It's apparent this is not the content you want to see on this subreddit. I feel like it's of definite interest to a great majority of the community, and I also feel like it's being well received. It's odd to me that you'd be here to see content on Reddit censoring but have no interest in this event.

Oh I wouldn't for one second try and insinuate that GoDaddy did something outside their rights. No one is saying that. But you're in an entire subreddit devoted to spreading the anti-censorship sentiment and ensuring the world sees how the big players are using censorship to shape what people see. That's what GoDaddy is doing here. I'd rather make my own decision as to what I want to see and what I don't want to see. That doesn't make me a "hateful retard."

It's a community against censorship. An entire website being scrubbed from the internet is certainly something that I felt like this community would be interested in.

Good bot.

It's scary when these huge tech companies are being frightened by something so seemingly benign as free speech. Everyone on Reddit rises up about net neutrality and how if we don't push for it then companies will use their power to control who gets to have what content in Fast lanes. But when Gab.com gets censored and *every* "news" story for some reason calls it a "far-right social network" these same people trip over themselves to applaud the move first. It's ok to censor free speech when it's speech you disagree with. I wish there were a similar site where you could say whatever you want and it was mostly the left on there saying their piece. But free speech spaces don't attract the left, because they can say their piece right out in the open on almost alllll the popular subs and they get applauded and upvoted. Who needs a free speech site when you can speak your opinion anywhere already?

In case the site is simply 404'd by the time you reach it, here is the statement that you get when navigating to their page: >Gab has spent the past 48 hours proudly working with the DOJ and FBI to bring justice to an alleged terrorist. Because of the data we provided, they now have plenty of evidence for their case. In the midst of this Gab has been no-platformed by essential internet infrastructure providers at every level. We are the most censored, smeared, and no-platformed startup in history, which means we are a threat to the media and to the Silicon Valley Oligarchy.  >Gab isn’t going anywhere.  >It doesn’t matter what you write. It doesn’t matter what the sophist talking heads say on TV. It doesn’t matter what verified nobodies say on Twitter. We have plenty of options, resources, and support. We will exercise every possible avenue to keep Gab online and defend free speech and individual liberty for all people.  >You have all just made Gab a nationally recognized brand as the home of free speech online at a time when Silicon Valley is stifling political speech they disagree with to interfere in a US election.  >The internet is not reality. TV is not reality. 80% of normal everyday people agree with Gab and support free expression and liberty. The online outrage mob and mainstream media spin machine are the minority opinion. People are waking up, so please keep pointing the finger at a social network instead of pointing the finger at the alleged shooter who holds sole responsibility for his actions.  >No-platform us all you want. Ban us all you want. Smear us all you want.  >You can’t stop an idea.  >As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online. Thank you and remember to speak freely.  >Andrew Torba, CEO Gab.com

/r/EvenWithContext

Reddit rules state: >Content is prohibited if it is personal and confidential information They even go on to say: >Public figures can be an exception to this rule, such as posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company. https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/posting-someones-private-or-personal

Contacting a public servant isn't doxxing. So this isn't doxxing of any kind. Thus it's perfectly ok. In the cause of coming out strongly anti-pedophilia, I'd expect the mods to fight to be firm on that point.

He's a public servant who is meant to be contacted by the public for them to show their disagreement. It's part of his position. Yes, comments calling for the judge to be killed are most definitely against all manner of rules, but that's a small fraction of what was deleted.

They're obstructing the spreading of information on a known pedophile not getting labeled as such. That's censorship and suppression of something that everyone in the world should know about and be outraged over. That's support of pedophilia. It's an action that will help a pedophile to continue to be a pedophile by ensuring more people don't hear about it. It's support of pedophilia.

Yep. That's the problem. People *want* people to be bigots, so they just call everyone that who doesn't 100% agree with them. Then the mods do the same thing, censor them, and ban them. Terrible behavior on the part of the mods

...You think that his words he typed on a computer and posted to a forum constitute sexual harassment? The entire thread between you two is nonsense and doesn't contribute to the thread, but it's harmless internet nonsense. There is actual sexual harassment that goes on in the world. You're belittling that by trying to equate it to this.

This is exactly the behavior I'd like to see. If the subscribers want things to be another way, then they'll show that with their comments and upvotes. The mods will either cave or they'll stand up for what they want. But what the mods are doing instead is censoring all comments that go against what they want instead of allowing the subscribers to say how they want things to go.

