New applicants for moderator must:

- Be in good standing with our Safety team (e.g., no account suspensions in past year)
- Have at least 1000 total karma
- Have at least 500 karma in the_donald
- Not have more than 500 karma in quarantined subreddits (aside from the_donald) or subreddits banned for rule violations (not including communities banned for being unmodded)
- Have at least 1 month experience moderating a subreddit in good standing
- Not be an alt of any ineligible accounts


Perhaps not so "strange", in the sense that these might be rules they would come up with, but certainly "strange" in that these rules were constructed just for the management of this one subreddit.

I've participated in a quarantined sub before (not that one; I've never participated in the_donald) and my opinion is that the quarantining of the sub I was in was absolutely arbitrary, and almost certainly just a bias on the "Safety team"'s behalf. Reddit now intends to expand its quarantining program. Let's see if it pays off.

As they grow, they're just discovering the tragedy of the commons.

Those look like a pretty good rule set, assuming the karma numbers are good (I have no reference point), and as long as there exist places to get the one month experience if it expands.

By "pays off" do you mean "drives away their user base"?

More in the meme sense, intended to be ironic/sarcastic (click the image for more information)

http://cellar.org/img/boldstrategy.jpg

Count Dankula recently received a "strike" on YouTube for his original "Nazi Pug" joke video...

...which YouTube itself took down last year.

Also, and I find this to be absolutely stunning, let's say you wanted to see that video to figure out what the fuss was about.

Please compare the Google results for the search "count dankula pug video"

and the Bing results for the same search

Bing is useful, Google is not, because Google is extending YouTube's censorship practices to the video results of its own searches.

Canada has requested and gotten a country-level ban of the cannabis review subreddit r/CanadianMOMs.

Partly in response, users joined the subreddit /r/GeographicCensorship. It was immediately banned... entirely.

Not censorship by Instagram, but censorship OF Instagram:

A Wisconsin teen had a severe respiratory illness; doctors told her she was tested too late in the cycle to determine it, but that it had likely been COVID-19.

She posted about it on Instagram.

Her school then complained to the local sheriff. A police Sergeant went to her house and ordered her to delete her posts or he'd arrest her and/or her parents.

Sheriff and Sarge are now being sued by the parents -- for nominal damages, but more importantly, for the injunction saying they can't be cited or arrested for posting on Instagram.

This is entirely a First Amendment issue. Let's stop this country from becoming the UK.

https://www.will-law.org/will-sues-m...ech-violation/

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...st/5145087002/

That's more like turning the lights on in a crowded theater...

Doctors are saying that tests do exist to determine someone was infected. But tests to determine that one is infected and other tests to determine that someone was infected remain mostly unavailable in America.

Tests are available in other nations whose leaders decided to address this problem. Those nations are able to recover from this pandemic faster. But doctors repeatedly say they do not understand why those tests are not readily available in America.

Both tests are essential to end a pandemic. Testing could have determined if Amyiah had been infected. But not in Wisconsin? That is essential news that all decent (moderate) Americans would understand. Our health care industry is still denied materials required to diminish or eliminate Covid-19.

Apparently a Sherriff fears we might learn.

Tests would have been available if a government was led by someone with more than a 30 second attention span.

Was he a Republican Sherriff? A relevant question now that so many have become extremists. Extremists (ie Fox News) even declared Covid-19 as fake news in March when Amyiah was getting infected.

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Someone with a 30 second attention span should be understand that much.

As of today over 3,400,000 tests have been performed in America

The young lady in question WAS tested

Her test came back negative, and the medical speculation was that she had COVID, but the test was taken after her viral load had already dropped

Antibody tests completed development about three weeks ago and are just now coming online

Many flavors of extremist out there. I really wish folks could join Team America or Team Humanity instead of this Red Blue dichotomy because it's easy to re-elect extremists like Trump and McConnell when Democrats insist all Republicans are evil and treat them that way.

Well, after being called every name in the book by republicans since 1979, it is really easy to forget civility.

Just putting that out there.

