So what if cnn doxx some little shit? So now we are going to limit ourselves based on what others do? gtfo.

Nobody is INFRINGING on my free speech. Every fucking sub has its own rules. If CNN doxx some little shit - that is censoring behavior and bullying. By accepting that behavior you are literally promoting it.

these fuckers are literally infringing on your speech. Also nice strawman there, because I hate limiting my speech, therefore, i support X? get bent, commie fuck.

If you post a meme about them, that's literally what' they'll do.

Maybe you should try paying attention to REALITY for a change instead of your MSM retard echo chamber.

Maybe you should try paying attention to REALITY for a change instead of your MSM retard echo chamber.

SFTU mr pot, you're black too.

You can't even comment on their site...

Just because they don't have a comment section doesn't mean I can't critize them or blast them on this sub. The mods are clearly testing out ways to limit our free speech. today,it's archive links, tomorrow it briehart and info wars only. Fuck state sponor news shit.

You can post image / archive link. Just no ad revenue for them

ahh that make more sense.

Content isn't banned, only the URL.

Don't be silly only sites critical or Great leader will be banned you know that

Your narrative is shit, stop pretending this place has ever been pro-CNN.

It was pro-freedom of speech at one point. Just a year ago this sub would have never banned a site because they disagree with it. Now it's a government worshipping pro-censorship cult.

Exactly, CNN had every right to go after this guy just as he went after them

The problem was the president retweeted it and it caught a lot of traction. Without that, it never would of happened. You guys are being way too flippant rolling out this rule.

Your sub.

I thought you progressives use the boycott tactic to great effect.

There is no censorship, you just have to archive it so that no ad revenue goes to them.

So you progressives do not like boycotts against your friends?

Well its not really a boycott if you are still using loopholes to content you "banned".

We have an official response from CNN.

Please, add to your post, OP.

To read their full response, click here

It's not like people come here for news anyways.

This was when I was done with them. I somehow never saw the bias and censorship until this moment. Hopefully the new scandal kicks off a bipartisan awakening.

Hit 'em where it hurts, their wallet. But then again, how many oligarchs wait in the wings to come prop up this treasonous propaganda network, and continue their hate programming indefinitely. To all my human beings out there (; )) these people are not journalists, they are presstitutes who should be ridiculed The MSM have programmed millions upon millions of people to believe fallacies that lead to constant distraction, diversion, and death. I humbly ask all of Reddit to rein in their blind hatred, whether it's hatred of Trump, Muslims, Christians, Liberals, Communists, Capitalists, TPTB, or whatever group you truly think is the antithesis of your being. Probably the only thing that I can agree with Hillary Clinton on is we are stronger together. Hatred and anger won't bring us together. Love, compassion and understanding will.

Are we making a rule about this? Or is this sticky just going to stay here forever?

It's either a rule or it isn't?

just trie to link something from CNN - than you know what this is about.

That's not an answer.

Either we are adding a rule to the list specifically about CNN or we are engaging in unwritten and un-offical rules being enforced of this sub.

Which one is it going to be is what I'm asking.

So you didn't try to link something from CNN.

I suppose they could issue a public apology and send it to the mods so we could reevaluate the ban.

Fuck this sub. I'm done with ya'll. Banning a media source for acting well within the law is absolutely astonishing, almost as astonishing as creating a false narrative that hanassholesolo was a goddamn child.

Hate doesn't help anything going forward. If he is ashamed of his post history, too fucking bad snowflake, you said it so own that shit. Cowards. If all you want to do is start a race war then this shouldn't be the fucking place for it. This was a place to discuss ideas that could be happening behind the scenes, not an echo chamber of useless bullshit. What happened?

This sub used to be full of actual sceptics. Now it's just full of trump supporters who think they have "one of them" in the White House. They couldn't be more deluded.

If you think you're a skeptic because you instantly believe anything CNN produces, you don't understand the concept of "skepticism".

And no, this sub was NEVER pro-CNN, stop posting lies.

You are using CNN as a straw man.

For the most part ive always ignored CNN. I dont think that they go out of their way to manipulate the way their veiwers think like FOX. They were always pretty clearly corporate. I could give a fuck if this sub is pro anything. Nothing should be censored.

I think you responded to the wrong comment, because he didn't say anything like that.

he aint one of us, if he were he'd have already filled us in. when they break into the eagles nest they looted everything. he didnt break in, he moved in. BS out

I hope this is a joke.

So you are a sceptic that supports the bad behaviors of corporate MSM?

I support calling them out when they occur. Not blanket assuming that they always are happening without checking. If someone posts a BS CNN link call it out in the comments. Dont censor. Under any circumstance.

If all you want to do is start a race war

What?

Dipshit spews anti-jew and anti-black rhetoric, more dipshits show up to defend said dipshit's racist views. Race trade somewhere else.

Nothing was anti-Jew; he was pointing out that the Jewish population in America was, I think like 5%, but at CNN it was 30%

As for using the N-word, it was on /r/imgoingtoshellforthis which, well, has much, much worse on there, lol.

Ahh, I see. I must have mistook what he meant in his post history.

Child please.

Child please.

Hey everyone, look, /u/NOE3ON is an agist! He has to resort to condescending age-speak in order to win an argument!

Fucking pathetic.

it's an expression, popularized by former NFL football player Chad 'Ochocinco' Johnson. My apologies to those that do not have this phrase in their lexicon.

You're a racist

Hey everyone! Look! /u/NOE3ON supports wife-hitting football player Chad Johnson! This man is clearly a misogynist woman hater!

PLZ JUDGE HIM ACCORDINGLY

Much better thnx

I meant to say wife head-butting

You did

Removed. Rule 10

So what was his point in posting that?

You're done? Where is your activity in this sub before this?

I delete my comments after a few days, just like I do on T_D in case I get shadowbanned by an overzealous mod.

Sure. Seems legit.

Uh huh. Go ahead and browse my comment history, some are still there. Besides, I wasn't aware that lurkers weren't allowed, even when we post sparingly.

How far back do i have to go because i saw nothing on the first page but stuff about this current topic

You were so lazy you didn't even look at his whole first page. I don't why I expected someone that wasn't completely lazy when their whole contribution to this thread is to lazily accuse anyone they disagree with of being a shill.

Lot's of concern here today from folks that have never been here before. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

A lot of people lurk. Like me.

Yeah I'm sure you and the rest of the pro-MSM people here are just "lurkers" that otherwise love r/conspiracy /s

Shill accusations are against the subreddit rules. Hilariously, you have dozens of comments in this thread, all oddly similar.

Exactly this. My thought is that CNN has hired a PR firm to astroturf reddit and contain this PR horror show. We've seen it before, shouldn't be shocked to see it again, considering how massive this is becoming.

Indeed. I woke up to thirty pms defending CNN today, not one did I recognize and none had history here.

I, u/NOE3ON, being of sound mind and broken body, hereby declare that I am not affiliated with any media or law enforcement agencies previously, presently nor in the future. No Bamboozle.

That's exactly what a robot would say...

