UPDATED! Why Has Reason.com Been Banned From Reddit's "Politics" Page? UPDATED AT 3.31PM!

Note (3.31PM ET): Please see the end of this post for an important update and correction to this post.

Last week a Reason.com reader and a Reddit user brought our attention to the fact that Reason.com - this very site - has been banned from the Politics "subreddit" at Reddit.com. The full comment thread on the matter can be read here.

Please note that our material is not banned from the overall site, but from one specific subgroup. Indeed, our material shows up frequently on various parts of Reddit, particularly the Libertarian subreddit.

Each subreddit is moderated by a group of people that sets rules and enforces them in collaboration with each other and users. The particular moderator who banned us at /r/Politics [see correction at end of post] goes by the handle TheRedditPope and, in a back and forth with commenters who charged him with ideological bias, gives his reasons  here:

There's lots of reasons to remove that domain [Reason.com] and they have noting to do with its ideological affiliation. You can believe whatever you want. We ban domains for spam regardless of their ideology. Your biased criticisms are not going to change that. We would ban HuffPo if they tried the same shit as Reason.com, but they won't because they don't have to....

So what's the "shit" we've been trying to get away with? It's unclear from the discussion thread but it appears that we stand accused of passing off blogspam - "content from websites who take all or the majority of an article from another website and reposts that content to get the traffic and collect the ad revenue" - as our own work. That is clearly inaccurate.

As is any suggestion that Reason authors are submitting our links in violation of the site's protocols on spam (which in this context means only submitting stuff you yourself have written). About a year ago, we did in fact get in trouble for having some of our staffers (including me) submit Reason links to the site. As I explained back then on a Reddit thread and in an article at Poynter.org, that was due to ignorance of proper "Reddiquette" on our part. We stopped the offending practice and have not resumed it or anything like it. In fact, I've asked Reason staffers to never submit Reason articles, blog posts, or videos to Reddit to avoid any possible problems. The ban - which unlike the current one was site-wide - was quickly lifted after friendly interaction with Erik Martin, one of the site's head honchos.

So I'm left wondering exactly what we did to incur the wrath of TheRedditPope. Reddit penalizes sites and users that scrape articles from original sources, try to game the system by submitting only material in which they have an publishing interest, and don't add much information or analysis. As several of the commenters in the thread note, Reason.com is the biggest libertarian news site on the web and whether folks agree or not with our take on a given topic, they can't seriously accuse us of ripping off other sites or not shooting our mouths off with our own particular POVs on any given topics.

Consider the attempted post that brought the ban to our attention. The user who contacted us had apparently tried to submit this story: "Do-Nothing Congress? Americans Think Congress Passes Too Many Laws, Wrong Kinds of Legislation." Click on the link and you'll be taken to an extended analysis of information drawn from the latest Reason-Rupe Poll, an original quarterly survey of American voters that has garnered praise from all over the political spectrum and has been cited in all sorts of mainstream and alternative outlets. If the Reason poll - which is designed by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this site, and is executed in the field by the same group that conducts Pew Research - and that post in particular don't meet the threshold of original content that is news-rich and original, then nothing does.

I am a huge admirer of Reddit, even in the wake of recent revelations about the /r/Politics ban. As I wrote last year in a Reddit thread,

Reddit is one of those rare sites that actually delivers on the potential of the Internet and Web to create a new way of creating community and distributing news, information, and culture that simply couldn't exist in the past. Like wildly different sites ranging from slashdot to Arts & Letters Daily to Talking Points Memo to the late, lamented Suck, Reddit is precisely one of the reasons why cyberspace (or whatever you call it) continues to excite us and make plain old meatspace a little more tolerable.

As a libertarian, I believe that Reddit.com is free to create and enforce whatever rules it wants for its site and its subreddits. It can even enforce them arbitrarily or incorrectly. Over there, it's Reddit's world and we're just passing through.

By the same token -and speaking as Reddit user - arbitrary, capricious, and opaque rules are generally bad ideas. It would be nice to be given clearer reasons for why Reason.com is being banned from a subreddit that is explicitly devoted to topics and perspectives that Reason is being kicked out the door for no good reason. If it involves any sort of practice of action for which we are responsible, I would be happy to figure out a way to address such conflicts. Or to live with the ex cathedra statements issued by TheRedditPope.

Update: TheRedditPope contacted me via email with several important corrections regarding the banning of Reason.com at the Politics subreddit.

Here's the meat of what he said:

I don't believe it is common practice for journalists to run stories without contacting both sides. If your goal is to get reason.com unbanned from r/Politics then you are not doing the website you are affiliated with any favors.

I, personally, TheRedditPope did not ban reason.com as your article states. I just talked with some folks on /r/libertarian about why the mods [moderators] decided to ban the site.

We are considering unbanning some or all of Reason.com but I personally would like to see some good faith on your end and for that story to be corrected.

I apologize for writing that TheRedditPope was responsible for the banning of Reason.com at the Politics subreddit. That is plainly in error.

In reading through the relevant comment thread again, there are these comments by Snooves:

Reason.com was banned because that domain has a consistent, severe blogspam problem....The reason ban was a good ol' fashioned, simple majority mod vote.

The same moderator goes on to note that he is "a huge proponent of banning Alternet," the progressive site that does in fact scrape sites and regularly reposts whole articles without licensing the content, and

We've got big things coming in the near future in the way of domain bans. I think everyone will be happy, or pissed off. Who knows, but it'll clean the sub up a great deal.

