Reddit will limit the reach of a pro-Trump board and crack down

>This particular round of hostility between Reddit’s leadership and the pro-Trump board began when Reddit banned r/pizzagate, a subreddit devoted entirely to supporters of a conspiracy theory accusing Democrats of running a secret child trafficking ring, headquartered in a Washington pizza shop. The New York Times and others have debunked the theory, which has only encouraged its believers to implicate those debunkers in the conspiracy, too. Reddit shut down the subreddit, which had a lot of crossover membership with r/The_Donald, for repeatedly posting people’s personal information to the board, in violation of Reddit’s policies.

>But the bigger tension between r/The_Donald and Reddit’s leadership has been brewing for months. The Trump-supporting subreddit has long accused Reddit of trying to censor them because of their political beliefs, while other Redditors and subreddits have said the site hasn’t done nearly enough to stop systemic abuse and harassment — including that originating from the pro-Trump board.

>Huffman reiterated Wednesday that it is the “behavior” of some members of the subreddit that is at issue (and how that behavior is moderated) not their political orientation.

>Over the past several months, r/The_Donald has been extremely skilled at exploiting Reddit’s algorithms to spam the site with aggressive pro-Trump memes, conspiracy theories and inside jokes. Reddit had to change one of its algorithms over the summer to try to stop r/the_Donald from dominating the board that displays all of Reddit’s content, known as r/all.

>Huffman said Wednesday that “stickied” posts from r/the_Donald’s moderators would no longer appear on r/all, at all. The ability to sticky posts, or to keep them at the top of the subreddit’s list of posts, “was not meant to circumvent organic voting, which r/the_donald does to slingshot posts into r/all, often in a manner that is antagonistic to the rest of the community,” Huffman said.
...

>Reddit also introduced the ability for users to filter r/all for themselves.

>Two days before Huffman’s announcement, r/The_Donald posted a pledge “to stay on Reddit,” despite believing that it “has become abundantly clear that we are not welcome here.” The moderators of the pro-Trump subreddit also said that they would ban any user from r/The_Donald who engages in harassment, but strongly disputed that their board, as a whole, was responsible for that behavior. “Reddit admins have reached out to us and accused us of ‘fostering,’ and ‘encouraging,’ harassment,” the post said. “BULLS—.”

>In response to Huffman’s announcement, r/The_Donald’s mods stickied a tweet from Lauren Southern: “Soft quarantine for @thedonaldreddit & @reddit is acting like they’re benevolent for not outright banning the sub.”

>Reddit’s moderators, who are largely non-staff volunteers, have asked Huffman to ban r/The_Donald for repeatedly violating the site’s guidelines, citing instances of harassment targeting them and the communities they run. In leaked Slack chats involving Huffman, several moderators expressed frustration with Reddit’s lack of action against the pro-Trump board. One moderator said that they had personally been subject to “Car vandalism, pipe bomb threat (specific). Rallying calls to ruin my personal life,” all connected to members of r/The_Donald.

>“You make it seem like I don’t care about figuring out t_d,” Huffman wrote later in the chat. But he believed that “banning it,” as many of the moderators had asked, “would create a mess.”

...

>On Wednesday, Huffman repeated that reluctance to ban the subreddit:

>“More than anything, I want Reddit to heal, and I want our country to heal, and although many of you have asked us to ban the r/the_donald outright, it is with this spirit of healing that I have resisted doing so,” he said. “If there is anything about this election that we have learned, it is that there are communities that feel alienated and just want to be heard, and Reddit has always been a place where those voices can be heard.”

Fuck that website and fuck you OP

>>89011
Why so salty?

>anyone that doesn't allow us to spam and shitpost and try and chase off users when we don't like a conversation is a fascist
>my inane buzzwords and memes belong in every thread
>not allowing garbage to spill over onto every other subreddit means mods hate free speech

>>89019
>>89015
Go start a subreddit about your crybaby problems.

Other than the posting of personal information in the pizzagate reddit thing, they have not gave any information as to what the large scale harassment actually is so it's near impossible to have an opinion on this. Is it just some "mods are being jerks again" thing, or is it actual harassment? Is there any proof of the car vandalism, pipe bomb threats,or rallying calls to ruin that one persons life? This type of thing does happen and it isn't farfetched to believe it is happening, but proofs are still required.

The big thing here is that all these paragraphs of information seem to assume we should either believe the side presented with no proofs, or that we have a big knowledge pool on how reddit works and these specific subreddits.