01101001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100

00100010011011100111010101101101011000100110010101110010001000000110011001101001011101100110010100100000011010010111001100100000011000010110110001101001011101100110010100100010

Exactly what a robot would say...

Typical. A lurker makes a post because the silent many are finally speaking up against the loudest few, and you immediately call them a shill?

This is ridiculous. /r/conspiracy has become a right-wing sub because t_D users are obnoxiously active. We have a guy commenting on this thread that is just mass copying a post alleging a PR firm has been hired and that whichever OP is a shill, while this guy types a well-thought post that rings a lot of truth, and you think the latter is the shill?

Wtf. This is a conspiracy sub stunting a news source? Seriously? That's an unbelievable amount of hypocrisy.

It's a conspiracy sub taking action against a multi-billion dollar news agency conspiring to strong arm a citizen with the threat of doxxing he and his family because he made a post they didn't like. They aren't banned, their content can be posted through archive, we are just refusing to financially support these assholes because that is the power we have to fight corruption. It's a sub reddit boycott. If you disagree with it or are worried about CNNs financial stability, feel free to post thier links to other subs as frequently as possible to make up for the blow.

The list of boycotting subs, full of Donald users, looks a lot like its political.

news source - too funny lol.

Yea, seem totally like something a normal person would do. O-o

Most people just read and don't comment.

Kinda hypocritical to get mad at content providers then when he didn't help create it yet consumed much of it

People who don't comment can still upvote, and AFAIK, you can't see what other people upvote. And upvotes are more important for visibility than comments.

It is?

So then its hypocritical to criticize CNN, since you don't actually produce journalism yourself, right? Hello? Is this thing on?

lol CNN produces propaganda not journalism, and yes i infact do some "blogging" which seems like it's about to take over journalism.

That's not remotely like journalism. Blogging requires no use of sources, no confirmation of sources, no editor, no ombudsman, no company reputation. You can literally right whatever you want with no standards and no one telling you that you can't do that. Its like saying what I'm doing right now is journalism.

You don't have to be a journalist to criticize journalism, like you seemed to believe earlier, but you do need to understand how it works, which that comment makes clear you don't.

If you think CNN is hitting any of those prerequisites that you mentioned, then you are a fool. They are no different than us. The journalistic integrity once required to be a respected media outlet it seems was forgotten in J school by all these "reporters."

Me and you- we are the media now. The internet has changed things.

That's a lazy broad brush you are using there. Which reporting journalists at CNN aren't adhering to these standards? The have hundreds that report on lots of different topics with lots of different biases.

You've clearly looked into this enough to know. So how about it?

cuomo, tapper, Brazil, blitzer- all compromised in one or another be it scandal or familial relations to the DNC

Anderson worked for the CIA before mysteriously getting a job at CNN despite no journalistic experience

Many more reporters and employees were exposed by JOK- but the most damning revelation was not that their reporting is done solely for views or numbers, or that trump Russia connection was sensationalized BS that almost pushed us to ww3. No, the most damning part was when they admitted that they are told directly by the CEO what to report on- that's propaganda, period! The same CEO (Jeff Zucker) you will find on attendee lists for bilderberg, bohemian grove, etc.

CNN admitted no such thing. A producer that was butthurt that his reporting on completely non-political issues was whining about Russia. He isn't in a position to know whether the CEO directs the articles. And there is no collaborating evidence.

cuomo, tapper, Brazil, blitzer

Those guys don't really make much news. They are talking heads. The journalists that matter are the one's doing the reporting, especially the investigative team. Those are the ones that are making the news here. They are the ones going after Russia.

What about Carl Bernstein and James Steele? Did you know they were a part of CNN before reading this post? Those are the guys leading the team. Berstein broke open Watergate. He's a seasoned professional. But you just dismiss him as "part of CNN".

The truth is that their investigative team has broken news about the Trump administration and Russia that the administration initially denied, but later admitted. That's the kind of journalism the world needs. That's exactly the kind of journalism protected by the framers of the constitution. The press is protected precisely because they are a counterweight to the government.

And its not just CNN making the Russia connection. Its every other major media outlet in the US. They are all finding the same, consistent kinds of connections with this administration. The administration almost always immediately denies, but is exposed later. Its clearly not all made up. Its also overseas media, like the Netherlands finding different aspects of the Trump Russia relationship. If its all coordinated, why does it seem like its coming from a hundred different directions at once? The simple answer is obvious: Because. Its. True.

You seem to think that you blogging, where you just look around the internet for pieces to put together and talk about it. Or opine on some actual journalist's reporting. Or opine on someone's opinion of some actual journalist's reporting. You don't have any original sources. You don't use other original sources to verify those sources. You don't have an editor that says to you, "You can't publish that yet in our media because you don't have enough evidence. Keep digging." You don't have someone that you pay to be objective that comes in and criticizes you. In your world you can just sit down and write whatever you want and there is no one to tell you no and no repercussions. These organizations have all of that. You aren't remotely like a journalist.

If they have all of that, why don't they use it? They use ZERO discretion in their reporting other than 1) will it be read/ watched. 2) does it hurt our rep with any of our contacts/benefactors

Idk how anyone can support the media in the US. It is literally a joke, and a very evil one at that.

LalalalalalalaI'mnotlistening...

I know you aren't, it is painfully obvious. Thanks for a reasonable convo, asshole. I hope for your sake CNN doesn't ever to tell you to jump off a cliff or something, you might actually do it.

Just curious, what kind of checkmarks do I need to get and what gatekeepers do I need to blow to be considered a "journalist"?

Are only ppl with verifiable first hand sources journalists? Cuz that rules out 95% of MSM

If all journalists do is read trump tweets and get pissed, then I'm glad I am nothing like a journalists and I can't wait until they are jobless.

Also there are plenty of opputunities to be a part of the ever evolving meta-narrative on this reddit. If you never wanted to involve yourself until now- a time filled with disinfo from all sides- then you can't really complain that other ppl aren't posting what you want to read

Meanwhile, CNN claims to be the sole arbiter of objective truth; so much so that is mere peons can't even read the Wikileaks!

You ignored what I said.

If you aren't allowed to criticize communications you don't do yourself, then you can't criticize CNN, yet you do. Its almost like a bullshit reason you made up on the spot, eh?

It's almost like a false equivalency you are trying to use to trap me in a corner, eh?

If you don't like the subs narrative, you have the ability to change it

If you don't like CNN's, you don't have the ability and whether you consume it or not, it will play a roll in shaping public thought.

Do you see the difference yet? Criticizing a group that you have the ability to contribute in va criticizing a group who has been trying to monopolize information and has been caught spinning it...?

And when they comment, they just complain.

well then now isn't time to start bitching and saying "i'm done"

I have to disagree. When you feel like things have gone so far out of whack, there is no better time to speak up.

My thought is that CNN has hired a PR firm to astroturf reddit and contain this PR horror show. We've seen it before, shouldn't be shocked to see it again, considering how massive this is becoming.

Looking at the threads and vote patterns, there's no doubt in my mind they did that.

massive

You keep using that word.

Trying to hit that threshold, say it enough it becomes true you know. /s

Good riddance

The only time you post on this sub was anti trump shit that we can see on almost every sub on reddit.

