Reddit bans Qanon threads!

a reply to: vinifalou

I see you edited your post so you can pretend you didn't say that. Neat.

a reply to: Wookiep

Ok. So now you are throwing ad hominems (and violating the T&C's yourself) because you are too scared to check if I'm telling the truth or not.

I could use the mod tags to make the box, but I want it clear that I am speaking for myself and not for the site’s policy in any way, shape or form.

Think from another perspective about this. If you posted X did something based on your supposition and then X is hurt or killed based on what you wrote going off half cocked, how would you feel knowing your words could have made someone, that honestly might have been innocent, killed? Or from an owner’s perspective, that you allowed that post to remain hosted on your site that named and shamed a private person which in turn caused their death because some nutter used flimsy shreads of connection to justify taking them out. That someone innocent died because you did nothing to protect to protect them. How would you feel about that?

But Ahab, that doesn’t happen is that lament I hear often. Yes, yes it does. The guy that fired an AR 15 in the Comet Pizza place in order to rescue the children that were kept in the tunnels...there are no tunnels under there. The guy was acting on internet BS in order to save the children. There is little doubt that man could have became more violent and started killing in order to save the children that were not there.

ATS has allowed the Q Saga. The staff act upon violations to T&C. Splinter threads are redirected to the main thread for easy research purposes. Which is also part of the T&C (obeying staff instructions/right of community management). When a topic consistently runs so afoul of the T&C’s, it becomes “banned” (see TV Fakery or Personal Use topics).

Call it censorship all you like, because it is just maintaining community standards as established in the T&C. Anyone with half a brain and reading comprehension can clearly see that and see that the cries of censorship are wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Threadkiller extraordinaire lecturing people about T&C's.

a reply to: NthOther

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with the Q cult exactly? Are you just here to troll me?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Relax, take a joke. The problem I'm seeing here is an entire sect of people becoming completely unhinged like you've been doing here. I don't care about that website. My point is words like Nazi and racist have no more meaning because of un glued individuals.

The OP is about the Q topic being banned on major platforms. Why? Because people whom aren't interested in it are so butthurt and unhinged by it. That's not cool imo.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Topato

no...we are sick of the Q bullshlt.

No, you're not. Everyday you go to the Q thread to spew your cognitive dissonance garbage.

Who's putting a gun in your head and ordering you to read anything about Q?

You probably should call someone.

Maybe a psychiatry.

Both extremes in that argument want censorship.

All Q related threads are closed and sent to the main Q thread. Most of the time if people go there and question the validity of an unknown unvetted 4chaner, some people flip out and claims the person is a paid shill. Then people on the flip side of the coin just want all Q conversation to be banned.

I'm in neither of the camps that think that speech should be blocked, but I do understand private companies not wanting people to use their platforms for it.

I think that it's just a matter of time before some lunatic takes the larping too seriously and does something crazy.

That is the problem. This "Q" stuff is related to the same topic(s) that led to the guy going in to the pizza parlor with a firearm in order to save all the kiddees from the evil democrat pedos.

There are many potential legal liabilities that could come out of all this and I can see why some forums/websites would not want that sort of content on their servers.

The Q cult IS the pizzagate cult. It is the evolution of idiocy:
Don’t let the r/The_Donald and r/conspiracy distance themselves from QAnon and Qult. They are complicit in the explosion of hysteria and stupidity. They believe pretty much the exact same conspiracies and everything they read on 4chan.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh, NOW you want to keep the thread on track.

Jesus.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Relax, take a joke.

Typical. Person insults? "I'm JUST JOKING! Take a joke man!" never mind the #ty attitude you've been displaying to me all thread. Own your bs man.

The problem I'm seeing here is an entire sect of people becoming completely unhinged like you've been doing here. I don't care about that website. My point is words like Nazi and racist have no more meaning because of un glued individuals.

The Q cult IS an entire subset of people coming unhinged. Stop hijacking the thread to whine about the standard sjw whine points. Real racism DOES exist in the world.

The OP is about the Q topic being banned on major platforms. Why? Because whom aren't interested in it are so butthurt and unhinged by it. That's not cool imo.

Well that and the members actively target people to dox and threaten.

Let me repeat that: they shared his personal details – when they knew he was getting death threats from their own users.

u/itss8n : Leave me alone. - REMOVED BY THEIR MODS.

u/itss8n : “I got harassed all day yesterday being accused of being a #ing child sex trafficker... do you have any idea what that’s #ing like, to be accused of something so vile because of a 3 year old tweet about a #ing PIZZA. Do you realise how insane that sounds.” - REMOVED BY THEIR MODS.

incite : to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on

Examples of incite in a Sentence

The news incited widespread fear and paranoia.

the rock band's failure to show up incited a riot, as the crowd had waited for hours

You don't have to explicitly direct people to action, in order to "incite" them. Implying that someone is being a satanic pedophile who murders children and part of an unholy opposition is a direct incitement to violence.