I definitely hear you. I’d just like the country not to burn after we beat these assholes. Watching the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine posts on Facebook isn’t giving me much hope though.

Frankly, I don't see the country remaining a single political entity much longer. A couple of years, maybe.

Correction: it wasn't this Marquette County Sheriff who was responsible here... apparently they have multiple. It was a Sheriff named Joseph Konrath, who is a Republican.

Which puts me in a kinda shitty position, cuz it's all about me. My rural neighbors to the North want to leave NY and join PA because they hate taxes, good roads, and good schools. I need to live in a rural place but actually believe government can have a role and miss Republicans with common sense. A rural "liberal" will have trouble finding a moderate welcoming place to settle when secession becomes wholesale.

Evil is a strong word, but it is close to what you have to call the entire Republican membership in both houses of Congress when they vote in lockstep with President Pennywise and his cabal of an administration.

Team America does exist. And has been repeatedly defined. They are also called moderates.

Reminds me of a dentist who lived on an island between the township and a borough - a shore community. He was known to be an extremist. And insisted this neighborhood be incorporated by the borough because it had lower taxes. That borough outrightly refused. He then decided, like any good extremist, to take revenge.

So that dentist collected his used needles, carried them out on his boat, and spread them in the water so that needles would wash up on beaches.

Being an extremist, he did not know needles have serial numbers. They traced those needles back to him.

Plenty of Timothy McVeighs are out there. They don't like something. So those others must be evil.

Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events in California, New Jersey, and Nebraska after consultation with state governments.

To what extent is this an astro-turfing event vs a ground swell of opposition? I know people are frustrated, hell I'm frustrated but too much too soon will kill. Alex Jones is involved so we know it's about being stupid, but I initially assumed it was a Russian amplification thing rather than an ALEC amplification thing. On a bright note there were bible toting end-timers in Endicott yesterday. Everybody hears the message they want to hear I guess.

Nobody will agree with me but

Imagine being told to stay home and your job and salary would be protected by the government and then the government didn't protect your job or salary

Then imagine that instead government went on a micromanagement spree preventing you from taking a solitary walk in a local park

Then imagine that, locked in at home, all you had to complain about this was social media. Then imagine the government and private industry colluded to make sure your social media group was deleted

You don't have to tax your imagination very hard, it's happening

You're not wrong. People are being financially ruined by this leading to further concentration in big businesses vs small. The small business I work for got a payroll protection loan which will cover the gap in my reduced hours.

Why the open carry threat though?

Imagine the payroll protection plan only covered part of it and then money for the next part was held up in government by a leader who, when asked what she is doing in the meantime, showed off her wildly expensive designer ice cream in her wildly expensive designer freezer

Now imagine that this plan for economic help, developed during a time of crisis, with input from multiple co-equal branches of government with a long history of bitter opposition, satisfied everyone completely, covered all the shortfalls and risks experienced by individuals and businesses, was delivered immediately, and with no friction or burden to anyone now or in the future. Imagine all the people working to put this plan together got everything right the first time.

Imagine there were no problems at all with with the development and delivery of such a plan. You can't, can you? I can't either.

It doesn't tax one's imagination very hard to think that there will be problems, and that the difficulties will be unevenly distributed. It's not taxing at all to imagine that the ones that gain the most attention will be the dramatic ones like comparing some fool's ice cream to some other person's bare cupboard.

There will be problems, or room for improvement, depending on your perspective.

But on the topic of the title of the thread, I find the term "censorship" a bit of a stretch when applied to the actions of non-governmental entities. Especially companies where participation is voluntary, unlike living in our society here (though some will say that's voluntary too, "love it or leave it"). Lots of social media platforms have terms and conditions, including the cellar. Enforcing those terms and conditions, including the deletion of member input ... I can see how the term censorship could come to mind. I just don't think it's the best description. The effect is the same, but the context is different in fundamentally important ways.

Equal respect for the rules, shared understanding of reality (that phrase is awkward to say the least, I'm leaving it in for now, read for emotional impact if necessary), having a debate about the relative importance of competing pressures is the optimal scenario, but some will want to skip that part and get right to the torches and pitchforks.