I posted on Seth Rich, c'mon now. I may not like Trump as a politician and/or person but he's still the President. I think that the daily attacks on him has been supremely oversaturated here and around the internet.

Thanks for taking the time to prove I wasn't lying, appreciate it.

This guy was neonazi scum and CNN was right to warn him that if he continues acting like neonazi scum, his friends and family deserve to know. How many of you pussy neonazi scum internet "trolls" want your friends and family and employers to know how you really feel?

Why on earth is it CNN's business? They are fine with people in America posting pro-ISIS memes on the internet but they hunt down and threaten to dox people who make satirical anti-CNN memes?

I don't think CNN is "fine with" pro-ISIS memes either. I'd think their agenda benefits a bit more from outing the subset of Trump supporters who are neo-nazis. Personally, I want to know which of my friends/family/neighbors are at best, the kind of people who think it's funny to use racial slurs and make antisemetic "jokes" on the internet and at worst, scum who actually believe those sorts of things.

They targeted the guy because he made a satirical WWE meme. There is no excuse for this. The fact that you defend CNN's behavior is disturbing to say the least.

"WTF I love when multibillion dollar media institutions threaten to dox people who make memes!"

CNN hunted down the source of a meme the President of the country posted about them. If the president posted a meme about you, you'd probably want to know who made it. Then, CNN discovered the artist was a neonazi piece of shit. So it seems like an ok series of events to me. If they had released his personal information without talking to him or released his personal information at all, or if the meme wasn't about them, I might feel differently about it.

CNN hunted down the source of a meme the President of the country posted about them. If the president posted a meme about you, you'd probably want to know who made it.

lol

More appropriately even: If the president posted a meme about the company you own, hold stock in, or work for, you'd probably want to know who made it.

Not really. Satirical memes are satirical memes. It's just a joke. Laugh it off. CNN went full retard and are going to be facing the consequences in the coming months.

There is no reason to fear satire. CNN is trying to soft censor all dissent against their network by threatening to dox anyone who criticizes them too much, even randoms posting on message boards.

There is no defense for this. I am not going to reply to this chain anymore, but I'm extremely disturbed by anyone apologizing for/justifying CNN's doxing actions.

So many myths going around. Reddit's hivemind was completely wrong.

Reddit user was middle-aged, not 15 as the hivemind is claiming.

There was no blackmail. That man deleted his account before even talking to CNN.

CNN did not make any deal with him. The controversial line was a shitty attempt at highlighting that no arrangement was made. [1]

The meme-maker himself called CNN after Reddit got triggered, confirmed he wasn't threatened/blackmailed.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

After spending more time looking, you are absolutely on to something.

This is a new jerk reaction I mean, if you ask to ban CNN links who do you think is going to brigade to with a yes vote the most? I say fuck Hillary and Trump. But there was no common sense applied here. This place has gone blind or refuses to look. Conspiracy is about research and none was done before making this decision

Agreed.

Not to mention this is clearly an organized effort by trumpets to drum up outrage. I like how quickly these guys are to stand up for this racist, but yet the alt right and t_d routinely call for doxx of leftists all the time, and often carry it out (although on pol rather than on here)

agreed

Can someone link me to where this guy says he wasn't threatened? This is really the make or break part of the whole argument (unless of course he was forced to say that under threat too).

Hi, a bit late to the party but didn't want you left hanging.

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882429541981052928

The caveat is it's delivered by CNN, which are the source in question. However, HanASolo deleted his reddit account so doesn't have any other option to really communicate his thoughts. A new account could easily be considered fake, and other ways would require opening further possibilities to be exposed, which is something he fears. Like the end of your comment says, it's impossible to prove or disprove that he was or wasn't forced to say anything under threat.

On a side related note, there are circulations that the reserve comment that brought the outrage was actually put in by editors to preserve legal rights.

On the flip side, any legal action is really dependent if CNN is lying or not. If what Han says that he was not threatened and agrees with CNN's statement, there really isn't any legal recourse. Cheers mate.

Yeah how dare this sub be against the MSM, as it always has /s

Fuck this sub. I'm done with ya'll. Banning a media source for acting well within the law is absolutely astonishing, almost as astonishing as creating a false narrative that hanassholesolo was a goddamn child.

I see you are a supporter of blackmailing people if they have the wrong political opinions.

Name the lawyer who says this is blackmail. No, Lyin' Ted Cruz doesn't count.

"WTF I love deep state propaganda now!"

But you can still post stuff from CNN, is just has to be archived first, no?

Who said anything hateful? Why are you progressives obsessed with throwing that word around? Did your parents ever teach you that when you use powerful words like hate too much, that they lose their meaning?

What CNN did was unethical in the extreme. Even other progressives thought it was chilling. We are not trying to start a race war here, but to be allowed to talk about things without being shut down by progressives who have taken their views to extreme and almost quasi-religious extremes.

Who said anything hateful?

The guy this whole story is about was pretty hateful. Are you saying it wasn't?

This is one of those deflections where the obvious reaction is somehow the problem and not the original problem, which is obviously hateful. "You are racist for calling me racist when all I said was the niggers and kikes were subhuman!"

The guy probably did not have hatred in his heart. More likely he is just a thoughtless, cruel asshole. He is not realizing the power of words, and how it can be crushing. This is called ignorance and cruelty, but not hatred. Now hatred does come into play with racism, but usually it is people trying to be edgy, or are just laughing at the expense of other people's feelings, hopes, dreams, and desires. See, when you use a word like hate to describe everything that is really mean, the word loses it's meaning.

Glad this was the first comment

Thank you for deciding for me what I need to see! I would be lost if I had to make my own decisions.

Seams kind of strange that sites like Breitbart are still allowed...

When breitbart makes the decision to continually push a narrative without a single shred of evidence to back it up, that could cause hightened tensionses and possible war between two of the world's largest superpowers, tells people they can't look at wikileaks, and threatens to reveal the identity of a harmless meme maker for him to be crucified by the violent partisan sheep, then we can ban breitbart.

But it did that during the obama years and does it now!

No it didn't and no it doesn't, if you pointed to any substance that supported your claim, you may be right, but there are no facts that support what you said.

There's more evidence that trump colluded with Russia than that Hillary runs an international pedophile ring, but that doesn't stop this sub from continuing to believe that Pizzagate is a real thing.

That's not true if you took the time to look into both subjects.

Point = proven as there's no evidence Hillary runs an international pedophile ring.

No one said Hillary runs an international pedo ring. It's been common knowledge for a long time that the globalist elite cabal has practiced pedophilia. The Clinton foundation is a large player in the globalist elite and have a long history of corruption and nefarious practices. That's been known for a long time too. Now, we are getting a glimpse into how deeply interwoven and blatant the elite sanctioned pedophilia is. From comet ping pong to elsagate on YouTube.

There's so much evidence, and more continues to come out. You're not fooling anyone. The FBI wasn't even allowed access to the 'hacked' dnc servers. There is absolutely no direct evidence connecting Donald Trump to any nefarious ties to Russia or any other country. He wasn't even under investigation at all, according to James comey himself.

You're not fooling anyone, hombre.

Am I Mexican now? I thought I was Jewish? (Spoilers: I'm scandanavian )

Lol. I read this reply of yours as exactly how a child responds when he is proven wrong and refuses to acknowledge it. Deflect attention to something other than the point being made. Cringe city!

Ad hominin attacks means you've already lost the argument.

It's not even a ban, there stuff is still allowed, just only indirectly threw an archive site just to not give them the ad money. The mods should put some more sites that are from both sides of the spectrum just to be fair, there are probably a couple of bad sites that post right wing propaganda like breitbart that deserve a ban to.

Andrew breitbarts death itself is a very popular conspiracy so I don't think that anyone should mess with the publication. Anyone can choose to use archive.is for whatever they please.

Ok what about Russia today, they are clearly a source of propaganda and are owned by the Russian government, it was specifically created to spew out Russian properganda.

Then what's NPR and BBC? If you look at the quality of Russian news it's far better than CNN, NBC, fox and the like. They don't criticize Putin, but I can understand that when he's up against the globalist international cabal, I'd try to secure myself a safe space too. But he's not a danger to anyone in any real sense.

There is an obvious difference, the BBC was created to act as a news source and has no problem criticising its own government. RT was created to promote Russian foreign policy and spread Russian propaganda to non Russian nations. They don't criticize Putin because he is basically there boss and they want to make other leaders look bad while making Putin look like a good guy. While the BBC may not be impartial and do favor the establishment in the UK they are not anywhere close to as bad as RT, all I know about npr is it is notorious for being boring.

Fuck you SpongeBob, you're a Liar.

Thank you for deciding for me what I need to see! I would be lost if I had to make my own decisions.

Did you not see the part where you can still see the information via archive links?

Why not just let people post CNN links then?

It is so they don't get the money from the ad revenue that we bring it, so this change will be responsible for a huge amount of losses for them, they probably will lose a whole dollar every year because of this.

/r/conspiracy sounds like they heard CNN is looking for a Reddit story and they are trying to get some national coverage...

They are fishing for new subscribers.

It sounds like a forced boycott.

So a conspiracy page is boycotting a website for posting anti president news? How does this make sense. You would think this would be the best place to talk about conspiracies about the president, yet they just announced allegiance to covering up for the establishment.

CNN directly targeted an user of this site which promotes anonymity. Why should the mods not side with us?

Reddit is not an anonymous site but pseudonymous. There is no expectation of privacy on reddit if you don't go out of your way to maintain your privacy.

The best way is to abandon your reddit account every year or so and start a fresh one.

Reddit is not an anonymous site but pseudonymous.

Indeed, but having a massive media outlet patrolling it makes it even less so.

This sub is toast.

Yeah only CNN is allowed to do that!

LOL CNN Defense Force can't even get their own narrative straight. Pathetic.

People have been misled by the brigade it seems here. You can link all the articles to CNN you want, but you just use archive.is instead. You can still read all of the disinformation you want on CNN. In no way is this censorship in any form

Bravo Mods

I saw CNN report that water was wet.

FAKE NEWS GUYS dry yourselves off with a water towel.

tomorrow on CNN:

"BREAKING NEWS - r/conspiracy are all Anti-Semites, Fascists, Communists, Russian Hackers!"

There more then a fair share of those around here.

yet still doesn't represent r/conspiracy as a whole.

Have you seen all the anti-semetic posts flooding the front page?

No, where are they?

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6lev9m/heres_one_of_the_pictures_the_guy_cnn_doxxed/

For one. I know you don't think that's anti-semetic. But making a post about how many jews work for CNN is anti-semetic, because the only reason to make this post is to complain about the fact. And the only reason you'd complain about all the jews working at CNN is if you think that many jews working at CNN is bad, because jews are, for some reason, bad. This is anti-semetic.

There's actually 3 posts on the first 5 pages with that graphic, for some reason.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6lcfdh/has_israel_effectively_colonized_the_united_states/

(but russia interfering is okay, I guess)

It's a bad day to find posts, because the shit about cnn is flodding the sub.

The truth is the truth. Stop pulling out the anti-Semitic card.

CNN is known to push Fake News so I wouldn't doubt that type of headline. They will probably dox the admins and use bullying tactics to silence anyone who calls them FAKE NEWS.

CNN is known to push "Fake News"

I'm sure you can point me to some of their fake articles?

Haha yeah sure. Go to cnn website or watch them on TV.

So nothing, just trumps word against theirs.

Nah man. If you need evidence you clearly live in a bubble. But since you asked - "The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN." -Jeff Zucker Oh let's not forget Fake News was originally pushed by CNN not Trump.

Them buzzwords tho

You know it

Then some users better clean up their post history.

What's wrong with being a communist?

This isnt untrue.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/806660011904614408?lang=en

This ban is bullshit that will lead to censorship. No one needs to decide what I can look at for me. I can make up my mind myself.

It's not a ban, it's a removal of ad revenues as punishment for a crime against the people, they are getting off easy considering you'll still be able to link to their content and they still have a right to free speech even though they believe others do not have that right.

CNN is not a news network, and calling themselves a news network, or referring to their staff as journalists spits in the face of the free press and those who have risked and given their lives to expose truth.

Crime against a person*

That "against the people" rhetoric is pretty much a no-no

If they get away with doxxing a Reddit user, it doesn't just affect HanAssholeSolo. It has ramifications for every single one of us on this site. So yeah, against the people.

But they didn't doxx anybody. Why spread such bullshit?

They threatened to, and only refrained on the condition that he behave the way they want him to. Are you not familiar with the situation?

it's a removal of ad revenues

Bullshit. Most people use an ad-blocker anyways.

CNN articles are still allowed but they must be archive links. It’s just direct links to CNN are banned, and they should be site wide.

So go to the FNN website yourself. Why does anyone need to give you links for you to read?

Oh I don't know, sourcing statements maybe?

Use Google

The ban is glorious and CNN aren't journalists, so nothing of value lost.

And no, this place has NEVER been pro-CNN, stop lying.

"WTF I love deep state propaganda networks now!"

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it ok to censor it

CNN is not being censored. They are not victims or oppressed minorities. Get over yourself.

CNN is not being censored. If you want to post CNN links on this subreddit you still can, you just have to archive them first so they don't receive ad revenue.

Who does it bother you so much if CNN stops getting revenue from online ads?

It's very strange.

Never did I say I liked Cnn. I just dislike censorship. Even if you can still see it if it's archived, it's still an extra step to post an article that you wouldn't have to go through for other sites.

it's still an extra step to post an article that you wouldn't have to go through for other sites.

Good.

If you're reading their story then they deserve the money from you reading their story. Whether or not I like them I disagree with the principle of blacklisting their ad revenue.

They do it to someone commonly hated just to see if we'll allow it and before you know it half the sites that publish stories are on the revenue blacklist.

If you're reading their story then they deserve the money from you reading their story.

Nope.

CNN doesn't deserve shit. Your strong emotional connection to CNN's ad revenue stream and your drive to protect it is weird. Did you used to work at CNN or something?

