Reddit politics moderators ban Huffington Post, Fox News

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reddit's volunteer moderators on the subreddit dedicated to politics have greatly expanded their banned links list to include liberal sites such as The Huffington Post and Mother Jones and conservative sites like Fox News and National Review.

In a post on Tuesday, moderators of the highly trafficked website's '/r/politics' page said the goal is “to reduce the number of blogspam submissions and sensationalist titles" and to avoid sites that provide lots of “bad journalism."

Only the politics subreddit has banned these links; they are still allowed elsewhere on the site. But the politics vertical is very popular, with some 3.1 million subscribers, and like many items on Reddit, what gets posted there often goes viral.

mas @ http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/reddit-politics-moderators-ban-huffington-post-fox-176542.html?hp=r8

I like it myself. Force people to find more credible sources to support their claims. boutox wouldnt know what to do.

[AntiChrist]

That's dumb. I find good things on HuffPo every now and then.

[boutons_deux]

boutox wouldnt know what to do.

If The Great Boutons had the time to follow reddit, he would trash-dumping reddit right wingers just as he does here. All Hail, The Great Boutons.

[ChumpDumper]

One can find good stuff on all these sites. Pretty lame.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One can find good stuff on all these sites. Pretty lame.

You can find all of that 'good' stuff at other sites as well. The problem is you don't get their brand of misrepresentation and deception for partisan purposes elsewhere.

[ElNono]

censorship is never good...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

censorship is never good...

From a governmental standpoint I agree with you but I like the notion that a forum will not allow their discussions to be dominated by shills. Raises the bar on objectivity in my view.

[ElNono]

From a governmental standpoint I agree with you but I like the notion that a forum will not allow their discussions to be dominated by shills. Raises the bar on objectivity in my view.

While I would agree with the notion that there's a lot of noise and little substance, and gullible people exist in abundance, I don't necessarily think I need an third party arbiter to tell me what passes for bullshit and what doesn't.

Obviously we all have the option of not going to Reddit to read political commentary, so this is more of an academic argument than anything.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While I would agree with the notion that there's a lot of noise and little substance, and gullible people exist in abundance, I don't necessarily think I need an third party arbiter to tell me what passes for bullshit and what doesn't.

Obviously we all have the option of not going to Reddit to read political commentary, so this is more of an academic argument than anything.

I am just saying that I agree with a viewpoint that places like Fox News and Mother Jones take away from the ability to determine best policy. They are sites that intentionally mislead for political gain.

[ElNono]

I am just saying that I agree with a viewpoint that places like Fox News and Mother Jones take away from the ability to determine best policy. They are sites that intentionally mislead for political gain.

I'm not a fan. Even if the drivel is vacuous, it potentially invites more conversation, and on that aspect it should be welcome. We all have the option not to read stuff if we don't feel like it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not a fan. Even if the drivel is vacuous, it potentially invites more conversation, and on that aspect it should be welcome. We all have the option not to read stuff if we don't feel like it.

Not all conversation is good. Especially when it is misleading. Vacuous is one thing but that is not what they are banning them for.

Reddit doesn't prevent you from reading Fox News or Mother Jones. They just do not allow their forum to be a platform for their shilling.

[ElNono]

Not all conversation is good. Especially when it is misleading. Vacuous is one thing but that is not what they are banning them for.

Reddit doesn't prevent you from reading Fox News or Mother Jones. They just do not allow their forum to be a platform for their shilling.

I think all conversation is good, and we'll disagree on that.

Fox News and Mother Jones target very specific sections of the population that exist and are very real. It might not be a majority, but it doesn't have to be.

The "shilling" is somebody else's "truth", whether you agree with it or not. That's the basic of dissent.

I'm aware that Reddit doesn't prevent you from reading your news elsewhere, that's why I said this is mostly and academic argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think all conversation is good, and we'll disagree on that.

Fox News and Mother Jones target very specific sections of the population that exist and are very real. It might not be a majority, but it doesn't have to be.

The "shilling" is somebody else's "truth", whether you agree with it or not. That's the basic of dissent.

I'm aware that Reddit doesn't prevent you from reading your news elsewhere, that's why I said this is mostly and academic argument.

Shilling is when you misrepresent yourself and try and appear objective when you instead have a vested interest. Journalism is supposed to be objective but take Fox News for example which is run by the former GOP media czar yet their byline is fair and balanced. That is blatant shilling. You claim to be one thing when in truth you are clearly partisan. You can call anything you like "truth" but I am interested in an objective standard.

You think a conversation where someone is lying to people and they don't know any better is good?

It's a central theme of mine apparently but it comes down to deception and willingly trying to mislead other because of it or an indifference as to whter or not you do. At the end of the day it doesn't look like the ban is not going to last. It's too hard to justify over the broad scope as it is now being painted but what I do like is that at least one forum is trying to say something about the deplorable state of journalism is in this country. That someone is saying that the status quo is not okay.

[ChumpDumper]

I think people can recognize bias pretty easily.

Besides, don't opinion pieces get reposted all over the place on people's blogs, etc.?

It just seems to be a bad precedent. One could predict a lot of backdoor links and accusations thereof; an inevitable expansion of the blacklist and an endless debate over what is to be included on it.

[ElNono]

Shilling is when you misrepresent yourself and try and appear objective when you instead have a vested interest. Journalism is supposed to be objective but take Fox News for example which is run by the former GOP media czar yet their byline is fair and balanced. That is blatant shilling. You claim to be one thing when in truth you are clearly partisan. You can call anything you like "truth" but I am interested in an objective standard.

You think a conversation where someone is lying to people and they don't know any better is good?

It's a central theme of mine apparently but it comes down to deception and willingly trying to mislead other because of it or an indifference as to whter or not you do. At the end of the day it doesn't look like the ban is not going to last. It's too hard to justify over the broad scope as it is now being painted but what I do like is that at least one forum is trying to say something about the deplorable state of journalism is in this country. That someone is saying that the status quo is not okay.

I think in the long term it's indeed good. People eventually realize who the liar is and why is it lying. I would argue that trying to suppress the liar would actually victimize it, and that's even more counterproductive that actually letting him lie and eventually be exposed.

As Chump also said, it's a slippery slope. A lot of political writing is heavily based on opinion (and partisanship, obviously). Where the line is or should be drawn is also heavily based on opinion. What your "objective standard" is might not match somebody's else's.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think in the long term it's indeed good. People eventually realize who the liar is and why is it lying. I would argue that trying to suppress the liar would actually victimize it, and that's even more counterproductive that actually letting him lie and eventually be exposed.

As Chump also said, it's a slippery slope. A lot of political writing is heavily based on opinion (and partisanship, obviously). Where the line is or should be drawn is also heavily based on opinion. What your "objective standard" is might not match somebody's else's.

Then it's not an objective standard. I get what you are saying though. In practice, it's not tenable.

That being said I approve of reddit's intent.