Perfect. Then their comments will continue to be downvoted and they'll eventually leave. That's what the upvotes and downvotes are for. You downvote when you believe that a comment is not contributing to the post, or a post is not contributing to a sub. Removing the posts like that and trying to call those people out as "transphobic" is simply dishonest and is exactly what we're against. It's censorship because you're simply removing dissenting opinions and creating a world where everyone believes that trans women should be posting on a sub specifically for fit "girls." 70% is super low. That's a significant number of people who definitely don't want that content on the subreddit. >The votes in the thread make it clear that most people support trans women. Just to be clear, people aren't downvoting because they don't support trans women. They're downvoting because they don't want trans women posting in a subreddit for girls. >The comments hating on trans women and their ability to post there are not getting very many upvotes What about the comments simply stating that they want to see girls, not trans women? That isn't "hating on trans women." >Face it, there are a few snowflakes out there that can't handle people being trans. If you don't want to see it, don't look, downvote, block, unsubscribe, whatever. This isn't censorship because you aren't getting your way. Most of the posts in that thread aren't saying anything about whether people can "handle" people being trans. It's possible to not want to see trans women in a subreddit for girls but also still support trans people. But people like being self righteous so they immediately jump on this stuff, like you are, and say that all the people saying they don't want to see trans women posts in a sub for girls are all transphobic or whatever. It makes people feel better to say that other people are bad. >This isn't censorship because you aren't getting your way. You're right. It's censorship because they're removing posts specifically to further a personal agenda, regardless of whether those posts actually break any rules.

Sounds like the subscribers of the subreddit don't want to see trans women in the sub. If that's the case, they're going to voice that. If they're the minority in the sub then they'll get downvoted over and over and eventually leave. If they're the popular opinion then they'll get upvoted and hopefully they'll see some change.

Sadly I don't think this has much to do with left or right. You've got a bunch of people on a subreddit where they want to see fit women, and that specifically means they aren't on that subreddit to see someone with a dick. A ton of those comments, to me, are people who have no opinion for or against trans people. It's way simpler than that. In fact, it's biologically super basic. They want to see naked, fit women. End of explanation. But somehow voicing that opinion on a subreddit with "girls" in the name comes out as "FUCKING TRANS FAGGOTS" to the moderators. I don't get it...

For some bonus censorship, check out the /r/SubredditDrama thread: https://snew.github.io/r/SubredditDrama/comments/9pkkve/a_transwoman_posts_in_a_subreddit_mostly_for/ They censored this: >Fuck trans faggots That makes sense. But why did this get censored? >i don’t really have a horse in this race, but i am against censorship. your post is concerning because basically any dissenting opinions here could be considered transphobic and result in a ban. that is alarming. And why did this get censored? >Is having an opposing views really transphobic? Can people have a discussion on this without being labeled? I mean that sub is probably not the best place, but you can't just plug your ears and go lalala I can't hear you and everything people from the other side makes them hating scum! Ban them for not agreeing with me!

This is the worst I've seen in a while. Check out this gem that, as of this comment, is at 256 points: >WayoftheBern is an alt-right Trump supporting sub that started out pretending to be a group of liberals, but after a while they couldn't maintain the pretense. >It's a great example of the lack of ethics in the alt-right. They pretend to be their opponents in order to make them look as bad as Trump supporters. Ah, yes. It's completely unbiased to say the entire alt right is devoid of ethics. And it's completely unbiased to say Trump supporters look bad. And it's completely unbiased to say that an entire subreddit is all alt right. Remember everyone: Rules for thee but not for me. Edit: I've messaged the mods with the following to try and get an understanding of how the comment did not violate their rules. If they were just enforcing already-posted rules, that's fine. But if they were removing some things for rule violations but simply allowing other stuff to remain, then that's censorship. Below is my message to the mods. I will update if I hear back. >Good afternoon, >This top level comment seemed in clear violation of rule 4 of your subreddit, yet it remained. In the sprit of ensuring I comply with rule 4, could you clear up my confusion? >https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/9occ9q/whats_up_with_rsandersforpresident_and/e7t5r0c/ >How is it unbiased to call an entire subreddit "alt right"? How is it unbiased to say the subreddit was trying to maintain some pretense? How is it unbiased to say the alt right has a lack of ethics? And finally, how is it unbiased to say Trump supporters look bad? >Please let me know. Thank you. Edit2: the reply... >How is it unbiased to call an entire subreddit "alt right"? "alt right" is the name of an actual group. Like saying an entire subreddit is left wing, or saying an entire subreddit is chess players or Kiwanis. If they're not alt-right, then the user is just wrong, not biased. It's possible to be wrong without being biased. >How is it unbiased to say the subreddit was trying to maintain some pretense? How is it unbiased to say the alt right has a lack of ethics? Pretty much the same answer. It's possible to be wrong without being biased. >And finally, how is it unbiased to say Trump supporters look bad? Well, they can't all be home runs, I guess.

[This is Gr8 b8 m8. ](http://magaimg.net/img/2ql3.png)

But then you see all the net neutrality and no one should control the internet rhetoric. Really quite confusing.

This subreddit is dedicated to pointing out censorship in the hopes of ending it. I don't want to let them have their way and just run.

From an internet browser?

Oh yeah sorry. It was a thread on /r/HailCorporate that linked to /r/Conspiracy. I'm on my phone at work. Reddit is hard sometimes. It's almost the end of the day. (insert more excuses here.)