Also as a website, reddit can shut down, ban, or otherwise do what they want with their subreddits but as a community it's own need to decide if they are okay with these things or not and given the current political climate it's very unlikely that the decision made will be based on anything but politics.

Anyone who actually knows more about reddit and can actually link specific threads or post screencaps with context feel free to give information to those of us who don't go to reddit or understand what the deal is. Is it true that the same type of rally calls made by more left leaning subreaddits are ignored? I have heard stories of people going out of their way to get someone fired or attempt to have violence done to them from both sides, but havn't looked into it myself so I don't know. Is this more of a politics based thing, or are the problems the article talks about (r/donald doing legit harassment, etc etc)fully legitimate?

Great, so now even more of the faggots are gonna come here, think the whole site is /pol/ and shit it up even harder.

>>89126
> think the whole site is /pol/
wait, there's more than /pol/ ?!?

>>89015
I guess it's OK for you libtard cry babies to protest and cuase property damage

>>89127
>>89126
No. They'll see this for the leftist cancer that it is.

>>88977
>“We will continue taking on the most troublesome users, and going forward, if we do not see the situation improve, we will continue to take privileges from communities whose users continually cross the line — up to an outright ban,” Huffman said.

Judging an entire community on the actions of a minority of it's members is is pretty god damn judgmental and just sounds like an excuse to ban any board they seem fit to want to ban.

>>88977
>Over the past several months, r/The_Donald has been extremely skilled at exploiting Reddit’s algorithms to spam the site with aggressive pro-Trump memes, conspiracy theories and inside jokes. Reddit had to change one of its algorithms over the summer to try to stop r/the_Donald from dominating the board that displays all of Reddit’s content, known as r/all.

>Reddit had to change one of its algorithms over the summer to try to stop r/the_Donald

>>89129
>I guess it's OK for you libtard cry babies to protest and cuase property damage
This kind of shitposting is exactly why you idiots get banned in normal places.

>>88977
WE

>>88977
DON'T

>>88977
CARE

>>88977
Seriously reddit GTFO our site we don't care about your bullshit drama

>>89148
>>89147
>>89146
>>89145
Why so salty?

>>89126
If that triggers you so much then, judging from this article, reddit is perfect for you big guy.

>>89143
My feefees being hurt justifies censorship so reddit can remain a safe space

>>89160
Are you going to boycott reddit?

>>89134
>leftist cancer
Just because peopel disagree with you doesn't make them 'cancer'.

Some of you alt-righters are pretty intelligent and interesting to debate with, but some of you are as closed-minded and hugbox/echochamber needing as the SJW's.

>>88977
>"We can't handle different opinions being popular on our site "
>So we will censor them because we value liberty of speech !"

>>89171
imagine creating a website for discussing anime, or whatever you're into. it starts small but becomes popular. You start adding other discussion topics as requested by the user base. Eventually demand for a politics topic comes up and you begrudgingly create it. Now after a few months, you start noticing that this board has a very large population of SJW feminists. They talk nonstop about the patriarchy and how white men are evil and women and minorities are the best. Then after another couple years, this board gets even bigger, the population grows more. Then you start noticing that on your favorite boards, movies say, feminism and SJW stuff is constantly being brought up. The patriarchy is brought up in almost every thread. People skew every discussion topic to be about how evil white men are, how there should be more women and minorities in film and tv. Everywhere you look on your website you see this narrative being brought up.

What would you do? Would you let your website be turned into a breeding ground of SJW's? would you allow them to skew all the discussion on the website to fit the narrative of the evil white man? Would you do something about it? I know I would. It's MY site, I can do whatever I want, so i'll try to curb this explosion of rhetoric.

>>88978
>cusing Democrats of running a secret child trafficking ring, headquartered in a Washington pizza shop
What the fuck? Thats too absurd, even for /pol/
Right?

Didn't SRS do the same stuff

>>89179
see
>>89142

>ITS NOT "X" WHEN WE'RE DOING IT

>Party 2 comes into power.

>THIS IS "X"

>Party 1 comes into power.

>THIS ISNT "X"

Within 50 years the US will be like the balkans during the 90s, but much bigger and superpower intervention would only make it worse.

>>89188
you'll have to be more specific, i'm not following

>>89195

People pretending their own party's shit doesn't stink while media on left and right pits people against each other for ratings.
All this blue v red hate will end horribly, because if it gets to the point where we have another civil war, it'll be more horrible than any civil war yet in history, for a variety of reasons.