Again, I regret the mistake regarding TheRedditPope's role in the banning of Reason.com. And I look forward to more discussion with the moderators who did make that decision.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Ha, is that a real shirt?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm gonna try that line next time I see a hot girl in a t-shirt.

  • CE||

    So, Reason 24/7 is the reason for the ban -- posting a chunk of someone's article and then linking to your own links page.

  • Mike M.||

    "The best damn news aggregator on teh intertubes EVAH!"

  • Pelosi's Accommodator||

    I thought the same thing at first too, but Nick says Reddit claims the articles are posted "as [Reason's] own work." 24/7 might be annoying as fuck, but it's pretty clear that the articles are attributed to someone else.

  • CE||

    But the 24/7 articles are what is linked to in the main stories on H&R or Reason, so someone reading the story there might think it originated at Reason.

  • rts||

    Reddit, by and large (and especially the default subreddits), is pretty much a circle-jerk of left-wing progressives. /r/atheism, /r/politics, /r/science, and even in /r/worldnews you can see the obvious slant.

    Sticking to /r/pics and /r/videos has kept me sane (-ish).

  • Snark Plissken||

    And that's why Nick is a huge admirer, amirite? High five dude.

  • rts||

    LIBERALTARIAN

  • SIV||

    FONZIE WITH AIDZ

  • Ken Shultz||

    Then Reason.com is an excellent remedy for that.

    Why preach to the choir?

  • Jordan||

    Sticking to /r/juicyasians keeps me sane.

  • ||

    This is why there are no Asian women libertarians.

  • CE||

    Suki?

  • jasno||

    I used to love reddit. I have to thank /r/libertarian for reminding me that I'm not a libertarian.

    I said a long time ago that HnR's comments engine sucks balls and that every article should also be posted to /r/reason or /r/reasonmirror just so we can use reddit's superior comment engine(even better with the 'res' plugin).

    I don't care anymore... I quit reddit a few weeks back and couldn't be happier. The demographics of the site lead to endless arguments with young 20-somethings with too much time on their hands. Besides, my aging brain is no longer able to handle the deluge of random shit thrown at me by the internet, even after paring down my subreddits to almost nothing.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because because they almost always turn out to be-—or to be indistinguishable from—-self-righteous sixteen-year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."

    Let's call it the White Indian Rule.

    Speaking of Reddit, I much prefer Reasonable's method of completely wiping out a blocked user's name and posts to RES's block feature, which just minimizes comments while continuing to show the blocked user's name and notify you of replies to comments. Ideally future blocking add-ons for most websites will completely obliterate any sign of blocked users.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck the under-30 asswipes. They re-elected Obama; Romney won the 30+ vote 49-48.

    And fuck Reddit with a chainsaw. They don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, so I'm just returning the sentiment.

  • Sal Paradise||

    Stop on about the left-wing circle jerk. Have an upvote!

  • some guy||

    Just don't go to /r/spacedicks. You have been warned.

  • some guy||

    NSFW BTW

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The term circle-jerk describes nothing exceptional and everything par humanity. Humans flock around commonality. Even your chosen reddits consist of people circle-jerking specifically 'pics' and 'videos'. The only reason sanity exists for you there is likely due to the fact that pics and videos capture/stream reality rather than assert a reality (which forms the basis of irritation if said reality is irrational or fucking idiotic).

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm sure reddit is a significant source of referral traffic for you guys, so I hope you get this cleared up.

    But if someone told me I was banned from reddit, it would be like being told I was no longer welcome on a golf course. I wouldn't give a toss.

  • Loki||

    If someone told me I was banned from reddit I would wear that like a fuckin' badge of honor.

  • ||

    "How does it feel to be the most hated man in America?"

    "In a country full of Neanderthals, I wear it as a fucking badge of honor!"

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    To me, it'd be like saying I'm no longer welcome in Detroit OH NOEZ

  • Wind Rider||

    Maybe they've just defaulted to the Wikipedia biz model. The asylum runs just fine with the most deranged inmates in charge.

  • John||

    Wiipedia is another example of what I am talking about. It started out as such a great idea. And as soon as Progs got involved it became just another prog propaganda tool.

    You hate to say "no progs allowed". You don't want to be like they are. But their fanaticism and unrelenting nature forces you to.

  • Tony||

    Ah is this the excuse you give when you completely dismiss its global warming page?

    Wikipedia has standards for sourcing. Or is anything you disagree with, no matter how credible, in a conspiracy against you, because you're that smart and special?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh look, everybody, Tony the 'tard is here to explain everything!

  • UnCivilServant||

    Wikipedia's standards for sourcing are so lax that an unsoruced article has been posted, got used by a lazy reporter as a source on an article, and that article cited as the source on the wikipedia page.

  • tarran||

  • tarran||

    The fact that William Connelly still is retained as an editor at Wikipedia backs up John's point admirably.

  • some guy||

    C'mon. Wikipedia and reddit are fine as long as you stay away from the controversial topics. And if you try to sole-source on something controversial you deserve to be mislead.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it's really great for a lot of things. And it's not too hard to figure out which things it is not good for. And you should never use Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) as a source for something you are going to publish. Follow those simple rules and it nearly lives up to its promise.