It was removed when the last batch of censorship happened and stuff like /r/sjwhate was banned. It was right after Serena Williams embarrassed herself and her country by throwing a temper tantrum. Relevant image: http://magaimg.net/img/6asn.jpg

Today is day 10. I've messaged every day since the first day and I've still heard absolutely nothing. What an absolutely sorry excuse for a mod team.

I agree with you 100%. But Reddit knew they were going to catch the devs off guard here. They could have released plans for the change and details so devs could get the app updated. It's purposeful that Reddit effectively removed these subs from mobile. Also, I'm a programmer too! Everyone should learn how to code.

The mods should still be held to the same rules. They can not simply ignore a user with a legitimate, well put together question. The admins should enforce what they preach.

[Gr8 b8 m8 ](http://magaimg.net/img/27x1.jpg)

>The mods have bastardized the fundamental concept that defines reddit: a true democracy where the users collectively decide what content deserves to be at the top and what content should fade into oblivion. And that's why we're here. With removeddit and ceddit, we can continously document the silencing to ensure it remains on the record for anyone to see.

I'm so fucking happy to be a part of this subreddit where people believe we should have the freedom to say things that may be offensive without fear of being silenced and stricken from the record. This isn't a sub that says "we support what people are saying." It's a sub that says "we support the right to say it."

Yes. The executive chairman of Reddit, Alexis Ohanian, is married to her. Here's a nice real life image of her. http://magaimg.net/img/650q.jpg

When the admins let the mods run free, this is what you get.

Super depressing that no sub is safe.

Hey! Thanks for coming here and sharing your thoughts with us. We're a subreddit dedicated to documenting all censorship on Reddit. Typically we only have one side of this though, where we find and document. It's great to see the other side's perspective from the person doing the censoring. Thanks again and have a great day.

Straight from their sidebar: >You must post a full and completely clear, unbiased question about a specific event or trend in the title. Here's the comment that somehow didn't break this rule. The bolding is mine: >They chose Colin Kaepernick to represent them in an ad campaign. Colin Kaepernick was a American Football player that chose to protest the treatment of black Americans at the hands of law enforcement by kneeling during the national anthem played before the games. Initially this didn't even get noticed, but the media picked up on it and it became very widely publicized. Other players began to follow suit, and it became a debate about whether or not it was disrespectful to the armed forces and America as a whole. >Colin Kaepernick was eventually released by his team and was never hired by another team, even though he likely played well enough to at least become a backup player. The fact that he was never signed by another team caused him to sue the league saying he had been blacklisted. The protests continued in the meantime but had largely stopped being in the media until last season when Trump decided to make it an issue again by talking and tweeting about it. He told teams to fire the players protesting among other things. >This brings us to him being the choice to lead the campaign. Conservatives are calling to boycott Nike because they chose him. It's pretty hard to argue that Nike is saying they're wrong for vilifying him. They are a company, so they've likely decided they will make more money appealing to other groups than they will by falling into line with what Trump believes. >**To editorialize a little**, this is all monumentally stupid on the part of the people calling for a protest of Nike. Colin Kaepernick chose the method of protesting he did because he didn't want to be disrespectful and actually asked a former army member what would be a respectful way to protest. Every thing since then has been so poorly handled by the media and by Trump that this relative non-issue of an athlete making a rather mild gesture of protest has now morphed into corporations, athletes, politicians, and the military fighting about nothing related to the underlying problem/issue. That definitely breaks rule two. He might as well have said "to break rule 2 a little." Wonder why the comment was allowed to stay, but this one got censored away? >Based on your last paragraph, I get the sense you’re missing the point, but please correct me if I’m wrong. The fact that Kaepernick protested, and the way he did it isn’t as much the issue as what he was protesting. A large segment of the population believes that the disparity in crime statistics between black and white Americans is not due to some systemic oppression led by racist police. Rather, it’s due to the (many) failings within “the black community”, and “African American culture”, neither of which are are shaped by white males in America. That same segment of the population believes he wasn’t a very noteworthy QB, yet Nike chose to elevate his message as a form of virtue signaling. Remember, the mods have an agenda and will throw out the rule book if that means allowing comments in support of that agenda. But if you try to challenge that, get ready to be censored away. Bonus points to the mod that locked the post, /u/_korbendallas_, for truly caring about people's ability to participate in the subreddit discussion. Check out the full comment: >Marking this as answered. Leaving unlocked until I get tired of banning people for rule 4 violations. >Just Be Civil™ >Edit: Ok, I'm done with this. Locked. >Edit 2: [For the people reporting this comment. ](https://i.redd.it/una4q7yv1bk11.jpg) >Edit 3: For the weirdos PMing me about how you didn't get to express your valuable opinion: I don't care, don't message me. >Edit 4: Thanks for the gold, but please stop sending me videos of yourselves masturbating into shoes. As a lib, I can only get so owned before completely rejecting capitalism.