>>89203
false equivalency

>>89210
how so?

>>89215
"Democrats are bringing library books to a knife fight." --Anthony Weiner

>>89203
At this point I'm happy to go along with that.

Gas the leftists and race traitors, civil war now.

>>89174
If your site is as big as Reddit is, you should think twice before silencing people on it.

Not that it matters. Reddit's importance in anything died when spez started editing. Now nothing you see on the website can be trusted.

>>89226
Who owns reddit? Follow the money.

>>89219

They totally didn't assault people at a trump rally and firebomb a GOP office. No siree.

>>89230
>They totally didn't assault people at a trump rally and firebomb a GOP office. No siree.
Show me a news article which says they did.
>inb4 breitbart-tier

>>89232
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/?utm_term=.e3a8cbe1b73f

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/

>>89234
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/

>>89234
>nothing saying they were democrats in either link
Still waiting

>>89235
Nice try, James O'Keefe

>>89236

See >>89235

I already admitted my shit stinks, admit yours does too and we can finally move on as a country.

Both sides would have voted for a better candidate if there was one. Your pretentious liberalism and my party's stubborn conservatism will actually start a civil war. Do yourself a favor and relax.

Here's some music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCRcxPLnY8

>>89238
No, there really is no comparison. It's like the difference between armed robbery of a liquor store and fleecing the entire world economy and crashing it.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

>>89239
This, democrats are trans-infallible.

It's a bitch move for this guy to not just ban The_Donald. This is clearcut. They are breaking rules. It doesn't matter if it would "create a mess." Clean the fucking mess.

>>89239
>WHY DO RESEARCH WHEN YOU CAN JUST CHECK SNOPES?! LOLROFL

We need to make a new rule for this board about "fact checking" websites.

Snopes, and other sites like that, regardless of affiliation, presented on their own are not a credible citations and is the equivalent of citing an opinion blog.

They've been caught numerous times fudging shit. Moreover, Snopes, FactCheck, & politifact have this habit of citing each other and using each others citations of each other as supporting proof.

>>89232
Jesus what a bubble you live in

>>89387
It's called reality. You should look into it sometime when you're tired of giving Matt Drudge adsense shekels.

>>89383
>They've been caught numerous times fudging shit.
This is exactly what James O'Keefe and Project Veritas does, not snopes or factcheck or politifact...

>>89395
>It's called reality. You should look into it sometime when you're tired of giving Matt Drudge adsense shekels.
Exactly. And I'm so glad the MSM was right about Clinton winning th-

Oh, right. You live in "reality".

>>89396
>This is exactly what James O'Keefe and Project Veritas does, not snopes or factcheck or politifact...

They all do it. All four.

Fun fact- thinking that Snopes, Factcheck, and Politifact are all politically-funded partisan hack jobs pushing opinions as facts doesn't necessarily mean you believe Keefe or Veritias are any more truthful.

The term for this is called "false dichotomy."
The term for you is called "useful idiot".

>>89397
Who is "The MSM" to you? I hope you're including Fox News in that.

>>89398
>They all do it. All four.
[citation needed]
The only one here with a false dichotomy is you.

>>89397
>he's still using archaic 20th century terminology like "MSM"
It's like you don't know that drudgereport gets 3 trillion page hits every year. The television networks are irrelevant when sites like Huffington Post on the left and Breitbart on the right can be linked to on drudgereport and get 100x the eyeballs that a network news broadcast would.

>>88977
I hate the alt right meme or people who are unironcally alt right, but censoring peoples opinions just sounds like something that Reddit would do. No too surprised

>>89400
>Who is "The MSM" to you? I hope you're including Fox News in that.
No, only a specific 30 minute segment on ABC between the hours of 2 and 3 am, PST.

Yes I'm including Fox news you twit.

>[citation needed]
You really are a twit. A grand twit. Tiwmungus.

>Snopes, Politifact, and FactCheck make shit up.
>No, only Keefe and Veritas do that
>They all do it, one doesn't exclude the other
>You have to prove they all do it then, even the claim I made

I'll let you try and figure out what's wrong with this. If you can.

>The only one here with a false dichotomy is you.
You don't even know what a false dichotomy is, do you?

>>89405
lol, you're adorable, kid.. Keep pretending like the corporate media is "liberal", all the major factchecking sites are as bad as Project Veritas, and that wingnut media doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, in reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Conservative_bias

>>89403
>he's still using archaic 20th century terminology like "MSM"
Given that it's the 21st and the MSM still exists for now, it's still valid.