Again, not evenly distributed and the aggrieved parties are the ones that make more noise than the satisfied ones.

I totally agree

there is no make-it-all-better button

you may apply that same standard to dear leader

Censorship applies to everyone

First amendment protection applies to US government

I don't think it's censorship if I can still say it, just not here.

Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?

I have been exercising my imagination to encompass your premise

(emphasis mine)

and I was overtaxed. I can't do it. What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups? Probably not the ice cream lady, and all the other hands on levers of power are hauling in the other direction.

That is not the definition of censorship

When television networks prohibited the display of homosexuality as part of their standards and practices, that was censorship even though one could show it elsewhere

The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states

If I can still say it, I'm not censored. That's just my opinion man.

When does the absence of something become censorship? When I bite my tongue and refrain from saying "Jane, you ignorant slut."? Or when I post something and it's deleted?

What's the difference between abiding by community standards and self censorship? Editing and censorship? Is the enforcement of a site's terms and conditions censorship? What if I want to target a particular group with my ads and that group's not selectable? Have I been censored?

When I don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, am I being censored?

It's censorship if the rule your breaking is not in place beforehand.

bold claim. Ben Shapiro and Oliver Darcy and Mike Davis think so, and lots of people who flock in the same twitter murmurations. I haven't seen any messages from any state governments saying this is what they did. Have you? Or from Facebook? That Facebook says they've followed instructions from the state government to censor their users?


Just thinkin out loud here for a minute, skip it if you want.

I'll focus on the social media aspect in a minute, but the whole social distancing behavior, stay apart to help reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus, this practice is on I have adopted, as have many many other people. The promotion of this practice has been... what's the word... formalized into a guideline, not a law. But the force of laws has been discussed and applied, (I don't know the names of the laws...:/) like being in a place during an emergency where I don't belong. It's ..."like" trespassing, but that's definitely not the right word. Improperly being in a controlled area during an exceptional time, an accident scene, a crime scene, the beach during a hurricane, you get the idea.

The enforcement of these guidelines is widely accepted in many other situations but this situation is exceptional for a number of reasons, reasons that make it harder to do and harder to see and harder to understand. The risk is diffuse and invisible and delayed. That kind of threat is hard for us humans to perceive. And I have a hard time keeping my vigilance at a high level without the kinds of inputs that normally keep me on my toes. This coronavirus pandemic is not scary when I look out my window and see the sun shining on the trees and grass and birdies and flowers. Why not go out, why not enjoy this pretty spring day? Why not share that enjoyment with others? BZZZZZZZT!

Ah, that's when my intellectual brain remembers what I've been told is the best practice--not gather together out with a bunch of my fellow two legged virus targets.

Promoting this idea, the social distancing requires effort, it's an effort to accomplish, the promotion is a necessary part of the success of the effort.

Governments, *at all levels*, are promoting it. Social media platforms are promoting it.

I think the quality and value of this idea of social distancing, and crucially, the motivation for the guidelines, is what is in dispute between, say, me, and the people saying their right to freely assemble is being abridged. Both sides are looking at the same thing, and seeing different things. I challenge the other side by saying my reasoning, increased chance of not transmitting the virus is more important, they say differently. I would also challenge them by reminding them that there are no rights without responsibilities. All our rights are exercised in a framework, all of them have limits of some kind. We have rules, right?

The value of breaking the rules is kind of proportional to the proportion of those who follow the rules. If traffic is gridlocked, and one guy pulls into the breakdown lane and zooms along at 70 mph, he gets a big benefit. That benefit tapers off pretty quickly when a second guy does it, then five more, then when everybody's doing it, we just have a somewhat wider traffic jam.

I don't have a problem with a social media platform, say Facebook, removing posts that advocate activity that is counterproductive to public health. Enforcing terms and conditions / censorship; potato / tomato.

yeah, read it already.

I concede that you're using the word properly in context.