  • trshmnstr||

    Amen, it's really great in a hard science/engineering class as a supplementary material for the crap you don't understand. However, anything that has been prog-ified isn't worth the electricity it took to display.

  • Chewy||

    my nephew changed wikipedia to say he was a member of the NY Jets... he's 12. It took 6 hours for them to catch it

  • ||

    the excuse you give when you completely dismiss its global warming page?

    You really should not use the climate change pages as an example of Wikipedia.

    The main editor of it was banned for bias.

  • ||

    Wikipedia has standards for sourcing.

    LOL!

  • John||

    Leftists are totalitarians. They look at everything as politics and every organization as something that must either be destroyed or corrupted into a tool to advance the ideology. I forget who it was but a wise man once made a shrewd observation of this. He said, "All organizations that are not affirmatively right wing will eventually become affirmatively left wing".

    This is another example of that. Reddit is supposed to be a free space that is run by nonpolitical rules. Leftists cannot abide by that. So they infiltrate it and take it over and make it into a tool for advancing the ideology. Nothing can ever be nonpolitical or free if leftists are involved. I don't care if it is a baseball little league or a web community or anything. This is what leftists do.

    Doesn't matter what Reddit was intended to be. Once leftists got involved it was inevitably going to become a circle jerk of progs and every other view point was going to be driven out.

  • sarcasmic||

    What are you talking about? Leftists are tolerant! And as tolerant people, they are under no obligation to tolerate intolerance! So the more intolerant they are of intolerance (disagreement) the more tolerant they are!

  • Tony||

    No liberal advocates being open and accepting of all political worldviews. Nobody believes that, in fact. They believe in being open and accepting of different cultures, sexes, sexual orientations, races, etc. But being a liberal doesn't mean you have to tolerate every possible opinion under the sun, and the fact that you haven't been able to grasp this yet is fucking ridiculous.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    fuck off sockpupppet.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, I understand. Being tolerant means being intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you.

    Just as equality to liberals means they hold themselves to be superior to anyone who disagrees with them, and inclusiveness means excluding anyone who disagrees with them.

    Defining words to mean their opposites. I totally get it.

    I imagine the ultimate expression of liberal tolerance, equality and inclusiveness would be herding their political opponents into rail cars to be sent to the gas chambers.

  • Tony||

    By your own standards just how tolerant are you of people who disagree with you? Or are you superior because you don't claim tolerance as a value in the first place?

    What instances of liberals stifling public debate or private thought can you cite? Or are you just being a pissypants crybaby because liberals are smarter than you and tend to win political debates?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sorry, but that's just too much derp. Can't formulate a response.

  • ||

    What instances of liberals stifling public debate or private thought can you cite?

    Excuse me, but aren't we in a thread about Reason being banned from the /r/politics subreddit?

  • sarcasmic||

    Excuse me, but aren't we in a thread about Reason being banned from the /r/politics subreddit?

    Irony, meet Tony. Tony, meet Irony.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    By your own standards just how tolerant are you of people who disagree with you? Or are you superior because you don't claim tolerance as a value in the first place?

    Reason is a greater virtue than tolerance.

    What instances of liberals stifling public debate or private thought can you cite? Or are you just being a pissypants crybaby because liberals are smarter than you and tend to win political debates?

    Evil, evil verboten words on standardized tests. The horror.

  • Tony||

    That's incredibly stupid but I will note that they are bowing to the potential concerns of creationists. Now that's tolerance.

  • Sigivald||

    "But being a liberal doesn't mean you have to tolerate every possible opinion under the sun".

    If you cheerfully admit it Some Things Don't Need To Be Tolerated, it seems a bit odd to them demand instances of ... things not being tolerated (which is what stifling is; intolerance combined with the power to do something about it).

  • Mike M.||

    By your own standards just how tolerant are you of people who disagree with you?

    Reason allows you and your ilk to endlessly pollute this site, doesn't it?

    Quite a difference compared to your piece of shit New York Times blog, where your fascistic admins instantly delete everything that deviates from approved nomenklatura thinking.

  • sarcasmic||

    Quite a difference compared to your piece of shit New York Times blog, where your fascistic admins instantly delete everything that deviates from approved nomenklatura thinking.

    That's tolerant people not tolerating intolerance! Come on!

  • Loki||

    That's right, wear your biases and intolerances like a badge of honor. Own it, shithead.

  • Tony||

    Are you idiots trying to be cute by appropriating liberal language and trying to turn it back on liberals? Why does it make you special that you don't care about tolerance in the first place?

  • sarcasmic||

    By "liberal language" I assume you mean doublespeak?

  • ||

    Actually, I think libertarians are far more tolerant than progressives. We're actually consistent about tolerating everyone in practice. We just don't think that the *government* should *force* everyone to tolerate everyone else on their *private property*.

    I.e. We personally practice universal tolerance as a matter of personal ethics. But we don't think the government should compell everyone to practice universal tolerance. Rather, we think that the proper construction of universal tolerance is to allow individuals a private sphere in which they are allowed to be intolerantt, while simultaneously setting an example of tolerance in our own private spheres.

  • sarcasmic||

    You should know that progressives do not acknowledge anything that is not coerced.

  • ||

    Well, I think libertarians really have the more nuanced approach to social tolerant. To progressives, tolerance means being tolerant towards certain tranditionally-defined oppressed groups, coupled with intolance towards people who are intolerant of these same oppressed groups. It's not genuinely universal tolerance, it's a tolerance that's focused on only certain groups that are regarded as the subjects of discrimination.