>It's like you don't know that drudgereport gets 3 trillion page hits every year.The television networks are irrelevant when sites like Huffington Post on the left and Breitbart on the right can be linked to on drudgereport and get 100x the eyeballs that a network news broadcast would.

It's like you don't know half the country is still reacting to Trump winning the election despite being promised Clinton would, like part-loyal Russians reacted to the collapse of the USSR despite promises of everything being hunky-dory.

Because they don't read drudge and instead got their news from MSM sites like FOX, MSNBC, ABC, etc.

I agree the MSM is archaic and holds a dangerous monopoly on mainstream culture and thought. That doesn't mean I can pretend no one watches it anymore.

>>89407
>Keep pretending like the corporate media is "liberal", all the major factchecking sites are as bad as Project Veritas, and that wingnut media doesn't exist.

Keep throwing around buzzwords you learned from Salon, throw enough and maybe you'll cover up the fact that you've abandoned your argument and all it's points to post one pitiful Wikipedia article-segment about "conservative media bias"- right under another segment about Liberal media bias- a larger one with more citations and a link to it's own standalone article.

Does it feel nice, hoisting yourself with your own petard so hard you prolapse?

>>89408
>Given that it's the 21st and the MSM still exists for now, it's still valid.
The MSM hasn't existed since the big three networks stopped being so big. Matt Drudge scooped them in 1997 with Lewinsky and it's been all downhill ever since.

Your reasoning is based on a false premise. If there is a MSM now it's the clickbait networks like breitbart and WND and Buzzfeed. They control the outrage machine, therefore they control the narrative.

>>89411
Keep throwing around buzzwords you learned from /pol/ and I'll keep throwing around buzzwords I got from salon.

I'm not the one arguing that factcheck.org lies as much as Project Veritas, Anon, my facts are based in reality.

>>89413
Well they must if they have fatcheck in the name!

>>89414
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck.org

>>89413
>Keep throwing around buzzwords you learned from /pol/ and I'll keep throwing around buzzwords I got from salon.

Fun fact- not every person you disagree with is from /pol/.

>I'm not the one arguing that factcheck.org lies as much as Project Veritas, Anon, my facts are based in reality.
Which is why you've provided exactly no facts, beyond a Wikipedia article that supports my point about both sides being bullshit, far more than it does your point that one side is lying and one side is pure-truth fighting against the darkness.

I mean, did you seriously just glaze over that whole segment about liberal bias? Is you brain even physically capable of letting you see it, or is it cognitively dissonancing it out of your view?

>>89415
Again, constantly linking to Wikipedia is not doing what you think it's doing.
I'm sure somewhere in that cross-wired brain is a desperately blinking light between "facts" and "wikipedia", but if this is all you have, it's time to stop posting. You're embarassing yourself.

>>89413
Additionally, constantly repeating "this is a fact" doesn't make it so.

This isn't a self-help cassette, you cannot make things you wish were true so, through constant repetition and affirmation.

But, please cite Wikipedia again, maybe it'll help.

>>89426
For someone who supposedly isn't from /pol/ you sure accuse people of getting buzzwords from salon.com like you are.

>I don't trust wikipedia or factcheck.org because they contradict the Trump narrative.
I've got the jist of your argument You can stop posting now.

>>89429
>This isn't a self-help cassette, you cannot make things you wish were true so, through constant repetition and affirmation.
You need to go to the nearest mirror and repeat that to yourself about 500 times.

>>88978
There's a ton of evidence. FBI is well aware of pizzagate and is pursuing it. NY times did no counter investigation, they asked the owner of comet pizza if he was involved and he said nope. Hardly debunking anything.

>>89437
lol
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/01/comet-ping-pong-to-beef-up-security-at-music-shows-after-pizzagate-harassment/

>>89433
>You need to go to the nearest mirror and repeat that to yourself about 500 times.
"No u"

I'm slightly dissapointed you didn't link me a Wikipedia article on mirrors, but I am THOROUGHLY DEFEATED. Excellent comeback, you are a master of discourse. I bet you even get dressed all by yourself!

Snopes is now 100% TRUTH ALWAYS, Keefe and Veritas are being sent to Gitmo even though Obama "closed it down", and Clinton is really the President. Reality got its liberal bias back :^).

