Rule 3-
0 2018-01-26 by RecoveringGrace
3 - No blog spam/malicious web sites.
Any users caught deliberately advertising their own content without participating in the community in any other form are subject to a ban.
In light of the trouble r/politics has seen recently, should we consider updated the rules to protect this sub from s similar fate?
40 comments
1 mygangwillgetyou 2018-01-26
All archived posts!
1 KnightOfLongKnives 2018-01-26
Yeah, there are definitely a few accounts that seem to spam certain domains eg zerohedge/truepundit/gatewaypundit/activistpost and so on.
The danger I feel is in identifying users as related to the domain they spam, how can you be sure it's an employee of zerohedge or whatever?
Could also lead to false flags eg people spamming msnbc links to purposefully get the domain banned.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
That is an issue- proving someone's affiliation to any particular source is obviously difficult. On the other hand, we do have proof of Shareblue using shills through the r/pol fiasco.
My real point is that, without a rule in place, what is to stop them from doing the same here? Can we call them "malicious"?
1 KnightOfLongKnives 2018-01-26
To be fair we have the politics mods word that that's the case. We don't know the details. That could be a false flag.
I've never seen a shareblue post here rise above 0 points so we should be safe.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
I'm sure that if there is real Shareblue evidence, the mods could verify privately.
Regardless, my point is that we don't have a rule in place to enforce if this happens here.
1 KnightOfLongKnives 2018-01-26
Doesn't this cover it? Perhaps a clarification of the rule is needed.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Not really. That is to prevent non-community members from spamming the place with their personal blogs/channels/sites. It doesn't address someone that is an active community member pushing a source they are employed by aka paid shills.
1 kittypryde123 2018-01-26
There with possible evidence of this recently. It was removed and reinstated multiple times, as I recall.
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7qoxky/outing_bad_actors_in_rconspiracy_is_trending/
1 Ninjakick666 2018-01-26
From what I can tell we only get little rinky dink people pushing their own content... YouTubers and the like. If there are big companies pushing their stories here I doubt we'd be able to root them all out.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Where do you think the banned r/pol folks are going to go? I doubt they are on the unemployment line.
1 Ninjakick666 2018-01-26
Not here I don't think... they are certainly not gonna get the response they want out of this crowd... as soon as someone posts SB links I'm sure people swarm their profile looking for a connection.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Shareblue works with lots of outlets.
1 snelorcamc 2018-01-26
Really? Facepalm. I give up on this place.
1 kit8642 2018-01-26
Ban the users, sure why not, but not the source. Also, everyone knew r/politics were promoting share blue in some capacity. Their decision yesterday was surprising and kind of funny... like they didn't know share blue was heavily promoted on their sub from day one, I feel like there was even an announcement.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
I think banning direct links to sources that pay to shill makes more sense than playing wack-a-mole with users and alts. If the sources don't have click data and revenue streams, it takes a lot the motivation to pay shills away.
1 kit8642 2018-01-26
First of all, I doubt there are any large corporate groups paying users to push their content on this sub, maybe, but I doubt it. Second, how are we going to prove it anyways, just because a user tends to post from a specific source we should ban the source? You are going to end up with situations like r/news who banned RT for this exact reason with little to no evidence. Also, trolls could frame up that source by creating sockpuppets and acting like a overt shill. The last point is, r/politics knowingly allowed that to happen in my opinion and my guess is there was a falling out between the mods and shareblue which resulted in this 'new discovery'. It's a heavy handed way of dealing with a situation I don't think is happening.
1 AutoModerator 2018-01-26
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.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Wait- you don't think Shareblue was shilling?
1 kit8642 2018-01-26
This isn't about shilling, it's about banning sources for paying users to promote their content. And yes, I think there are groups on both sides paid to push their agenda, but I don't think I have ever seen shareblue on the front of conspiracy.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
That literally is shilling, lol.
1 kit8642 2018-01-26
Sure, it's one form yes, but you seem disingenuous about what we're talking about. You're proposing banning sources based off of shills pushing the content on this sub, which I don't believe happens on this sub and if it does, their pretty shitty at it.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
These shills were literal employees of Shareblue.
1 kit8642 2018-01-26
Sure, I agree, but this post and the conversation I'm desperately trying to have with you is about banning specific sources that shills are trying to push on this sub, which I don't think is happening and if they are, they're doing a shit job of it. I actually think they were also buy votes in order to push their content on the front page of r/politics to get more attention. But none of which has to do with this sub's content and sources, yet you seem to think it's happening here and we need to start censoring specific sources. Can you give me a source you see being pushed onto the front page of r/conspiracy? Or maybe some users you think that are paid to push specific sources in this sub? AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SHILL/TROLL HERE TO PUSH AN AGENDA, BUT ARE HERE TO PUSH CONTENT FOR A SPECIFIC SOURCE.
1 MissType 2018-01-26
Yes. To start with we should ban ShareBlue in light of yesterday’s findings. Not that it’s likely to get any traction here.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
I would even be happy with just banning direct links and only allow archive the way we do with CNN.
1 redditeditard 2018-01-26
Should posts that stir up controversy with brigade subs should illicit a ban, too?
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Um, why? That isn't even close to the issue I'm talking about.
Do you have an example?
Regardless, do you have input that isn't rhetorical?
1 redditeditard 2018-01-26
https://www.reddit.com/user/RecoveringGrace/submitted?sort=new
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Ok. Can you tell me how that relates to the issue of a paid propaganda machine that actively works to push an agenda while also running alt accounts in a duplicitous manner?
1 redditeditard 2018-01-26
Can you tell me why you insinuate it's shareblue, when you're actively baiting brigades to come here?
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Sorry? What??
1 redditeditard 2018-01-26
Your timing and activities in this sub are just as questionable as a paid dissenter.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Maybe you could explain what you mean by that.
1 redditeditard 2018-01-26
You're evading the first question I made.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Oh, this question?
The answer is no.
1 WooTs_67 2018-01-26
Dont give any article any clicks. Archive everything
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
That I can get behind and do anyway now that it has become a habit to use the bot.
But, do you feel like we need our Rule 3 to be reworded to include the type of shilling that happened in r/pol?
1 WooTs_67 2018-01-26
Yea I think that would be a good idea. Would be very hard to enforce as you would need proof.
I would like to see direct links to articles banned. That is all the media wants from people. Clicks. Force archive links. Also add contest mode.
Do those two things, this sub would not be worth the hassle for them shills
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
I'm all for cutting off direct links, but I hate the idea of silencing folks that can't archive for whatever their reasoning is. I know that archiving is hit or miss for me depending on whether I can get a decent connection sometimes. Others just don't know how. Dunno.
Anyway, someone in the thread about r/pol mentioned that they thought we needed a rule similar to r/pol's and I really agree.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-01-26
Here is the user that I should credit, btw. They mentioned that we need a rule to prevent corporate shilling and I fully back that: u/omenofdread
1 kit8642 2018-01-26
Sure, I agree, but this post and the conversation I'm desperately trying to have with you is about banning specific sources that shills are trying to push on this sub, which I don't think is happening and if they are, they're doing a shit job of it. I actually think they were also buy votes in order to push their content on the front page of r/politics to get more attention. But none of which has to do with this sub's content and sources, yet you seem to think it's happening here and we need to start censoring specific sources. Can you give me a source you see being pushed onto the front page of r/conspiracy? Or maybe some users you think that are paid to push specific sources in this sub? AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SHILL/TROLL HERE TO PUSH AN AGENDA, BUT ARE HERE TO PUSH CONTENT FOR A SPECIFIC SOURCE.