    A better standard is to try to be tolerant of everyone. But then how do you deal with the fact that that means tolerating people who are intolerant? The libertarian response is to create a separation between *public* and *private* discrimination. Discrimination by the state is forbidden, but discrimination by individuals is not. So we tolerate the right of private individuals to be privately intolerant, as long as that doesn't spill over into public policy.

  • R C Dean||

    it's a tolerance that's focused on only certain groups

    Tolerance for the politically connected, intolerance for everyone else?

    Yeah, that's real heartwarming stuff.

  • Loki||

    No liberal advocates being open and accepting of all political worldviews. Nobody believes that, in fact. They believe in being open and accepting of different cultures, sexes, sexual orientations, races, etc.

    You know, the really important stuff. While people with different political views cann all just fuck off and die, amiright?

  • Tony||

    So liberals, alone among all political philosophical groups, don't get to claim that they are right and others are wrong?

  • Finrod||

    That's not all they do, idiot. They then try to shut down the views of everyone that disagrees with them.

    Reddit banned reason, Reason didn't ban reddit.

    So my opinion of you is that you should go die in a fire. You're welcome to your own opinion, which is more than your liberal brethern would allow me.

  • trshmnstr||

    There's a hell of a difference between saying "i'm right, you're wrong" and

    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....ing-voices

    http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/n.....eral-value

  • ||

    But being a liberal doesn't mean you have to tolerate every possible opinion under the sun

    Progressives are happy to tolerate the anti-gay, anti-women views of Muslim fundamentalists. Because they see those groups as groups that are oppressed by US right-wingers. As far as they are concerned, their common enemy of Americans, free markets, and US foreign policy makes them pretty good allies.

  • Tony||

    Not this one.

  • ||

    But you admit that there are plenty of progressives that do?
    There are people that out of an absundance of desire to be tolerant towards a group they consider to be the subject of discrimination, will avoid discussing subjects like sexual orientation or women's rights with Muslims.

  • ||

    You are not a liberal Tony. Anyone who thinks birth control should be mandated is not a liberal.

    Now a progressive leftist who still holds on to eugenics as a viable tool for governments..yeah you are that in spades.

  • PH2050||

    How hilarious is it to see gays following progressivism like that ideology didn't call them "defectives" less than a hundred years ago?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Its no more odd than African Americans consistently voting 92%+ for progressives. But hey, since the conditions for the urban poor have improved so much in the last 5 years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 99% for about a century or so. Hope and Change Baby!!!

  • John C. Randolph||

    Rent-boy,

    Everyone here fully understands that you and your leftard buddies have no tolerance at all for any opinion that deviates from your statist orthodoxy. That's why you're despicable.

    -jcr

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    There's a different way of thinking about it. Left wing politics sees non-politics as part of "If you're not with us, you're against us", and therefore right wing politics is anything which does not advance left wing politics.

    It's a subtle distinction, maybe without much merit, but I'm not very articulate yet this morning.

  • John||

    That is a great way of putting it.

  • Tony||

    Thank you John for being the expert on liberals. After all, one could never trust a liberal to explain what liberals believe. None of those cockroaches can be trusted.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. Liars like you can't be trusted.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    He said leftist, not liberal.
    Today's leftists and progressives by and large don't merit the label "liberal," with a few exceptions such as some to be found at the ACLU. (You're not one of the exceptions, BTW.)

  • Tony||

    I refuse to adopt the Limbaugh-preferred term for the caricatures you have in your heads. He's talking about liberals/progressives. Nobody calls himself a "leftist." That is a rigtwing talk radio term. And none of you demonstrate any knowledge of what most liberals actually believe. The sick thing is, it doesn't really matter. Reason could post a cat video and the comments section would be full of people explaining why "leftists" and "progs" are evil. It's just a catchall by now. Not, like, a mainstream political faction that errs on the side of practicality--sometimes really errs.

    You've been indoctrinated dude. I'm sorry for you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course no liberals/progressives call themselves "leftists."

    That would be honest and accurate!

  • Sigivald||

    Actually, Europeans refer to themselves of "men of the Left" with no worries.

    Sure, nobody calls themselves a "leftist", just like nobody really calls themselves a "right-winger".

    (Limbaugh. Cute. You do realize this isn't FreeRepublic, right?)

  • Tony||

    Yeah someone I've never seen post always comes along to remind me of that, while every other post is some mindless bitching about "progs." Even if the post has nothing to do with politics.

  • Finrod||

    According to asswipe Tony, anything that's not left is right and anything that's right is the same. Hence Rush Limbaugh is the same as Rand Paul is the same as Phyllis Schafley.

    Such a limited mindview he has.

  • jorgeborges||

    Tony, I would like to humbly point out that you, sir, are the one making comments with no connection to the article being discussed.

  • Zeb||

    Plenty of people identify as left or right politically. They may not use the term "leftist" too much because of how it has been used in popular press over the years, but it is certainly not an inappropriate word to use to describe people who define their politics as of the left wing.

    I like the word "liberal" and wish it had been left out of this whole thing. It is supposed to mean letting people do their own thing outside of a few basic rules and structures.

  • ||

    I refuse to adopt the Limbaugh-preferred term for the caricatures

    Actually Limbaugh would call you a liberal.