For sure, but like I said some of the post don't mention the SJW shit and those are also being removed. /r/OutOfTheLoop has been pretty bad lately...

Heard of it. Never saw it.

They censored this comment. Seriously: I'd like to piggyback by saying something. This only gets worse after the teen years. Source: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. The rough percentages: 12% of heterosexual relationships involving persons between the age of 18-28 have violence from bother partners. 12% of them have violence from only one partner. 8.4% of them are violent relationships with a female as the only abuser. 3.6% of them are violent relationships with a male as the only abuser. I don't like calling anything a "gendered issue", I feel like it's an insult to the 30% of women in one-way abuse situations, but it actually is a huge issue for men especially due to men's inability to reach out and get help. Men's shelters literally don't exist in the US, no funding has been granted, barely any charities exist, and men can't even call the police without fear of being arrested instead of helped.

Oh I get why they removed it and why they were annoyed, but either make a rule that says "When we censor something, you are not allowed to post instructions for others to view the uncensored version" or admit that there is no rule and they just removed it because they want to steer to conversation to their own view. I broke no rule, and they know it.

Here are the comments that the /r/OutOfTheLoop mods felt you shouldn't be allowed to see, lest it cause you to form your own opinion. I mean, that opinion might not be the one they support. And we can't have people making their own decisions, especially if that decision involves an opposing view. A user, speaking on the infamous /r/News Pulse shooting censorship bonanza: >The shooter was Muslim, so they think the story will promote Islamophobia Just to refresh everyone's memory, /r/UncensoredNews was created to have a place where posts like the one about the Pulse shooting wouldn't be censored, and then Reddit itself banned that subreddit. If you have any doubts on Reddit's agenda, and that of the mods of the major subs, think about all that. >all of the big news subs are EXTREMELY liberal/left leaning. You even so much as mention anything pro-trump or pro conservative positions and you get people barking down your neck . >Surely ornag man not as bad as you purport him to be >>go back to t_d u dumb idiot >basically any major sub for the last 2 years, kind of got sick of it after a wee, especially as an aussie. A /r/WorldNews mod, /u/Phedre, commented: >I'll try to answer this as a mod of a major news subreddit. >>WHAT is going on with Reddit? Why are we attempting to snuff this story out? As in mods locks and deleting threads. I’m very confused as to why South African Government taking land from predominately or exclusively whites would be a story to block. This entire thing feels like Black Mirror from the actual events to what’s happening on this site. >I can't speak for /r/news, but /r/worldnews has very specific rules around misleading, sensationalized, or editorialized news. There are stories on this issue on worldnews, as you can see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/search?q=south+africa&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=day&sort=relevance >What's being removed are submissions with sensationalized titles, same as we would do for any other submission. This is not specific to the South Africa topic. >Edit: we also remove duplicate submissions, so that would also factor into removals. Here are some replies to that which were strangely removed: >You have rules that disallow most of the Trump stories your own mods post there too. let's not pretend there isn't an agenda going on Another reply: >Yet you allow every single sensationalized title that makes Trump look bad. Even if it's blatantly false. (Cough cough the independent cough cough) Don't pretend you are consistent in the way you enforce your rules. More general censored comments from the thread: >one would think that what appears to be ethnic cleansing is not a left or right issue though >i've seen very little mainstream media coverage of the rohingya genocide that went on a few months ago in burma and i've seen very little coverage of the land seizures and killings of afrikaans in south africa as well. . >There's something sad and ironic about mods locking threads for racism when the reason why this story even exists is because of racism but not the kind that mods or the mainstream media cares about at all. . >Censorship is what usually happens when you have ideologically driven gatekeepers. It's nothing more complicated than that. . >Whomever runs the sub makes the rules. If you don't like the censorious major subs then there are plenty of alternatives on reddit (because censorship, especially when it is against reddit's site rules and explicitly ignored by reddit's admins, isn't a new thing). . >For obvious reasons, appealing to those that favour censorship to change is going to be a pointless endeavour. Take your eyeballs somewhere freer. . >Jesus Christ, I wish you people would cool it with the fucking whining. There is no conspiracy to censor this or any issue. Edit: I've joined the censorship victims list. They censored this comment by me: >Just a quick reminder to everyone who, like me, is anti-censorship: >You can always reverse the censorship of any comment thread by grabbing the URL for the comment thread and replacing the "r" in reddit.com to a "c". Then just wait for the thread to process and you'll be able to make your own decisions about what you want to see. The irony is *palpable.*

There's a post on this very subreddit highlighting the ongoing censorship on /r/news of that story.

I know what you mean and the line between "that's just rules enforcement" and "ok that's just censorship" is pretty clear in a few of these cases. It's really the massive comments that I posted up there with really well written answers that were obviously stricken from the record due to bias. Those are the ones where the mods really show their hand. Also, not all of the ones I posted were top comments.