Exactly so visit their page directly, no need to have it here. You know they aren't taking the domain down from the internet right? They just mod this one sub.

It's what they do. Go after their advertisers and put them out of business. CNN is literally pushing us closer to war with Russia for ratings. That's kind of a big deal.

What will CNN's actions lead to ?

Any chance we can get someone to make a chrome/firefox extension that will make submitting articles to archive.is easier? It would be nice to have it available from the right click menu, have it submit the link (without visiting), return the archived link, and either open the archive page or copy link to clipboard.

Shouldn't be that hard, right?

I use this. It works pretty well.

There's a button you can click on the front page of archive.is that will add a link to your browser's toolbar. You just click the link while on the page you want to archive and it's done. Easy as pie.

There's an extension made during GamerGate call GGBlocker on the chrome web store that automatically archives domains from a list.

I'm actually expecting reddit admins, maybe even Alexis, to release a statement on this CNN behavior.

I would... what world are you living in?

Trump had nothing to do with it outside of tweeting the GIF.

What people are outraged about has nearly nothing to do with the man that seems to live in your head rent-free.

Huh?

Why would they? Reddit is Conde Nast (which is owned by Advance Publications). CNN is Turner Broadcasting System. They're not related. The Reddit higher-ups aren't going to get involved in this. The msm is going to actively suppress it. If it keeps getting talked about, all you're going to hear about is "racism, racism" - nothing about the blackmail.

You're delusional.

I don't think so. Reddit has very strict rules against doxing and CNN unquestionably doxed this user, using reddit to do it.

Now, there isn't a single CNN account to terminate for this behavior. However, reddit could extend their no doxing policy to include organizations. Repeat offenders could be blacklisted from the site.

True, it may not happen in this case because the user in question wrote some really vile stuff but I think reddit's leadership is probably at least asking the question internally of "how do we deal with this is the doxing was based purely on a political viewpoint without all the vile toxic racism".

Reddit has strict rules against redditors doxxing. That has nothing to do with this. CNN didn't doxx the guy either.

Reddit is a public platform. The idea that you can say what you want without media reporting is bizarre. This was a national story due to the president tweeting it. As such every journalist had a right to look into the source of it. No redditor has no right for them to maintain their anonymity.

But this and other subs, like the Donald, decided it was blackmail or something, despite no lawyer backing this viewpoint and a message from the person you are supposedly sticking up for saying he wasn't blackmailed and was grateful to CNN.

This whole thing is just partisan bullshit. This sub is now a conservative mouthpiece and has no respect any more.

Thank you mod team <3

I don't think you understand the law. Revealing someone's name for free and public speech they made is not a crime, even under threat. You can't parse the statute and subjectively define the terms.

You don't need an oyez link to see how unreasonable your interpretation of the statute is. Go read Snyder v. Phelps. CNN is engaging in free speech and they have every right to report on that person's name. The First Amendment protects their speech as well as the redditor's from government intrusion, regardless of content. You can't cookie cut the statute to conform to your feelings.

Ignore him. It's Anderson coopers alt.

You don't need to reference a statute when you're talking about the First Amendment. The time, place and manner restriction has nothing to do with content of the speech itself. Sure, the government can, in limited circumstances, place restrictions on when and where one may speak, but it cannot punish someone for the content of their speech. The redditor spoke in a public forum willingly. CNN is fully within their First Amendment rights to publish his name whenever they'd like, since the gif is a story of national attention. The "threat" has nothing to do with material harm to the speaker, either monetary or physical.

I wonder if they've banned you by now for questioning them.

Not banned. They just stopped responding. Probably because they're wrong.

That's literally not applicable. Why is it that when Trump goes to war with a station the mods on this sub made an effort to do everything they can to support him.

seems an awful lot more like a subreddit reacting to CNN going to war against a typical shitposting redditor, to me

Meh, its both.

If they were worried about consequences of private citizens for opposing power, they'd hate Trump's tactics. But this sub has nothing to say about that. Trump has routinely exposed people to death threats with his public denouncements of them and no one that supports this CNN ban or whatever gives a flying fuck.

If he's a typical shitposter, then that says volumes about that kind of person.

So now you have AN ACTUAL LAWYER explaining why this wasn't illegal.

And you aren't changing the ban, because this it never was about whether or not this was against the law.

Shhh. We know how successful Reddit Detectives are. I'm sure Reddit Attorneys will do just as well. You get out of here with your logic and understanding.

It is the "threat" that is the crime. If CNN had the information and released it without a "threat" that would be free speech. Making such a threat though is the crime committed.

Threatening someone with speech about their speech which they openly put on the internet is a crime? The "threat" is that CNN will publish a story on them, identifying someone who spoke in an open forum. There is neither a monetary nor physical threat involved. It would be directly punishing a news outlet for the content of it's speech, which is impermissible under the First Amendment.

You don't understand what "threat" means in the context of that statute.

Yes I do.

Awesome. Thousands of lawyers know of this story. Find me one without an axe to grind that agrees with you.

CNN should have been finished when they tried to subvert our democracy by feeding debate questions to one of the candidates. It's utterly insane that not only did nothing happen to them as a result of that, the guy who did it still has a job there. Then they spent the next few months doing everything in their power to unseat a democratically elected president. And now this?? Threatening a teenager over a tweet? These disgusting weasels need to be driven into the fucking ground.

lol this is petty tbh.

And pathetic. This place is a waste of time.

Removed. Rule 10. Only warning.

Now that this subreddit has been shilled out for a year, and they can get the up votes to support their partisan campaign of censorship, the Conspiracy mods have chosen a "team" in the partisan war.

If what CNN did is really against Reddit rules, let the admins decide.

If what CNN did is against the law, let the law decide.

YOU HAVE INTERJECTED YOURSELVES TO TURN CONSPIRACY INTO A REPUBLICAN PARTISAN POSITION.

This will not end well. The vast majority of the population will oppose all conspiracies from now on -- and YOU -- THE CONSPIRACY MODS -- and people like you -- will be responsible.

You know what could happen if your boycott is successful? CNN will be devalued and it will be sold at a bargain price to Republican Oligarchs. You think that's better?

I would like to remind you that your buddy Donald Trump and his Establishment Republican friends ARE NOT AND WILL NOT EXPOSE 9-11. The Republican Party orchestrated it. And now, r/conspiracy becomes complicit in covering up 8-11. Well done. You've been psyoped.

At least be the slightest bit rational, moderators. You cannot seriously say that this is not about censorship. If you users from posting the site here, you ARE BOYCOTTING THE SITE. If your boycott is successful, the site will not be able to put out information in the future. THAT IS CENSORSHIP.

But yiou can have the information and gawk and laugh at CNN while denying it business doesn't change that one bit -- expect to show that you have malicious intent.

bambi had 8 years to speak up about 911

you've added nothing, mods are right here

you've added nothing,

So, you declare. I think that last point is ironclad and beyond debate. Probably they all are, but you won't even make the attempt. Maybe that's why you have to attempt to summarily dismiss the comment with a retort.

You're a 911 truth mod? That's too bad because there is one thing worse than not exposing 9-11 ...

And that is pretending that the very cabal that did 9-11 is now going to save us. No, these people are going to slaughter us in ever larger numbers.

Banning CNN and helping to direct people toward the worst elements of the Republican Oligarchy like James O'Keefe is entirely the wrong direction.

you seem unsware that dems and pubs are in on it together

cnn crossed a line and should be boycotted

Now that this subreddit has been shilled out for a year, and they can get the up votes to support their partisan campaign of censorship, the Conspiracy mods have chosen a "team" in the partisan war.

Next you'll claim CTR/Shareblue don't exist.

BTFO MSM defense force.

Removed. Rule 6.

But tracking down a 15 year old and black mailing him over a gif isn't?

So who else doxxed him and released the info he is 15?

A 4chan group searched his Reddit profile before it was deleted. Th same thing CNN did.

So that's ok for them to give out info on him but not CNN. Ok.

Thy gave out his age, that means nothing when you're online. The point of releasing that was to show that CCN was blackmailing a god damn teenager over a gif.

They gave out his age based on what? A comment on reddit that wasn't verified? That's what you are going to believe? Going to believe the person who also said they didn't mean any harm and isn't really like that when his post history for the last year was all sorts of crap like that? ok.

You obviously don't know much about what's happening. A thread on 4chan did the exact thing CNN did, use his post and comments to get enough info to find his Facebook.

The information that 4chan told us (age) was verified by his social media and pictures. Now maybe you can stop asking stupid questions and do something productive.

So 4chan doxxed him too. Awesome. Thanks for confirming my original question.

search for and publish identifying information about a particular individual on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

Unless you identify this kid by his age, no. Pull your head out of you ass already.

Any hate against a major news outlet is fucking all good by me!

Finally gone full retard

Cnn isn't censored, you just have to archive it first

Removed. Rule 10.

This is great news, thank you mods.

Goodbye /r/conspiracy, it was fun while it lasted.

Yeah, how dare this community actually take action against a conspired effort to control free expression!

By making a conspired effort to control free expression?

By upholding sitewide TOS.

LOL, this subreddit and site creamed itself over illegal theft of communications from the DNC, which put thousands and thousands and thousands of private communications and info into the public domain, but CNN doesn't doxx a guy and they're horrific. Wikileaks has released a billion times more private secure information than CNN did.

Except you'll still be able to post CNN links via Archive.is.

So your fake little talking point objection doesn't actually exist in reality.

Using archives suppresses ad revenue.

Ad revenue isn't speech or expression.

It is in America.

No

Very articulate of you.

Why be articulate when you can be concise.

Because unfortunately for us money is speech now. If you don't have the coin or the steel to enact your will you're subject to the whims of those who do. The "rights of the citizens" were systematically sidestepped for the past 4 decades.

Simply saying "no" is hardly worth the effort to type. But you can do that al you want. Not my problem.

This right here. It was declared that use of money is freedom of speech. Those with more money basically control the government.

And how is that censorship? It's not, that's how.

Thanks for proving my point.

This sub has zero obligation to pay CNN's bills.

Nobody said anything about censorship. They said blackmail. Read the fucking posts.

just your average /r/conspiracy poster, oh yeah people here defend multinational msm corporations' ability to make advertisement money all the time, nothing strange about this, no sir

Definitely not what I'm saying. Cutting into the funds of an organization is the most effective way to protest it.

I took your post completely the wrong way then. My bad for having the shield up, shills are everywhere

It's all good. This whole thread is nutty.

You mean like that one time when this subreddit doxxed people over pizzagate?

This sub? I thought that was r/pizzagate and they were shut down over it and the doxxers were perma-banned, no?

Yes, but also this place. The only reason /r/conspiracy wasn't shut down is because the mods actually listened to the admins and started to remove doxx comments.

how will i live without out you. i want to know. how will i ever. ever survive. how do i how do i. how do i live

How exactly does allowing only archive.is links to CNN, a MSM propaganda outlet, kill this sub?

Full retard mental gymnastics incoming, I'm sure.

You can still submitted fakenews CNN if you want ,just use archive.

We should try too do this with all legacy media articles anyway.

Fucking pile of shit. They asked what we think about a potential change, then remove you if you don't agree.

This sub is full of pansies. Y'all bitch and complain about anything that doesn't fit your narrow worldviews. No one gives a shit about your idealistic views, nobody gives a shit about your politics.

The mods have banned anyone that was a long term user who didn't fit their narrative, and now the sub is full of alts who like me.

TD ruined this place, don't believe it? Then you're part of it. This includes the mods.

Enjoy deleting this, mods. It won't help your curation. Only your egos.

Let's burn some books while we're at it.

The content is not banned. Giving them money via views and ad revenue is banned.

More like "let's pirate and share books made by people who are assholes and don't deserve money for the shit they pull"

CNN received more money from a 30 second broadcast spot than all of the "clicks" it has received directed from this subreddit in its entire history.

Proving that your pro-CNN whining doesn't actually make sense.

Whining? Check the mirror. And aren't all of these CNN threads just giving the network free advertising?

No such thing as bad press! Someone explain how a boycott by a group of Internet people who don't visit their site will have any effect on them?

I'm someone! I think I can field this...

Normally, when someone sees something on CNN that they want to show Reddit, they copy the link and post it in whatever sub they think it is appropriate for. Then redditors click on the link, bringing them to the CNN site and CNN gets credit for a visit to the site, which they show their advertisers, the advertisers see that there's a lot of visits and give them more money for the ad space as it gets seen lots and is more valuable.

Now, when a redditor sees something on CNN that they want to post on Reddit, they have to post the archive link, not the website link. the information gets out just like it normally would, but none of those people who clicked on the link to get the info actually visit CNNs site. Thus no extra visitors, no extra ad revenue, but still putting in all the work.

It's not like it will bankrupt them... but it won't help them at all either.

Also, while it is true that most publicity is good publicity, I'm not sure that "CNN will threaten your rights and safety, and that of your family if you use your free speech when they don't want you to" publicity is pretty bad.

And aren't all of these CNN threads just giving the network free advertising

You think anyone here believes that CNN loves the topic of this thread? Gawd, that's made me giggle too much this morning. Thanks for the laugh.

Not relevant.

Just because they get money from other sources doesn't mean we can't give them less.

U go girl

Nearly everybody uses ad-blockers so this argument is just bullshit.

Not many mobile users use ad-block, and they're starting to outnumber desktop users. So, this might be more relevant than ever.

It's a matter of time until the majority of mobile users use ad blockers as well. This whole ordeal is very hypocritical.

At least use facts when talking about a subject you clearly don't know anything about "Nearly everybody uses ad-blockers"

11% of the global internet population is blocking ads on the web.

Source

Hmm, seems like the US is falling behind

http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2015/09/adblocking-by-income-sourcepoint.jpg

and half of the younger users use it, the old one will die soon

http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2015/09/adblocking-by-demographic-sourcepoint-comscore-800x269.jpg

Thanks for proving my point that your hyperbolic statement of "Nearly everybody uses ad-blockers", wasn't based in reality. Stay classy.