    Your use of the word and his use of the word are the same...and you are both using it wrong.

  • MJBinAL||

    Dude,

    This may surprise you, but
    Limbaugh is not a libertarian.

    Up until recently progressives, had stopped calling themselves progressives but rather "liberals" because progressive had gained a bad connotation due to policies such as eugenics. The fact that progressives chose another name, did not make the old one any less accurate. The same applies to "leftists", it has a bad connotation in the US so it is another name that progressives prefer not to use. So, they prefer not to use leftist, but have recycled progressive to avoid using liberal. It does not mean that any of these names are less accurate, only that it does not suit their marketing.

    Now, the perspective and facts outlined above represent a partial history of the matter. It also demonstrates how silly it is to protest "no one calls themselves a leftist". What they call themselves does not really mean much.

    John McCain calls himself a conservative and I can make a good case for calling him a fascist. If you can make the case that leftist is an inaccurate description, make that case.

    If you would like to make a useful contribution to the conversation, I would like to see you describe, in a reasonably comprehensive way, what YOU believe, and what YOU believe that a typical liberal believes. That would give your comments some context, and change your comments from troll or near-troll status to, even if contrary to what others believe, useful contributions to the conversation.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Here's a spot-on example of what John is talking about. Stephen Geer can't let a great-grandfather have any joy without it being political.

    Fuck leftists. They started it, but I'm glad to end it.

  • Tony||

    Who is that?

    Do I get to claim all rightwingers are white supremacists? Because I guarantee you I can find some of your political cohorts in that camp. Indeed that's a far bigger problem you have than liberals have with... whatever it is you're accusing them of.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Fuck off sockpuppet.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well of course you can claim that. It would not be any sillier than many of the other things you have claimed.

    Of course, it becomes troublesome when they have fascist views, but since the typical mass media outlet fails to understand that fascists are closer to socialists than they are conservatives OR libertarians it gets confused all the time.

    The libertarian perspective generally holds that fascists and socialists both place faith, power, and trust in government. They believe that government should control the economy, and differ only slightly in how it should do that.

    Libertarians, in general, believe that, without regard to the capability of government to manage economic affairs well, that much power will lead to government infringing individual liberty excessively.

    This issue of infringement of individual liberty is where both the GOP and Democratic parties diverge from libertarian ideals. Both parties have a history of feeding a powerful central government (for different ends) and infringing individual liberty (for different ends).

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Tony,

    I do not think you are stupid or hateful or a closet fascist. You seem capable of logical thinking and intelligent discourse. One point you make, correctly, concerns the idiocy of broad generalizations. That some conservative Americans are racists does not mean that most or all conservative Americans are racists. That some self-identified progressives and liberals are (in fact) intolerant censors does not prove that all are. Your own posts prove that Reason readers and commentators are not monolithic with regard to political ideology. We suffer from having too many fools and hate-mongers on both sides of the political spectrum. While libertarians cannot claim immunity to this ailment, I find libertarians in general to be more rational and open-minded than I find most communists, EarthFirst!ers, religious fundamentalists, creationists, 2nd wave feminists, zero-tolerance drug warriors, & many other sets. It's true that the monkey sees only the other monkey's ass, so I may not observe or admit my own flaws as readily as I observe or critique others'; nevertheless, a blanket defense of Liberals' perfect tolerance or intelligence is untenable. There are simply too many dipshits and rabid ideological puritans in your camp.

  • rts||

    TheRedditPope 2 points 12 days ago*

    I feel bad for libertarians if they just look at one website all day which confirms their beliefs that would be like being a liberal and only subscribing to r/Politics for political news.

    Telling.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Wait, what?

    So not only is Reddit not doing what it's (presumably) supposed to do, which is expose people to a variety of thought in a particular area, but it's not doing what it's supposed to do by design? How can one lament the lack of diversity in r/Politics while banning the main libertarian site from r/Politics?

  • Sigivald||

    Weird, yeah.

    (Then again, I find I disagree with Reason/Reason Commenters often enough that this place is nothing like a Reassuring Confirmation Of All My Beliefs.

    But that might also be just me, not having an identity-investment in my political labeling; I'm me first, a libertarian second (because it's what I least-disagree with), rather than the other way around.)

    I am baffled by people who actively seek out only-confirming sources of information...

  • crazyfingers||

    Reason should foreever ban all links to reddit in retaliation. Only fair.

  • John||

    Just remember, the progs really like you Libertarians. They will send you to the camps last.

  • ||

    it is not about like and dislike.

    The left wing right wing paragon is an invention of the left. It is necessary for their message.

    When you throw libertarians into the mix it muddies the water. The left wingers can no longer claim to be the liberals when libertarians are running around.

    I am sure reddit is perfectly happy if you link to National Review or the Weekly Standard or the Daily Caller.

  • ||

    Reddit is useful only for /r/aww and /r/gonewild, in that order.

  • John||

    It always comes back to porn or kitties with the internet doesn't it?

  • ||

    The internet has other stuff? OMG KITTY

  • ||

    else [removed](unescape(l[i]));} //]] Warty

    Stop angering the squirrels Warty!

  • MJGreen||

    For the record, that link is SFW.

  • SugarFree||

    And adorable.

  • Brandybuck||

    My God! I'm blind! Damn you Warty, damn you!

  • Michael S. Langston||

    This is the internet's #1 non-porno site.