The original post is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/97les6/what_is_this_death_of_a_nation_movie_and_why_is/ Here is OP's question: What is this Death of a Nation movie and why is it so controversial, and why is it generating such a buzz online...but not really offline? First of all, here is a post that is inexplicably allowed to say. If you're wondering whether the mods are just "enforcing rules" or if they're enforcing their own Liberal leanings and biases, look no further than this gem of a comment that is somehow totally alright to stay while the mods splashed red over the pad on all the posts they deleted: /u/ImNotTheZodiacKiller >It's a right wing propaganda movie about how the democrats are equivalent to the Nazi party. >From [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Nation:_Can_We_Save_America_a_Second_Time%3F) > Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? is a 2018 American political documentary film by conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza. In the documentary, D'Souza positively compares the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump to the 16th President Abraham Lincoln. The film indicates that the Democratic Party from both eras was critical of both Presidents and analyzes the Democrats' alleged similarities to fascist regimes, including the Nazi Party. Here are the posts that hurt some Liberal fee fee's and were thusly removed: /u/PapaHogey >It says there’s over 288 comments but I can’t find more then two, all of them say deleted or removed. Is this a bug? /u/03fusc8 >The official name of the Nazi party was the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. They were not right wing; they were socialist, anti-capitalism, big money/corporate supporters just like the Democratic party in the US today. The truth just seems like propaganda to someone who is ignorant of the facts. /u/nostromer >Wait, so is this about making the left seem like or equal to the extreme Nazi party? This majorly deleted thread has left me asking the same questions. /u/MartinDeth >The same people that are outraged about this are outraged about everything and everyone that doesn't follow the far left narative that's being spewed by the MSM by the boatload. Also those same people jizz themselves on that other documentary about Obama's last year which is far far worse. Watch it and make up your own mind. My honest friendly advice would be not to give in to any liberal pressure or opinion without thoroughly checking anything out for yourself. God willing, you'll come to the right conclusion. /u/Wulf102 >I think you should go see the movie. >As Hitler said, "If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it". >The R's freed the slaves because the D's wanted cheap labor. This goes against the narrative of "the R's are racist slaveholders". If you notice, the D's still love their cheap labor, only they get it from illegal immigrants now instead of blacks. >The D's then claim there was a big switch of parties at the time of LBJ. The problem is, out of the 1200 Dixiecrat politicians, only 5 switched parties, so there was no switch. >Naziism/Fascism is frequently seen as a right wing thing. However, this isn't the case. The founder of Fascism, Gentile, was a socialist. The first Fascist, Mussolini was also a socialist. Hitler was a national socialist, however, every socialist leader is also a nationalist. Mao, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jong Il and others all loved their country and wanted what they thought was the best for it, so they are nationalists as well. >What else do people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Il and others have in common. Their governments sought to control every aspect of the country whether it be education, taxes, social programs, the media and so forth. If we were to put this on a spectrum, what would be the opposite of full government control? No government control would be the opposite. This concept is a fundamental part of Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians. >The modern day democratic party that wants full control of the media citing various places like Fox News being "hate speech" and "racist". You'll hear daily about how people on the left want r/the_donald banned. The most democratic states like California, have high tax rates with huge social programs. The dems feel more government control is the solution to fixing education, while more libertarian minded people like myself ideally want it to be private, leaving the government out of it. /u/Wulf102 >Since someone suggested I answer the questions directly, here you go: >I've been viewing and listening to Dinesh for over a year. He has a youtube channel along with many speeches/debates/videos online. >What is this Death of a Nation movie >A movie by Dinesh D'Souza explaining modern day politics and the history of the Democratic party. >why is it so controversial >I don't find it to be controversial at all, but to understand why, you have to understand the history, which I'll go into below. >why is it generating such a buzz online. >I don't know what this means. r/movies didn't even have a thread for it. >I think you should go see the movie. >As Goebbels said, "If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it". >The R's freed the slaves because the D's wanted cheap labor. This goes against the narrative of "the R's are racist slaveholders". There was not one single Republican who owned a slave one year prior to the civil war. If you notice, the D's still love their cheap labor, only they get it from illegal immigrants now instead of blacks. >The D's then claim there was a big switch of parties at the time of LBJ. The problem is, out of the 1200 Dixiecrat politicians, only 5 switched parties, so there was no switch. >Naziism/Fascism is frequently seen as a right wing thing. However, this isn't the case. The founder of Fascism, Gentile, was a socialist. The first Fascist, Mussolini was also a socialist. Hitler was a national socialist, however, every socialist leader is also a nationalist. Mao, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jong Il and others all loved their country and wanted what they thought was the best for it, so they are nationalists as well. >What else do people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Il and others have in common. Their governments sought to control every aspect of the country whether it be education, taxes, social programs, the media and so forth. They are also willing to use violence to achieve such goals. If we were to put this on a spectrum, what would be the opposite of full government control? No government control would be the opposite. This concept is a fundamental part of Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians. >The modern day democratic party that wants full control of the media citing various places like Fox News being "hate speech" and "racist". You'll hear daily about how people on the left want r/the_donald banned. The most democratic states like California, have high tax rates with huge social programs. The dems feel more government control is the solution to fixing education, while more libertarian minded people like myself ideally want it to be private, leaving the government out of it. You will also find many dems and left leaning people here calling for violence to stop people who they declare to be supposed "nazis". >The modern Republican party would fall somewhere in the center. They want less government generally, but not no government. They aren't ready for no taxes like Libertarians, but they do want lesser taxes. Many R's would also have no problem with some social programs to help out the needy, while Libertarians would say to leave that to charity and personal donations. The R's also believe in freedom of speech and gun rights. >The modern day Libertarian party, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists believe in the non-aggression principle, which means no force/violence. They believe in no government at all or as little government as possible. They believe in no taxes, instead they believe people should pitch in together for things like road fixtures and such or not be allowed to use them. They believe in private schools, therefore if someone is not doing well at a school, they are free to go somewhere else. They don't believe in social programs as they believe if people want to help, they can do so directly or through charities. >The Nazi party believed in full government control. This was especially true with the media, education, social programs and jobs. They believed in using violence against enemies and they also believed in using slave labor. They were one of the first parties to fully support feminism as well, emphasizing the role of the woman in the family. They liked the environment too. They taxed the rich high, but didn't tax poorer people as much as they subsidized them with looting of other countries and people. Due to their use of violence and government control, they cannot be labeled as libertarians as those are the two most important parts of Libertarianism and they do fit in well with the far left that advocates for censorship, full government control, social programs, slave labor and high taxes. One way people often claim the nazi's were right-wing is due to "racism". However, racism is something that is possible for big government, small government and no government at all, so it doesn't pass the test. /u/narkokraljevic >[[removed] intensifies] OK, sorry for all the edits. I'm on my phone and keep having to switch back and forth between the thread itself, the uncensored version of the thread, and my comment here.

They have to alter reality to fit their agenda.

Preach.

I think they're just as bad, yep. Also, 61% upvoted as of this post. That doesn't seem like a brigade at all... 🤔🤔🤔

Here are some of the comments that the mods of /r/news didn't want you to see: /u/KrispyPopcorn1 >How long until this post is locked, deleted and hidden from the front page. God knows how many people's comments the mods have already removed. /u/ThatsBushLeague >To be fair, one of the guys thought the kid needed an exorcism, so that's how he ended up there. So just don't look like you need an exorcism and you should be good? /u/sylect >do muslims engage in exorcisms? i genuinely don't know. an alternative joke you could make if they don't is that the kid was both gay so they hung him from some local construction equipment, or the boy started to identify as a woman so they stoned him for not wearing a hijab. there are so many options when it comes to mocking the standard, everyday practice of muslims the globe over. /u/TerryBogard88 >Religion of peace /u/FourteenFour >they aced the game by playing both the race and muslim cards /u/Retaliate1st >Oh look, Islam, who woulda thought... /u/J4rrod_ >Yeah because all religions, especially Christianity, are constantly going around setting off bombs and training kids to shoot up schools... >Why don't you call it like it really is instead of making some general statement where you kind of say what you're thinking without fear of being called an islamaphobe /u/tilt_shift_neon >Islam. People have come to expect it from that particular religion. >Whereas Judeo-Christian ethics are the basis of personal dignity and freedom and practically our entire foundation of what we believe to be right and wrong, including yours. /u/DramaExpertHS38 >Why are people shocked by this? Stuff like this always happen, there's a ton of illegal immigrants that commit crimes and are set free by sanctuary cities. >The USA is a PC culture, they don't jail criminals in fear of being called racist. There are definitely more but this is a pain to format at work on my phone.

But why would they want to suppress something like this? People deserve to know. It's news. Unless someone is breaking the law with their comment, why are they removing anything?

Here are some of the comments that the mods did not want you to see: >It was posted multiple times earlier and was getting censored by the mods for a large part of the day yesterday . >Why would they censor this? . >Because mods on news subs censor articles that make Islam look bad . >The mods regularly behave in an unethical manner and there is no accountability to them because removing them Would require more mod work from the admins which would drive up the costs associated with running reddit. It’s a perverse incentive that allows unethical or out and out corrupt mods to run major subs. . >Indeed, and then you have some people 'moderating' 1500 or more subreddits. This site has been evolving into a perverse joke for years. . >Just like the story of the elderly Sikh man assukter by teens. Was gaining traction but once the teens were found to be black kids in hoodies the story was pretty much scrubbed from Reddit. >It appears on r/BayArea but but threads are locked. >One of the more “aqueous” admins there is borderline abusive in banning redditors who offend his sensibilities. >This entire site is a politics sham. From T_D gaming r/all to the mods of r/politics, everyday users get the bullshit from both ends of the spectrum. . >We should be demanding action from the admins. The way things are right now are totally fucked. . >Or anything that might contradict the narrative that all school shooters are white males . >Jesus Christ finally people are getting this. Why is every other religion fair game for criticism but Islam is protected so much on this site? I don’t get it. No entity , religious, corporate or government should ever be free of criticism. Critiques can generate growth. . >Pulse shooting really hit home just how censored this sub is. . >Funny thing about that .... I've submitted this story a few times and noticed it keeps being deleted by the moderators with a "NSFB" tag. NSFB = not safe for brand. . >It's /r/news. >Don't you remember the Pulse fiasco on this sub? This is why you can't rely on Reddit as your only new source.

I've been a mod of this sub for months and these are the only two comments I've ever removed. This is a subreddit dedicated to pointing out any and all censorship and ensuring those that aim to spread their beliefs by simply silencing others are not able to do so without being called out specifically. Removing any comments on this sub, to me, should only be done when there is no shadow of doubt that the post(s) is/are in complete violation of both site wide and subreddit wide rules. Removing comments on a sub that is anticensorship could quickly become an act of irony, but I do not believe these removals are censorship at all. This comment and the original comment are blatant calls for violence in the form of taking up arms in order to make your beliefs and agenda known. That is not something that I condone and not something that this subreddit will be used to spread. Furthermore, it is in clear violation of well-established rules. I understand frustration, but the idea of "they censor us so let's shoot them" is not what this subreddit is about.

Whoa. Dude what?

Here's the ban: http://magaimg.net/img/5wcr.jpg If anyone can figure out how quoting the article he posted is toxic, please let me know. I'm at a complete loss here... At least "toxic behavior" is already in quotes. Really emphasizes the ridiculousness of that as the reason. As the ban suggested, I did go read up on the rule. If anyone is interested, here is the entire text: >Toxic behavior of any kind is not compatible with the relaxed stoner atmosphere of our subreddit and may result in a no-warning ban. This includes (but is not limited to) trolling, vote brigading, comment brigading, drama brigading, baiting, harassing, taunting, insulting, spoiling, being antagonistic or needlessly bothering users or mods or will not be tolerated. This includes making snide, condescending remarks such as "im14andthisisdeep" or "iamverysmart". Luckily such behavior is rare here, but when it does happen it will result in an instant, no warning ban or temp ban. This even applies to users who are participating in such behaviors towards woahdude or its users from outside the subreddit. >This also includes racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted comments. Be careful with that sort of language, even if you're "joking". Free speech is a very important and valuable part of democracy. However, this subreddit is not a free speech zone. This is a very specialized subreddit. In a very real sense, it's a safe space for high people. This is why we don't tolerate anything that can harsh mellows (at least not without a BAD VIBES tag). If you want to get angry or talk about touchy subjects, there are many other subreddits better suited for that for you to go to, which we encourage you to visit, especially if the discussion is important to have. Furthermore we reserve the right to remove users who engage, have a history of engaging, or who are likely to engage in any form of toxic behavior including spreading lies, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, hate speech, anti-science, radicalism, cult activity or any other hateful, violent, or toxic nonsense in our subreddit or anywhere else. >Removals and bans may also be issued for violations of reddiquette. >Reason: We're a subreddit made for surfing while high, and wish to preserve an atmosphere that enhances said high, and won't harsh mellows or cause bad trips. I guess saying stuff like "Trump selling your wealth and futures so he can line the pockets of the wealthy" somehow *enhances said high* and *won't harsh mellows or cause bad trips.* And somehow the article does, but only when viewed in its entirety maybe? Or only if /u/rWoahDude posts it? Or maybe it's only when you view the article on the site itself, not on Reddit in a comment. I'm a bit unclear on the specifics. All of this is really quite baffling.

Some censored comments: >Very, very naive way of looking at it. Censorship exists in many different ways but having a social media platform ban someone because of their (even fucked up) views is censorship in the worst way. Yes, they have the right to do it, but it doesn't make it right. There's lots of fucked up groups that are allowed to exist and say weird shit, but inforwars is only banned because the left disagrees with it, which is why this is fucked up. I hate infowars, Alex Jones is a piece of shit, moron, but just because he's wrong and fucked in the head, does not mean he should be censored, he has a right to an opinion and it is the social obligation of these platforms to treat people fairly, which they are not doing. I know Reddit will downvote this because I'm against the anti-free speech circle jerk and defending Alex Jones, but if you're going to downvote me, at least understand that us disagreeing civilly is the same reason Info Wars is getting removed. Imagine if you weren't allowed to vote or comment simply because some people don't agree with you (which is how I was banned from T_D and /r/politics). Censorship is a slippery slope, and once it's normal, it's too late. . >I was looking for the things or videos were it could be deemed hateful for YouTube and Facebook standards and couldn’t find it. Just hoping this isn’t a precedent for future bans on other podcasts. . >California is the best state in the country, hands down, but its awesomeness isn't enough to contain the insanity caused by heat. Hence, the Central Valley became Florida West. . >Infowars.com >I don't get how what he says is any different from BLM telling people to kill police. Yet one is hated while the other idolized based on nothing more than party lines and who is judging. . >He's probably going to sue Apple, Facebook, iTunes, and Google, and the best part is that legally; he's in the right.

Yep. This all day long. You can't say "this guy knows what's up and we should listen to him" but also say "oh no he's just a child you can't disagree with him it may hurt his feelings." If he is "just a child" then he does not deserve any attention from the world spotlight. He should be in school learning how to be an adult.

Wut?

This is so incredibly fucked. I stopped subscribing to that shit sub months ago. It's /r/ScienceWeAgreeWith and that isn't what I'm interested in at all.

There is now a thread with the video that is being allowed up. https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8y7nr8/englands_attempt_to_score_after_croatias_winning/ People are being quite vocal about the censorship and mod abuse. Good for them.

The Summer's warmth brings with it new life.

Nope, sorry. No clue. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

Yessssss? Edit: OH! It's a raid! Surely the admins will do something about the obvious brigading going on. Oh wait, no, they don't really care... I mean it's obvious brigading but that's just another hurdle we face in the fight against censorship. It's not about explaining why we're wrong, it's about silencing. All they're doing is proving the point of the subreddit.

It's sad that over half the censorship we find and post is coming from one single subreddit.

The only right leaning sub I follow is /r/The_Donald. That subreddit has a clear rule against saying anything bad about Trump. Making a rule, then enforcing that rule, is not censorship. If /r/WorldNews made a rule that said "Any of these rules can be broken as long as the post smears Trump." then this post wouldn't make sense because they'd just be enforcing their rules.

Oh. Many people mistake posts on this subreddit as support for Trump or right leaning. This post is simply pointing out the censorship and rule breaking/ignoring by the mods. The fact that much of the activity called out by this subreddit tends to only occur for posts that go against Trump is the choice of the mods who are allowing the rule breaking and censorship. We're simply cataloging it.

No feelings here. It's pointing out censorship.

Some comments that were removed despite breaking no rules: 1. *That’s a ‘moment’ every president since Nixon has had.* 2. *it's tribalism when it's not Liberal views lmao* 3. *Why would he need to pardon hi* *Oh wait. I forgot I’m in the one place in the world that still believes this Russia investigation.* *Carry on with your delusion.* 4. *How is this not internal US news and politics? Oh yea, it says Trump. This. must. break. all. rules.* 5. *That is not what he said. His attorney said he could if he wanted. Get the story correct for a change*

"gay ass comments" doesn't excuse censorship.

"Not supporting this." "We don't need more SJW content in games." "No thanks."

You're missing the point of the sub. I didn't post this because I think people should be bigoted. I posted this because people should be allowed to have their opinion and discuss that opinion on an open forum. If someone posts on that thread and says "I don't think they should have made this theme and I definitely don't think they should have promoted it" that should start a conversation. Instead that just gets instantly removed. Most of the removed posts, including the example I just gave, were not breaking any rules. The mods need to add a rule stating "if you post in disagreement towards what Sony has done then your post will be removed and you will be banned." But they don't have that rule. That's why this is censorship. Everyone always mistakes posts in this sub for promoting whatever was being removed. That's not what we're doing. We're promoting those people's rights to be heard, and we're spreading awareness that they are being silenced despite following the rules. A subreddit can make rules and enforce them. But when they simply remove posts with absolute disregard for those rules, that's complete censorship and it should be catalogued here so those mods are held accountable and so those people who posted can at least somewhat have the platform they deserve.

The OP: *I feel like men get the short end of the stick in being noticed and appreciated. In environments where I know I am safe and in control, I'll make an effort to compliment a guy if I notice something that pops out. Thing's like "Your eyes are super blue", "I like your tattoo", I even went so bold today as to say "I'm married, but you're super handsome!" The looks of genuine, bashful pleasure of being noticed and appreciated makes my day as much as I hope it makes theirs. Spread the love around, you never know when a nice guy could use a genuine compliment.* Some of the censored comments: *I met a woman at a party Friday, and the first thing she said to me was “oh my god why are you so pretty?” I’ve been pretty happy ever since and it’s been almost a week.* and *When I was in High School, touring the campus of UCA in Arkansas, a gay guy told me that blue was totally my color and that he lived my shirt. I have so many blue shirts now.* and *Man here. A decade ago in college I was complimented on my shoes. To this day, it's the only time in my life I can recall being complimented on my shoes. It felt good. :(* and *I got so few in my life that when my wife boasts about me in front of people I get real timid and shy.*

This is a relevant question.

Now now everyone. I'm sure the mods had a very good reason and they'll be posting something soon to explain themselves.

You forgot the stabbings. That's what the articles mention is to blame for London getting such a rise in their statistics.