Did the "Q" Post incite users into send death threats. Demonstrably, yes it did.

Did those subs promote a message proven to incite their users into making violent threats. Demonstrably, yes it did.

Did those subs refuse to remove the offending threads after being informed that the user was received death threats, yes they are still promoting these threads.

This message stickied and promoted by the QAnon subs provably directly led to death threats and harassment. And yet none of these subs removed the offending posts.

We have contacted the mods of these subreddits, but with the indisputable proof, but prior to their banning, all of these posts were still publicly available. The only response we received was from the Mods of The_GreatAwakening who told me that caring about death threats made me “of no value to society”. And the mods of GreatAwakening muted me.

Source

a reply to: Wookiep

The OP is about the Q topic being banned on major platforms. Why? Because people whom aren't interested in it are so butthurt and unhinged by it. That's not cool imo.

I think you're going to an extreme just like some of your opponents.

I don't agree with the whole Q narrative, but I'm not oppose to people humoring it, believing it, and discussing it. That said, my personal belief is that it is dangerous seeing as no one knows who Q is, it could be some neckbeard in a basement, it could be a foreign actor, who knows. All that said, freedom means people can go down that road should they choose.

The flip side of freedom is that any site owner can choose to allow their platform to host such discussions, or they can decide they don't want their brand to be affiliated with it.

The extremes delude the conversation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you think I REALLY think you are a racist Nazi? It was a joke showing how ridiculous it is to throw around.

You're gonna pop a blood vessel if u don't chill out. Have a good day!

a reply to: Wookiep
Stop defending your insult and just drop it. I'm talking to you about the thread topic. I really don't care what you believe about me. I've already reported the post in question and am letting the mods handle it. So I've moved on.

Do you have anything to say about the actual stuff related to the thread I've posted?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Brian4real

When you own your own company, you get to pick what services/products/image you provide.

Freedom of speech and expression work multiple different ways, it's not just for us, but also business owners who decide what image they want for their companies.

This thread is going to be closed and moved, because of the choices of ATS decision makers.

Your freedom of speech/expression doesn't mean you get to dictate who others use theirs.

no offense but this is the dumbest argument ever. These sites are common carriers now. They do not have the right to shut down anything they like. They are practically a public utility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope I don't. You're way too unhinged to have a discussion with. Good luck!

originally posted by: gernblan
They do not have the right to shut down anything they like.

Says who? Certainly not any laws. That's for sure.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So "legal" = "right"?

Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

originally posted by: gernblan

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Brian4real

When you own your own company, you get to pick what services/products/image you provide.

Freedom of speech and expression work multiple different ways, it's not just for us, but also business owners who decide what image they want for their companies.

This thread is going to be closed and moved, because of the choices of ATS decision makers.

Your freedom of speech/expression doesn't mean you get to dictate who others use theirs.

no offense but this is the dumbest argument ever. These sites are common carriers now. They do not have the right to shut down anything they like. They are practically a public utility.

No offense taken, you're entitled to your opinion, but it is just that, an opinion.

They aren't a public utility they are a private company. If they do not want to host something they they percieve could damage their brand name, that is their choice.

Luckily we live in a free market, if you think that creating a new platform could bring you traffic and profit, you are free to take that risk and enter the exciting world of entrepreneurialism. Should you do that, my guess would be you would have a newfound opinion on who or what gets to dictate your brand represent, or cater to.

a reply to: Wookiep

Relax, take a joke. The problem I'm seeing here is an entire sect of people becoming completely unhinged like you've been doing here. I don't care about that website. My point is words like Nazi and racist have no more meaning because of un glued individuals.

You think his conduct is unhinged?

What?

That's pretty dramatic. Sort of like someone that thinks the world is going to end because they broke a fingernail.

The OP is about the Q topic being banned on major platforms. Why? Because people whom aren't interested in it are so butthurt and unhinged by it. That's not cool imo.

No. Because they are a potential legal liability and the topic itself can be absolutely disgusting.

That is why they are moving to sites that already host extreme, vile discussion.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So "legal" = "right"?

Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

Where is it outlined that a company doesn't have the right to ban people or content from its own platforms?

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So "legal" = "right"?

Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

Are you a proponent of freedom of speech/expression? If so than you certainly understand a company wanting to choose what their platform hosts so that they can protect their brand.