    Which makes it 10 trillionth overall...

  • ||

    You do know there is nothing preventing the two from being mixed.

    http://www.flubu.com/images/LJ....._boobs.jpg

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Hey, look, a girl!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Nobody's gonna fall for that, dude.

  • MJGreen||

    In before sarcasmic: Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. It's not ideological to ban Reason articles from a political forum. By virtue of being a popular libertarian site, Reason is clearly a nefarious source of misinformation. Its content will only degrade important debates, like whether the government deserves a ton or a fuckton of gratitude for its great achievements.

  • Loki||

    MJGreen|9.24.13 @ 12:22PM|#

    In before sarcasmic...

    You wish:

    sarcasmic|9.24.13 @ 12:06PM|#

    What are you talking about? Leftists are tolerant! And as tolerant people, they are under no obligation to tolerate intolerance! So the more intolerant they are of intolerance (disagreement) the more tolerant they are!

  • MJGreen||

    I know. :( Even in these formal shorts, I feel like a failure.

  • sarcasmic||

  • ||

    you SFed it

  • sarcasmic||

  • KDN||

    In before sarcasmic

    Your eyes, they need checking.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What's a reddit?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's that soft, fleshy area right between your...and your manhood that sometimes starts to burn after you've been riding on a motorcycle for more than a few hours without a break.

  • Almanian!||

    I like that you ride motorcycles.

    I'm taking you off the "to be killed" list, Ken. You're welcome. You can thank your Honda/Yamaha/BSA/Harley/Italjet/BMW...whatever.

  • Robert||

    I keep mixing it up with redit.com (where .com had its MS-DOS meaning of "product of compiler"), which was RainEdit, the text editor that came with shareware NetTamer.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It works this way with politicians, and it works this way at places like reddit: if you give people arbitrary power, they will use it arbitrarily.

    ...and they'll start giving themselves titles like "TheRedditPope", too.

  • Archduke of Pantsfan||

    arbitrary titles, you say?

  • Brandybuck||

    The fact that editors even have usernames like "TheRedditPope" tells you everything you ever need to know about Reddit.

  • ChrisO||

    Wow, the comments on that Reddit Politics board are approximately 98 percent progtard. I'm not sure the lack of Reason content makes that much of a difference, even though the rationale for them banning it seems like horseshit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's true that progs tend to assume that anybody that isn't towing the line is a troll.

    Y U NO like Obama?

  • Loki||

    I'm guessing "TheRedditPope" is probably Tony or Shriek.

  • ||

    If reddit gave Tony editor control then there is no hope for the site.

    I don't think Shriek would ban Reason....he would post incoherent garbage in response to any reason posts and leave it thinking he has defeated the argument.

  • Archduke of Pantsfan||

    But what is the 4Chan stance on Reason.com?

  • jasno||

    Tits or GTFO.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Reddit? Why don't you fucking kids get a newspaper subscription already?

  • Loki||

    We will as soon as we get off your lawn.

  • Sigivald||

    What's a newspaper, grandpa?

  • Loki||

    Now for the important question: who's the hot chick?

  • Rasilio||

    Hey Nick, perhaps this...

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/09.....t-provider

    is what they are talking about

    Here we have an "article/post" that consists of a simple introductory statement, a quote that was also contained in the original article, a sentence describing the context under which the quote was uttered and a block quote of a BBC article.

    No new news, no analysis, no discussion and your link doesn't even got to the BBC article directly but rather to the 24/7 link which then links to the BBC article.

    I wouldn't say that posts like that make up the bulk of what goes up at Hit&Run; but between all of the various parts of Reason.com it probably is the bulk of what is posted by reason staffers and by extension the bulk of what gets linked on Reddit. Also articles like that ARE far too common on Hit&Run; (hint, there should never under any circumstances be one).

  • Ken Shultz||

    Criticizing a site for promoting its own news feed is kinda weird--coming from reddit.

    It's not like reddit's out there generating their own news. I mean, we're talking about them linking to original content at Reason, right?

    And although Reason does have a newsfeed, it's not like they were trying to disguise the fact that they're linking to the BBC, there. There's a giant 24/7 logo in the middle of the post. And I wouldn't say those posts are typical, exactly.

    And why not block those individually if that's the problem? Why block everything that comes from Reason?

  • Finrod||

    Because that's what liberals do, they overgeneralize and enforce uniformity of thought. Otherwise they might have to engage their brain and that woud make control that much harder.

  • Robert||

    You'd have to have a human being read it to identify it as one of "those" HyR articles. HyR has Reason 24/7 promoted already at the top of the right col. Why do the individual bits need to also be promoted in the already long main scroll? Especially when the anchor part is about as long as the 24/7 piece? Extra views & click farming is why.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh noes!

    They're promoting their own news feed!

    How will we cope?

    You might not believe this, but I was watching a football game last weekend, and the network that was broadcasting the game? they started promoting their own shows.

    Right here in the United States of America.

    I am dead serious.

    I just checked CNN and the WSJ, and you know what they're doing on their home pages? That's right--promoting their own shit, too. It must be the Koch Brothers--they're behind everything: capitalism, pension reform, the measles, news sites promoting their own news feeds...

    I don't know where it's gonna end, but it's gonna be bad news for the middle class, I can tell you that. ...unless we all support Obama...and hate on the rural poor.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    we stand accused of passing off blogspam - "content from websites who take all or the majority of an article from another website and reposts that content to get the traffic and collect the ad revenue" - as our own work. That is clearly inaccurate.