I think you're finessing the conflation of our First amendment and the word censorship.

from your link:

So censorship is happening. Why should I care? Are you suggesting a law has been broken? I do care about laws. Is someone being harmed?

It appears Mr Darcy was inexact in his wording and we do not have evidence that the states requested takedown. Only that they "communicated"

"Communication" is vague but one state is denying they ASKED for the takedown

Thank you for the correction

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/polit...sts/index.html

Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA

Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol

Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available

I strongly disagree with your position.

Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.

And now we're back to my point

removing the social media content is what happened.

why it was removed is not clear and is in dispute.

one narrative is fb is doing the bidding of the tyrannical states.

one narrative is fb is enforcing their terms and conditions.

both narratives involve censorship (I'm self censoring my urge to surround that with scare quotes)

How YOU feel about whichever narrative you think is most likely correct is 100% on you; exactly the same for ME.

But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.

Totally tail-posting on whatever the debate is here, but "who decides" is a good question, there's not a good answer, and that's where all our problems begin. We can't decide on what to do because we can't decide what's real or not. And there's brain-numbingly stupid examples of this. Exxon knew about global warming 40 years ago, but because they were so good at spreading misinformation, we're still (somehow) arguing about this.

I thought, briefly, that a global pandemic would be a sobering moment for us to all agree on a basic premise, but that's gone out the window. And in typical fashion-- not by direct contradiction but by the "I'm just asking questions, is that a crime?" method, aka muddying the waters. But SOMEBODY has to be a "source" of information. We literally can't survive without information to inform our decisions.

Oh! Come and see the censorship inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

Evidently you did when you censored Henry. :eyebrow:

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later

Just put a disclaimer in your byline, I'd hate to catch you chatting on Facebook regularly.

Knock it off, you can't take your ball and go home, you are home.
The primary reason I gave up being a mod is people put implied authority to my statements unlike every other swinging dick, and that was a drag.
You don't have that option, until people grasp that you can be told to fuck off like everyone else it's your albatross.

This is stupid. Nobody thinks you're the Cellar.

You've got a strong personality, well-formed opinions, and you put yourself out there to take a lot of heat on difficult positions. That's all you, baby.

We wouldn't have it any other way.

Which leaves you and Facebook in a difficult situation. I don't believe Facebook ever bothered to address that question until it became glaringly obvious that there reputation (and more important, proftis) was as stake. I believe their guidelines were ad hoc - after the fact - too late.

Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.

Yes, plans completely break down with first conflict. But the fewer who have plans are more easily able to adapt to changing conditions and unexpected events. Do any good guidelines or examples exist from which one might construct such a framework?

I feel like he has.

There are only THREE rules of The Cellar.

Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.
Do not try to break the Cellar.
Do not be "intolerably irritating".

The last one is censorship by this thread's standards, and I've disagreed with several cases of its use, but do not disagree with the necessity of the rule or UT's (or designated mods) right to enforce it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...LI1bOd0aFd5jHw


Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.

Wow.



I'm not cool with UT self-censoring on this and other issues. We need his unique voice here.

Yeah, about that...

Toad didn't censor me: I took myself out of the discussion.

If you took yourself out on my account: you ought to reconsider.

It wouldn't be the cellar with out Undertoad.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/polit...nREzWXNiWWZCmM

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets "potentially misleading."

The draft executive order being prepared by the Trump administration tests the boundaries of the White House's authority. In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits.

Ok, let's talk about this.

Trump just wants a fight. Fights attract attention, aka his oxygen. The reason for the fight is to gain attention. Winning this fight is irrelevant and unlikely. It's more ammunition for his Endless War of Aggrievement. Like any old blunderbuss, it doesn't matter what you stuff down the barrel, the hot air will shoot it out. And if there's one thing he has a superabundance of is hot air.

There's no First Amendment argument here, no sane person will say there is. He just wants to distract our attention from his abject failure as a good leader, or even as a good person. It will resonate with those who also feel aggrieved and entitled.

You are right about this. The current state of the Supreme Court gives me pause but Roberts isn't a loon.

.....I suggested a while back the white house staff should do this with T-Rump's Shitter account.....