>>89431
>For someone who supposedly isn't from /pol/ you sure accuse people of getting buzzwords from salon.com like you are.
Probably because you keep throwing around buzzwords from Salon.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, uses duck migratory patterns, gives birth to ducklings, and has duck DNA...

It's a duck.

>Trump narrative.
Define Trump narrative. Cite sources. Live up to the burden of proof you put on others.

Do not cite, snopes, politifact, or factcheck. I won't source Keefe or Veritas.

>I've got the jist of your argument You can stop posting now.
Are you just going to repeat everything I've said back to me?

>>89433
>You need to go to the nearest mirror and repeat that to yourself about 500 times.
I guess you are. Projecting is fun, isn't it?

Now, accuse ME of projecting. Dance puppet, dance.

>>89442
>>89444
Ladies and Gentlemen, these will be your /pol/tards for this afternoon. Let's give them a warm welcome.

P.S. Here's a wikipedia article for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//r/The_Donald

>>89444
I decided to read your posts just now.

You're pretty fucking bad at making any sort of argument other than "NO SIR OT IS YOU WHO IS WRONG". You also cited Washington Times, a fucking tabloid.

If you're not from /pol/, then I recommend going and staying there. Indefinitely, if possible.

>>89174
>In order to prevent a future crime, we must punish people now
>Inst this the plot of some gay sci-fi movie?

>>89445
GTFO of /pol/ then?

>>89163
That would be a good start, considering it was named "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web" by one of its creators.

>>89174
Removing content that is infringing policy is one. Editing people's comments without stating edits, and doing it covertly, is completely different.

>>89179
Not if there's enough evidence to suggest such a possibility.

>>89236
Democrats are not a criminal organization, that benefits from claiming responsibility for illegal activity, like ISIL.

>>89383
>>89396
>>89398
>>89426
Actually Snopes, and FactCheck.org, are quite reliable. In case of Snopes, you just have to skip the initial statement of "true" or "false". The content is pretty much on topic, and it cites sources. Another thing, these things are always less reliable, when it comes to politics, and require at least minimal research.
And then, you can form your very own opinion. No service is unbiased, but it's difficult to push agenda and bias, when exhausting topic properly.

>presented on their own are not a credible citations and is the equivalent of citing an opinion blog
That's very well said.

Don't confuse them with PolitiFact or Washington Post's Fact Checker, because these are full of shit and bias, mostly giving short "true" or "false" opinions, with minimum to back it.

Wikipedia is pushing agenda of its own kind, it's hardly free encyclopedia. While it follows quite strict objectivity standards, there's a lot of stuff they don't include, if it's against their agenda, or over-explore topics that serves their agenda.

>>89449
We don't want him either.
t. /pol/

>>88977
ever get the feeling that reddit is fucking gay in the first place? that's how i felt when it first went up.
>i'm gonna blabber online! talky talky talky

who the fuck wants to be on that site... do you crave hearing people's political bitching back and forth? do you need the drama of people attacking each other incessantly? how terrible.

I don't know about you guys, but this 1984 push to fact check everything and sanitize the Internet is pretty funny. The more they try to crack down, the more people are going to revolt.

>>89522
Since when does caring about what actually happened without the political spin a "1984 push to fact check"? When did facts become associated with newspeak in your mind?

>>89407
Hol up are you saying different media outlets have different political agendas?

>>89545
My point was that the internet killed the "liberal MSM" 15 years ago but you're not wrong in what you're saying.

>>89546
Both sides shit fling like no tommorow but this American election season has been really bad with the liberal media shilling for Hillary like she's a saint and hasn't done anything wrong ever while piles of evidence stack up behind her while burying Sanders even though he would of been a better candidate than Hillary

The conservative media has been hyping up Trump as a messianic figure when really he is just in the Presidency game for his own agendas

>>89445
>they
>them
Same person you schizophrenic fuck.

>Donald wiki
LE WIKI, LE DEFEAT, LE DESPAIR
What exactly do you think you're accomplishing, my koolaid ladden friend?
Are you posting Wiki's because you have to?
Do you feel some sort of cerebral compulsion brought on by the same mental illness that has you living in your liberal fantasy world where everyone who disagrees with you is an agent personally paid by Trump?

>>89445
>>89449
>I decided to read your posts just now.
So first you're accusing the same person of being two other people, then you're acting like two different people, the second of which "only just happened" to read my posts now and agrees my arguments are bad, because someone who wasn't me posted a washingtontimes article.