    Is it? That seems a pretty apt description of 24/7 to me. Maybe if you went back to linking directly to articles instead of inserting a fluffer page in the middle to collect another round of ad revenue.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was thinking that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I do have one main complaint about the Reason site - the squirrels eat my comments *even when I'm trying to say something nice about H&R.*

  • crazyfingers||

    The HnR staff does plenty of original reporting, but sometimes they just make readers aware of stories that may be of interest to them and provide a place to discuss it from a libertarian perspective. What is wrong with that? They aren't trying to pass themselves off as anything they're not.

  • Robert||

    But it's not a place to discuss it from a libertarian perspective, it's 2 places, and the comment thread is fragmented between those places.

  • Sigivald||

    Which would be a good reason to ban posting of Reason 24/7 articles, not the entire site...

  • GILMORE||

    (shhhhhhhhhhhh!!! you'll a make a Nick a mad! its an invaluable resourse! use it 10 times a day! why you gotta be a like that??)

  • Almanian!||

    Never been to the Reddit, don't know what it is, don't know why I should care. Don't care to change any of that.

    I'll still send a check to Reason this year, even though reason.com STILL sucks balls as a website, takes WAY too long to load (esp at work), and HyR does not have an "edit" feature for posts ("Preview"? PuhLEASE)

    hth

    PS Get off my lawn! *shakes fist*

  • Anomalous||

    I doubt that anyone who calls himself "TheRedditPope" will change his mind. After all, he's infallible.

  • SugarFree||

    Has reasonable been fixed yet? I'm sick of stepping over the steaming turds being left all over the place.

  • Almanian!||

    I'd continue wearing my TurdOff™ shoes for a bit...

  • ||

    Did you take ^\s out of the filter criteria? Also demand that people hide their email address until this crisis is over. I'm assuming reason changed something about how they handle email addresses linked to handles, which has caused Reasonable to shit bricks handling the names. The only time we get the wide history bar is when someone with an email address linked to their name posts. Currently mine is wide because of HazelMeade.

    [...]else [removed](unescape(l[i]));} //]] HazelMeade

  • SugarFree||

    I took out the ^'s. I haven't turned in back on since the wide history got bad.

  • ||

    I'm curious to know what Reason did to change handling of linked email addresses that it caused Reasonable to freak out this way. Maybe they were trying to fix the preview problem associated with having a public email.

  • SugarFree||

    Since I'm a codetard, I'm going to keep on blaming the problem on witches.

  • ||

    Yeah, reading code is a bit like reading Italian for me. I know enough to get the gist, but not enough to be fluent.

  • tarran||

    IT appears that reason ads a bit of script to each name. Your browser executes the javascript and moves on.

    Reasonable thinks the script is actually part of your name.

    So Jeff P becomes Jeff P < script [ javascript junk ] < /script

  • ||

    So are we assuming that Reasonable was written to filter out a specific set of script and Reason made changes to that script in such a way that the filter fails on encountering it?

  • tarran||

    I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if that were the case: if I were worried about dealing with scripts, I'd write a simple routine to delete them entirely, rather than only deleting a class of them.

  • ||

    Really? Aren't you required to have an email address to register your account?

  • ||

    Yes, but you don't have to display it publicly.

  • exsanguine||

    i see tolerance bandied about here quite a bit. One thing that people often forget or willfully ignore is that tolerance does not equal condoning.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The difference is many liberal sites are setup as self moderating and therefore opinions now held by moderators get edited, deleted, banned, or simply downgraded from site...

    Reason does none of those things.

    So sure - some or maybe even most of the commentors here may well be intolerant of certain views and may voice their dissent harshly (not that I think this describes most here) - but that's the price anyone pays for having an opinion and voicing it publicly.

    What Reason doesn't do, and what most liberal sites do, is to completely remove dissenting opinions through modertaing posts and comments.

    See Reddit as an example - tired of simply moderating comments to remove ideas they don't like - they'll just ban the entire site.

  • ||

    The real issue with Reddit isn't the moderators it's the COMMENTERS.

    Progressives seem a lot more intolerant of political dissent, and are way more willing to upvote and downvote posts on the basis of what opinion they espouse, rather than the quality of the content. So they end up creating their own echo chambers in places like Reddit.

    IMO, this is a problem pervasive to all of leftist ideology. It's not enough to just argue your own opinion, you're part of a movement, and "winning" is about making your opinions dominant, and part of that is convincing others that "everyone" thinks as you do. I.e. If everyone else thinks X, I should think X too, shouldn't I? There's this whole collective social hive-mind mentality, where they are pretty much focused on brainwashing people into agreeing with them all the time.

    I'm a skeptic about how effective this is.
    The fact that dissenting opinions don't get heard does not convince anyone except the not-terribly-bright that dissenting opinions don't exist. And then you get this terrible feedback loop where all the new recruits are not-terribly-bright people who are just flabbergasted when they are eventually confronted with a dissenting argument.

  • MJBinAL||

    YES!

    True tolerance is an offshoot of individual liberty. Liberals/Progressives muddy this in a big way. They miss that you can't have freedom of association without the freedom NOT to associate. You can't have freedom of speech without freedom not to listen.