I admit I may have overestimated the percentage.

Because everybody uses ad-block anyways. We're basically costing them money by visiting. Only pensioners surf without ad-block and they are not here.

Only overestimated, huh? 1% of US mobile internet users use ad-block. Gen Z uses mobile phones as their primary internet source. Your entire idelogy of who uses ad-block is warped because you live in a bubble cut off from reality. Source

It just said you cant post if its an archive..

Oh. So it's a meaningless boycott. Nevermind.

shill harder

Ok. It's a stupid meaningless boycott.

1 car does not make traffic. the more boards and posters who boycott n bring attention to it the better

Never go full /r/politics

I'm sure this ban has absolutely nothing to do with silencing sources that are critical of Donald Trump.

Vote Democrat. For everything.

Go back to r-politics.

Go back to r-The_Donald

How can I go back to somewhere I've never been? Can you go plug yourself back into your matrix? I think you've missed a critical update.

Lol. Scalded.

It is normally The_Donald users or Trump supporters that cant handle other opinions and lash out telling others to "go back where they came from"

Oh look, CNN defense force is here.

Right? Shills out in full force on this one, desperately trying to damage control.

You're delusional. User just asked a question, nothing more.

Really interesting how you are here defending CNN four days after posting this comment.

You even bolded the right parts! Thanks so much.

Please don't go editing your post history now. Your hypocrisy should be revealed to everyone, unless of course, you issue an apology to this sub, in which case we wont disclose it.

They identified the guy, he asked them not to publish his name, and they didn't. Lol that's not blackmailing.

Oh I think we both know that you're just bullshitting here. But in case you missed the part where they threaten to identify him if he posts such content in the future, take a look at the top couple posts. You can't miss it.

I think people are reading waaaaaaay too much into that comment. I just read that as boilerplate language thrown in when you decide not to do something you have a right to do, just to make clear that you're doing a favor not making a binding promise.

Absolutely nothing about it looked boilerplate, first of all. You appear ridiculously partisan by hand waving this away, but that's been your thing on Reddit for quite awhile now. I do hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel for you. I see people like this on both sides, so I don't want to single you or specifically. I just wish Reddit could go back to being civil genuine discourse between real people that are speaking for themselves.

Don't talk civil discourse when you're pumping out aggro bullshit such as https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6le48j/announcement_after_discussion_with_the_community/djtfzgg

Lol aggro bullshit huh? Nice to meet you doublethump, I take it you're here for the all Russia conspiracy talk?

The very most defensive posters in all of Reddit inhabit this sub rofl stay funny bro

I do hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel for you.

I fucking hate this kind of condescending remark. Makes me want to puke. So unnecessary.

You're right. I took a couple Jabs at him and it was condescending. Its not the first time I have had a run in with that user and he's part of the full timer crew that Astroturfed politics over the last year. I find his presence in conspiracy a little infuriating and I let it get the better of me and acted like a prick.

nervously backpedals

What are you backpedaling from?

Lol

Not a ban. Next time read what it says instead of what you want to hear.

He's only allowed to post approved talking points from the script David Brock supplied him.

Oh look a pro-MSM, pro-globalism, pro-corporate-slavery (TPP) poster with a comment brigaded to the top defending CNN and trying to make this about Trump.

Seems legit /s

Oh hey a week-old account parroting the administration's anti-CNN talking points.

Seems legit /s

4 months equals 1 week now??? lol

are you blind?

It's the Russians, isnt it?

Did I misread when I came to the conclusion that posting content that originated from CNN is completely fine as long as it is not hosted by the CNN domain when linked to? Hmmm..... Worried about ad revenue? May I ask why?

A certain source of a certain viewpoint has more hoops to jump through than any other source HMMMMM

MSNBC is still allowed.

You mean like EVERY other corporate MSM outlet? If you like to listen to deep state propaganda, you have plenty of options!

OMG 2 scoops of ice cream!!!!!!!

Finally!!! I've been posting against CNN for a while.

Wow! With a 44 day old account im surprized you said anything before you got trumps dick out of your mouth.

And if you checked the rest of my account, you would clearly understand that I have been lurking on this sub for a very long time and finally decided to make a new account so I could participate. You should also know that your accusatory and inflammatory language is kind of the reason why people are adamantly opposed to what CNN has been doing recently, i.e., making bold face claims with exceptional language in order to push an agenda that clearly isn't true. Well done. You've proven my point as well as everyone against CNN. I am not pro Trump. As far as I am currently concerned, I am not pro any politician. All of that being said, I highly doubt that I will get an intelligent and coherent response from you. And if I don't? Once again, kind of proves my point.

Removed Rule 10

1st Warning.

Ya slow bud. I unsubbed last night after reading this thread. Enjoy your new echo chamber.

The solidarity of reddit against despotic CNN is an inspiring and optimistic event, comrades. Happy independence day.

comrades

When posting as a fake American, try using "friends".

Fake American? lol I'm a proud Georgian and also a socialist. Make Athens Weird Again!

Ah, the deep south. That would explain some of the conflicting views about the world, haha. Hope you guys pull out of it :D

Bring Back Science Education in the Bible Belt

Clearly you've never been!

I have , lol. Lotta Bible billboards, trees, and when the Top Gear guys tried driving a rainbow pride car through the state they got attacked with rocks and death threats. It's Trump country through and through. Apparently one Socialist as well.

You've definitely never been to Athens or Atlanta--havens of blue. Top-Gear is television, which is not always accurate in their portrayals of the South. Bible billboards and trees are all over the states. Youre lucky if there are no billboards at all...

Your link about CNN's demand for apology doesnt like to this demand. Did you just make the demand up?

Because it fits the agenda.

Google it... Shits everywhere, CNN dun goofed

I've read the article. CNN didn't demand an apology. They list the man's apology as one reason why they aren't releasing his details. You guys are sure working hard to make this a big deal, lol

Sounds like the opposite of blackmail. They could've released his information and been justified in doing so. Instead, they chose not to.

This is black mail, “…CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.” is a clear threat to do what CNN wants or we will ruin your reputation. And Why does this have anything to do with left vs right? this is a "news" organisation threatening to ruin a guys life for making dank memes. This is a "news"organisation trying to shut down free speach when it doesn't fit their narrative.

This is a "news"organisation trying to shut down free speach when it doesn't fit their narrative.

Wut? The guy deleted and apologized before he was ever contacted by CNN.

Let's look at the response from Trumpland:

Others called for a very personal form of revenge against CNN, and Kaczynski specifically. A link to a pastebin page that appeared to contain the personal identifying information of Kaczynski, some of his family members and his colleagues circulated on 4chan Wednesday morning. And the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website called for even more. A popular post called for CNN employees to quit their jobs and denounce the network, or face consequences if they didn’t:

“We are going to track down your parents.
We are going to track down your siblings.
We are going to track down your spouses.
We are going to track down your children. Because hey, that’s what you guys get to do, right? We’re going to see how you like it when our reporters are hunting down your children.” 

This is also your last warning for spamming the same message repeatedly.

Do you mean the last part of their comment, because they have hardly been spamming that. It seems like they have been going around trying to correct misinformation on good faith and writing a new comment each time.

If r/politics can ban any links to right wing media then r/conspiracy can ban CNN

Ah yes, the classic "it's bad when they do it so let's also do it ourselves" strategy. Always works.

What right wing media is banned?

breitbart, infowars

I can't find anything about that on their sidebar. got a link?

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/filtereddomains#wiki_blogging_platforms

"Some sites are automatically filtered out of r/Politics because they contain essentially no original content and mostly rehost articles and are not the original source. Those sites include: anonews.co, archive.is, archive.today, atlasleft.org, alternet.org, bayoubuzz.com, boingboing.net, breitbart.com/video, crooksandliars.com, dailybail.com, dailypaul.com, democraticunderground.com, drudgereport.com, firebrandprogressives, Freethoughtproject, headlinepolitics.com, hotair.com, informationliberation.com, infowars.com, liberalamerica.org, littlegreenfootballs.com, mediaite.com, mediamatters.org, msn.com, muckraker.media, nation.foxnews.com, nbcpolitics.org, newsbusters.org, newshounds.us, newsroomdaily.com, patheos.com, policestatedaily.com, politicalblindspot.com, politicalwire.com, poorrichardsnews.com, popist.com, prisonplanet.com, rawstory, readersupportednews.org, realclearpolitics.com/video, rightwingnews.com, samuel-warde.com, scribd.com, slnm.us, the-daily.buzz, theamericanmirror.com, theblaze.com, thecontributor.com, thedailybeast.com/cheats, thegatewaypundit.com, townhall.com, tpnn.com, trkad.com, truthrevolt.org, upworthy.com, us4.campaign-archive1.com, usuncut.com, vimes.ml, weaselzippers.us, youngcons, zerohedge.com, newsbbc.net, dailyreport.xyz"

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I see right and left wing sites in there.

Yes point of list is to discourage secondary sources, so it has both left and right. It just so happens that the list includes a of low quality blogspam and actual fake news

Actual fake news... Aka CNN

No, unless you can prove that CNN has a history of systematic lying, like this, then it's nothing more than a slightly left biased news network. The handful of mistakes and retractions that you may be able to dig up, does not somehow magically make the 99.9% of the news they report a lie.

You are just repeating the message from the right-wing propaganda machine. Unless you can prove otherwise, all that does is make you a tool.

Right... Keep telling yourself that bud

No, unless you can prove that CNN has a history of systematic lying

LOL. Infowars is winning on truth. CNN is crying.

Allowed

CNN crying

Where is a left wing site?

liberalamerica.org, firebrandprogressives, muckraker.media, etc.

You aren't looking very hard.

Those are literally places that make up news why are you claiming them to be right wing media? Are you trying to make the right look bad?

The right in this country is already terrible lol.

Lmao those are literal propaganda sites that have no credibility

The difference is, this sub was SUPPOSED to be a forum for digging up truths that were obscured, buried, misunderstood or undiscovered.

Now this place is jus 'circle-jerk brand A' vs 'circle-jerk brand B'.

There's no critical thinking here. This sub represents the PROBLEM not the SOLUTION.

Dude, it's CNN (corporate media) LOL you act like a credible news source was banned

They are talking about every post that hits the front page. It's a giant circle jerk. Every comment in the top half is just the same saying shills are against this and saying thanks. But that's not discussion. And the votes get them to the top because of the circle jerk.

I don't see any discussion here on the merits. Any attempt at playing devil's advocate is answered with CTR accusations. Shameful. Even your reply is a non sequitor - you didn't engage in discussion. You went right back to the CNN bullshit from no where.

And here's the conspiracy: this whole story is a distraction from the start. Both sides are up in arms over a fucking gif.

When I subscribed here it was just random people ranting about aliens, tin foil hats, etc. It's not fun anymore.

If r/politics can ban any links to right wing media then r/conspiracy can ban CNN

Is r/conspiracy right wing?

Ever since about midway through 2016, yes.

It's supposed to be nonpartisan, I suppose. Conspiracy in general has been skeptical of government and non-establishment. This means that conspiracy theorists are generally a bit libertarian, and classically liberal.

Conspiracy in general has been skeptical of government

Currently, all I see is Trump dick sucking. Is he not part of the government? WHat is funny is that this sub is no longer a conspiracy sub it is just another political sub.

The election fucked everything up

But but he drained the swamp so he can’t be part of the establishment! He made campaign promises!!!

That logic is shitty at best.

There was a time when this sub feared the bipartisan powers that be...

r/politics is the equivalent of r/the_donald, not this sub. No perspectives should be banned. Yours may be next.

If r/politics can ban any links to right wing media

This is a lie. They do not ban any media for being left or right. They ban it for a history of being systemically dishonest. Never mind this sub is supposed to be a forum for free thinking and discussing issues.

It turns out this story the mods used to justify their ban is actual fake news. But the mods being clearly being Trump supporters fell for it because of their confirmation bias.

We shouldn't be looking to r/politics, arguably the most biased sub on this site that claims to be nonpartisan, for guidance here.

What links have they ban? I'm sure they allow any source that isn't a personal blog

So you agree that this is a political sub and opposed to /r/politi

This and the several comments following it look like a clear attempt to derail the discussion into a polical one. I'm not the type to "cry shill", but it's suspicious when none of the top comments have anything to do with the OBVIOUS fucking substance of the OP.

Please don't respond to these comments and down vote them as you fee appropriate.

To get back on topic, this is a fantastic step. I am disgusted by CNN's behavior and was educated about (and relieved) learning that their actions were probably criminal:

Wait, so we're banning CNN for choosing not to dox?

How many people or "news" sites have the mods banned for doxxing in regards to Pizzagate?

Do we have a list of banned sites?

Wait, so we're banning CNN for choosing not to dox?

Most retarded spin I've seen on this story yet.

Well, they have a First Amendment right to dox him. Did they not? The First Amendment works both ways. Anybody could have figured it out. What if it was some random 4chan anon? Would we have banned 4chan?

"News" sites and users have doxxed people with regards to pizzagate. 4chan constantly doxes and threatends tPosts have been removed, but sites/users weren't being banned.

Apparently, pizzagaters can get away with doxxing without getting banned. But CNN can't get away with not doxxing without getting banned.

So, are the mods for doxxing now? I'm just trying to get a straight answer here.

Remember how upset this sub was when the Pizzagate subreddit was banned for doxxing? good times.

So, are the mods for doxxing now? I'm just trying to get a straight answer here.

Good luck with that. Odds are you'll just be made fun off or brushed off.

My question about whether or not this is an actual rule being added to the rule list about CNN itself or we're now engaging in unofficial rules being enforced by mods has still gone unanswered.

If we can't get direct answers on something that small, I wouldn't hold my breath on anything else if I were you.

So, are the mods for doxxing now? I'm just trying to get a straight answer here.

No, they're against doxxing, which is why CNN is getting banned. I know it's complicated for someone who is so brainwashed to understand, but TRY to keep up.

Sorry the conversation doesn't strictly stick to your list of talking points.