>If you're not from /pol/, then I recommend going and staying there. Indefinitely, if possible.
If this board wasn't anonymous, you'd take the first trophy for "most mentally ill poster on /news/".
I am in your safe space now. Get used to it.

>>89507
>Actually Snopes, and FactCheck.org, are quite reliable. In case of Snopes, you just have to skip the initial statement of "true" or "false". The content is pretty much on topic, and it cites sources.
You can't just "skip" that, the true or false is the whole basis of them doing their thing. And if they're using their "fantastic, on point" content to tell lies punctuated with a phony "True/False", that's not reliability. That's propaganda, no matter how many bows it's dressed up in.

>Don't confuse them with PolitiFact or Washington Post's Fact Checker, because these are full of shit and bias, mostly giving short "true" or "false" opinions, with minimum to back it.
Both Snopes and Fact Check have been guilty of this on numerous occasions as well. I've also seen a fair share of articles off of Snopes that come off as little more than angry opinion pieces.

>>89554
You know you've responded to three different people, right?

>>89542
>Since when does caring about what actually happened without the political spin a "1984 push to fact check"?
Because right now the whole "fake news fact check" cry-out is mainly generated by people reacting to the election- specifically, people who believed all of the polls and reports that said hillary had it on lock.

However, instead of directing their anger at the major MSM outlets who've been lying to them for the past few months, they've elected instead to focus it on "alternative" news sites for allowing what essentially amounts to them as a form of thought crime. Not that all alternative news sites are "on the level", but this is a very dangerous precedent.

>When did facts become associated with newspeak in your mind?
When the left decided that facts were offensive and needed to be re-written by authority.

>>89555
>You know you've responded to three different people, right?
Two, but yes.

>>89556
Oh my sweet summer child, if only you knew how far to the right fringe you were yourself, then you'd know how meaningless it is when you call others a liberal.

>>89554
>getaloadofthisgoy.jpg

>>89559
>accuse other people of being "right fringe"
>uses "getaloadofthisgoy"

Take your pills.

>>89560
I'd rather have some of what you're smoking.

>>89561
Lemon kush.

I would advise against it though, since your a schizo, weed would be bad for you.

>>89019
Go fuck ur father fag

>>89554
lol this guy btfo out of you leftist shits.

Both sides suck ass, I think the left sucks more but you can't even admit your own is bad
>muh factcheckers say they're racists.

>>89542
Thank you Ministry of Truth. Fake news isn't a new concept. The only people making a big deal about it are the ones currently creating it.

>>89179
that's because in typical MSM fashion they're completely distorting the story to make it sound ridiculous. I don't follow the pizzagate thing but even I know nobody ever claimed the pizza place was the headquarters of anything, it's just linked via ownership and frequent patronage to a bunch of washington insiders who are implicated in the thing.

>>89651
We were talking about factcheckers, not fake news.

>>89681
*you were talking about fact checkers, a minor point in the original post, but I'll bite. 'fact checking' was popularized by the debates but was always there and never quite went away this year, but it's an effort to filter things through more biased media like politifact to double down on the current house of cards. it's another layer of quickly digestible headlines hiding a pile of craven lies nobody will read, so those who want to feel more scrutinous can check a second source and feel like (and reassure their friends) they did research into the truth behind the story, problem being the 'fact checkers' create their own headlines identical in slant to the news.

>>89705
When your own personal views are to the right of those found on FoxNews, then the rest of the media is naturally going to appear slanted toward the liberal side of things. That isn't hard to do in a political environment where most of Ronald Reagan's policies from 30 years ago seem like something a democrats would propose today. The democrats of 30 years ago have not gotten *more* liberal from their free-love permissiveness of 30 or 40 years ago. If anything they are more corporatist and sold out to big business, long gone from the union-backed populism of previous decades.

For as much as /pol/ and others seem to think PC SJWs are the biggest threat to society, the two major party platforms have skewed toward the far right in the past 30 years, not the far left, and the PC SJWs are just another kneejerk reaction to that, and so is most of the so called "liberal" attitude of the media.

>>89721
>openm borders and anti-white identity politics are far right
please, tell me more. corporatism is not a left or right thing, it's true that they manipulate both sides of the system but currently it is left policies that are being utilized in corporate favour; to flood nations with both skilled workers and unskilled labourers both of whom have very low standards as it is and oversaturate the pool of workers to keep wages low and workers unable to bargain.

>>89721
Economically yes. Socially the Democrats have gone far left. Hillary was running on a corporatist platform for economics but was basically a tumblr SJW for social issues