    The Progressive solution to people chosing not to associate due to racial prejudice for exampl, is to require them to associate in all spheres of life.

    The Libertarian solution is to require government to not consider race, but allow individuals to do as they please, while avoiding racial discrimination in their own lives and encouraging others to do the same.

    The Progressive is tolerant of behavior he approves of, or is prepared to accept. The Libertarian is tolerant of behavior even if he disapproves of it.

  • Paul.||

    What's Reddit?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    It's kind of like del.icio.us.

  • ||

    It is the site where some women posted a great animated gif of her boobs about 3 years ago....

    That is pretty much all I know about it.

  • Winston||

    Why are libertarian constantly shocked that left-wing statists turn out to be left-wing statists?

  • ||

    I am shocked that reddit turned out to be left-wing statists.

  • Winston||

    Why?

  • ||

    Because of the medium in which reddit is playing.

    Why make a site where anyone can post anything if you are just going to play wackamole with posts that offend your political ideology?

    It seems counter intuitive.

  • Winston||

    Why make a site where anyone can post anything if you are just going to play wackamole with posts that offend your political ideology?

    Because they are totalitarian scum? I mean what is the point of tolerance if you are going to be intolerant of opposing views?

  • ||

    I am shocked that reddit turned out to be left-wing statists.

    I've been there like twice in my life and I'd be less surprised if the sun rose in the east tomorrow. It pervades every comment in every section of the entire site.

  • ||

    I am certain some kind souls at Reddit Politics will describe all H&Rers; as "fucktard douchenozzles" or something equally charming, then go on to explain why our women need raping. These good folk will incur no hindrance to their postings.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I don't believe it is common practice for journalists to run stories without contacting both sides. If your goal is to get reason.com unbanned from r/Politics then you are not doing the website you are affiliated with any favors.

    So now the decision to ban a site from Reddit is based on the quality of its journalism?

  • ||

    I.e. "don't say bad shit about the mods on reddit if you every hope to get unbanned"

    Arm-twisting, thuggish behavior, that.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I don't care one way or another if they ban it for whatever reason they like, but I'm not going to join in the pretense that they're banning it for the reasons they're giving.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They took a vote!

    A majority of mods supported the ban.

    How can you argue with democracy?

    Ahem.

    Speech isn't about pleasing the majority, and you'd think a site that was devoted to people saying what they think about politics would understand that. Anyway, if reddit silences the biggest libertarian news site on the net, it hurts them a lot more than anyone else.

    Aren't there already a thousand boards out there that cater to progressives?

    Oh, and I can't help but wonder if the libertarian sub ever banned any progressive sites like that. Not that the progs have ever cared about dissenting voices or reciprocity.

    By the way, you know what one of the worst things about the progressives is? They're boring. They mostly just support whatever the president says--the only debate is whether you support him or you support him enthusiastically. That's so boring.

    Even when libertarians agree with each other, they find ways to disagree about the whys and the hows. That's why women find us irresistible. Progressives are boring that way.

    Boring, boring, BORING.

  • ||

    You know, I had a thought earlier. I think that the difference between progressives and libertarians is like the different between rote memorization of formulas and understanding underlying concepts.

    Progressive get the idea that racism is bad, sexism is bad, and so on. But they don't generalize that to a broad tolerance of everyone. They are tribalists who have been programmed with specific anti-tribal exceptions, rather than genuine universalists.

    Libertarians are the true liberals. We're serious about treating EVERYONE equally, including white racists and rich people.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The erroneous post was fully *original,* so strictly it has nothing to do with the "blogspam" issue.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't believe it is common practice for journalists to run stories without contacting both sides

    I don't believe he is familiar with journalism as currently practiced in the United States.

  • ||

    I don;t know how reddit works but is it possible to make a new category for /politics?

    Perhaps make a /politicsopen which would allow all political views to be spoken?

    Of course reason probably could not do it...and i i know i don;t want to be an editor of a reddit page....just a suggestion for you reddit users.

  • StupendousMan||

    There is a sub-reddit called neutralpolitics. It does a pretty good job of requiring people to make arguments with references.

    Although there are still a bunch of statist/authoritarian types the frequent it.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/

  • ||

    our users are literally going to shit a brick when we ban Alternet. If you haven't noticed, that site constantly makes front page. Reason went quietly, because it was rarely posted to /r/politics to begin with.

    lol. So they banned a site that is "rarely posted" for spam...

    You would think an editor of reddit would be better at not falling into illogical traps like this on the internet.

    Then again maybe they delete every post that points out their logical fallacies so they never learn.

  • SugarFree||

    [–]KenPopehat [score hidden] 6 minutes ago
    Is it possible to apply to have my blog, Popehat, banned from the /r/politics subreddit?
    People submit links there occasionally and, while I'm pretty sure most people understand that it's not an affiliation, in light of this kind of thing it's embarrassing.

    PWN'D!

  • Michael S. Langston||

    yep - I now need to drop by Popehat :)

  • ||

    I've figured it out.

    Progressives are people who want to think they are enlightened, but actually aren't.

  • GILMORE||

    we stand accused of passing off blogspam - "content from websites who take all or the majority of an article from another website and reposts that content to get the traffic and collect the ad revenue" - as our own work. That is clearly inaccurate.

    clearly Reason 24/7 serves many valuable purposes, which is why i, like Nick, access it seven or eight times a day, as should all of you ungrateful philistines.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement