Perhaps. I know that a number of objectively hateful subreddits were not banned because they were hateful of people "in the majority" (whatever that means).
An archived copy of Reddit's "Account and Community Restrictions" from the time of the ban reads as such [0]:
> While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.
The question here veers into the territory of whether Reddit is a "publisher" or "platform". Their editorial decision to ban certain kinds of loosely-defined "hate" seems to clearly point to them being an editorializing publisher of content. This, in addition to their editing of user's posts criticizing their core team [1] and other such egregious acts.
There's no compelling reason for me to believe Reddit acted in good faith.
> I know that a number of objectively hateful subreddits were not banned because they were hateful of people "in the majority" (whatever that means).
Don't be vague, give concrete examples if you're going to make broad statements like that.
> The question here veers into the territory of whether Reddit is a "publisher" or "platform".
Well are subreddits "publishers" or "platforms" then? Because a lot of the hateful subs that have been shut down over the years (t_D, uncensorednews, European, etc.) banned users who disagreed with their moderators.
Well there is /r/BlackPeopleTwitter, which generally has a lot of vitriol aimed at white people which goes wholly unchecked.
It is also the home of "country club threads", wherein you're banned from commenting unless you are a PoC or have proved yourself to be a "white ally" (initially I think it was only PoC and none of the white ally stuff, but they let them in later in response to continued backlash – also because I think many of the mods aren't actual PoC so looked even more ridiculous than it was already).
Subreddits are composed of communities which (in theory) are self-moderating. The communities themselves can be publishers or platforms, the question here is about whether or not Reddit should have the editorial authority to delete subreddits at will.
Here is a small list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti.... Most of these subreddits are not Nazi or Stalinist-level hateful, but could still be considered hateful (the definition of hate is actually very shaky, I regret saying "objectively hateful" in my above comment).
I could back to you with a longer list of more underground subreddits, though I don't really have the time to. You can go to something like https://reddit.guide and search for subreddits similar to the ones banned. Plenty are still active, just much smaller.
Why do you guys always call t_d a hate sub? It was a Trump fan sub. Dedicated to positive content about Trump. It was the complete opposite of hateful, of course. Now, take the far left sub “/r/politics” which actively promotes hatred against half of the United States. Threats of violence against law enforcement abound there. Calls for actual bloodshed and violent “revolution” constantly.
Subreddits are private or public communities that all have their own rules for what can be posted. Reddit itself is a publisher. Legally speaking, they curate a collection of subreddits and publish them. Reddit (and other pro-communist and anti-American publishers like Twitter) will likely face massive legal action from the DOJ if Americans vote to give Trump a second term. I for one can’t wait to see these commies bite the dust in federal court!
California/Silicon Valley has a big issue of absolutely belief they are right. Big tech companies want to stop "disinformation" by banning people from their platforms.
A recent case is Dr. Li-Meng Yan who's been publishing research about CoV2 origins. There are academics who've taken issue with some of those releases/papers, and there is room for discussion for sure. But it should be discussed. Twitter just said, "nope, disinformation, cut and dry" and banned her account.
There are a lot of experts recently who have been banned on platforms like YouTube, Twitter, et. al. for spreading bad information. But science is not democratic. California companies have somehow become the arbitrators of what is good and bad science.
But coming back off of science to t_d, the same applies. It's a huge feedback loop of "he's bad" and a "fascists" and subs like these showed time and time again the massive media distortion of every one of his statements. There are a lot of agendas going on here and few of them are for the Truth.
[1] is an example of a hate sub against men that's not banned by reddit. But [2] is just a group of men who have decided to never date, marry etc. is quarantined because somehow that is hate. Also how are women a minority when they are 50% of the population? Baffles me.
Both those subs are sexist garbage and MGTOW is not "just a group of men who have decided to never date, marry etc.". It's a shitty community that frequently promotes sexist garbage like this [1, 2].
An archived copy of Reddit's "Account and Community Restrictions" from the time of the ban reads as such [0]:
> While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.
The question here veers into the territory of whether Reddit is a "publisher" or "platform". Their editorial decision to ban certain kinds of loosely-defined "hate" seems to clearly point to them being an editorializing publisher of content. This, in addition to their editing of user's posts criticizing their core team [1] and other such egregious acts.
There's no compelling reason for me to believe Reddit acted in good faith.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200701001008/https://www.reddi...
[1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reddit-ceo-edits-user-comment...