all 61 comments

[–]brickfrog 22 insightful - 4 fun22 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

AFAIK Saidit does not have a core mission of never banning subs. A sub whose primary purpose happens to violate TOS or pyramid of debate may end up getting the axe here.

That said I don't know the specifics of whichever sub you are referring to.

Also worth noting sometimes subs get banned then re-instated, e.g.

[–]Mnemonic 16 insightful - 5 fun16 insightful - 4 fun17 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

What is the sub in question?

If it was /s/ChildPornPics or otherwise went against the it's not something to whine about, is it now?

[–]Marou 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

I understand where you're trying to draw the line but I can relate to the sub, not in a literal way but a satirical one.

[–]Mnemonic 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I still would like to know which sub :p

I mean I've been a bitch in a non-submissive way and I still get treated reasonably by the admins, as long as I'm reasonable in response and actions.

This whole post sketches such an image like this is the end is near, while we don't even know what/why nor how. Let's play Keanu Reeves: This sub is banned for the wrong reasons[the one of the picture featuring the OP post], the judge would like to review.

But NAH! I'm KEANU REEVES BITCH, you get to see nothing even if I know he diddlie do the kiddies, I won't let you see it because of the law.

Okay that was outrageous, but in every community some people need to be corrected . I suppose it's NOT AT ALL hard for the persons responsible for this banned sub to clean up their act and start over (different name) with better rules/attitudes.

Someone went to far, I would think of it nicely if the admins would report on it somehow, But my experience is that they are fair as f*gg, why ain't I banned? heh? why am I still in chat or shizzle!? IMHO that says a LOT, like a LOT, I don't wanna call out others, but I'm not the only one counting their 'charms' so to say. You don't get banned for being an ass-monkey alone. That's MY main message, you were a way larger dick then me and BOY that's no compliment! edit: not you Marou but the one who got banned

Me after 3 drinks:

[–]prometheus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it was s/coontown

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

[–]Mnemonic 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

SaidIt has a no porn rule and a 'nothing illegal' rule.


What's Not Allowed

  • Vending of illegal items and research chemicals are not allowed. Nor is discussion of vendors regarding illegal items, links to vendors buying/selling illegal items, or links to pages with links of vendors of illegal items. Subs and users caught buying or selling illegal items, or discussing such, will be removed. US law and Texas law apply to saidit servers.

  • No pornography. Not because we are against it, per se, but it's more about the legal troubles associated with housing this type of content. It's better for the longevity and quality and legal safety of the site not to have it here. There's plenty of porn on reddit and voat and around the rest of the internet, so go there instead if you're interested in that type of content. Also no sexualization of children.

[–]prometheus[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it was s/coontown

[–]PikonParadox 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

When a sub is banned/suspended, I think they should put a notice mentioning why it was banned and make it appear when you go to that sub instead of vaguely saying it just breaks the rules. It would be much better if they maintain a copy of the proof/evidence of whatever broke the rules so that they could prove that there really was something that broke the rules.

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree with putting a notice of exactly why it was banned, I don't like the ambiguity either. That is a good idea. I will begin figuring out how to do that, it might take a few days to work the technology out, and then do that from now on. And I'll retroactively add messages to other subs that have been banned too.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Make a GitHub Issue?

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

d3rr and I are working on it already

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ooh! It'd be interesting to see what you did; knowing that would help with the addition of other similarly "major" features.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

okay! We're not done yet but once we're done I'll publicly post that somewhere

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's the code for the sub ban message feature we just added, since you were interested:

[–]TimesThreeTheHighest 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Good idea. Less confusion. Less anger.

[–]AschTheConjurer 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Using a click-bait title to cause an emotional reaction in the userbase attempting to get people on your side while taking advantage of the image not specifying that your sub was PhysicalRemoval makes you a bit of a manipulative cunt, bro.

Get off my fucking newsfeed, would you kindly?

[–]Troll 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

PhysicalRemoval did nothing wrong.

[–]AschTheConjurer 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

>sees your username

..... Kay

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More important than what the name of the title, is how it's discussed.

I could have perfectly civil conversations about "physical removal", self-defense, the monopoly on violence, SJWs, etc.

But can you?

[–]prometheus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't get so angry bro, the sub in question was s/coontown. Although I didnt really agree with the idiots there. I was hoping this site wouldnt be as quick to censor subs.

[–]Troll 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was one of the founders of coontown. It was banned from saidit because the admin here disagrees with right-wing politics. We did not promote violence and mostly just told racist facts and jokes.

Also was a physical_removal mod: there is nothing wrong with physical removal, and it does not advocate for violence because leftists are not really people.

[–]HopeThatHalps 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The difference I expect between saidit and reddit is that saidit will ban people and things on some sort of philosophical basis, rather than just "bad press". Reddit has proven itself to be ammoral, all of their high profile bannings have only come in the wake of some bad press. saidit differs in that it has a moral compass to begin with and doesn't just to pretend to when its expedient.

[–]brickfrog 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That and general TOS / nothing law breaking. Saidit does not operate in some kind of bubble that allows them to ignore local jurisdiction. Unless something changed Saidit itself is still hosted in the U.S. so would have to follow U.S. law

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OK Im not saying anything contrary to that, though.

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That and

Comments aren't always to disagree. ☺

[–]SecretlyHistoric 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Does anyone know why?

[–]newguy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

[–]SecretlyHistoric 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


[–]happysmash27 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Which sub? Based on the moderation that has occurred in the past, it was probably either banned for a good reason, or doing so was based on an accident and the decision should be reverted (pinging /u/Magnora7 in case this is the case).

[–]IdleHands 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't like the fact that's it just disappeared, no admin post about it - just gone.

Somewhere in a comment thread, three levels down, the admin says it advocates violence but lets /s/watchpeopledie stay.

That's the problem with subjective admin judgement without proper rules, when will they decide that your subs doesn't conform to the pyramid and selectively enforce the rules?

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the admin says it advocates violence but lets /s/watchpeopledie

This is a debate I'm willing to take up with anyone. Should the 5 o'clock news never show dead bodies, or death? Would they be advocating violence if they did so?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]SecretlyHistoric 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I think it may have been PhysicalRemoval. I noticed yesterday that they had been banned.

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I did that because I was informed it was a sub that exists mainly to advocate physical violence.

[–]IdleHands 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Sanctioned suicide?

Watch people die?

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Neither openly advocate violence

[–]IdleHands 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Suicide isn't an act of violence towards the self? It's literally murder and they're discussing the finer details. On the other hand you ban a sub because "someone said it promoted violence" according to your other post.

Did you check? Did you make a judgement? Was it a friend that reported it to you? What are examples that justify the removal of a whole sub, or is it feels-based?

[–]magnora7 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

It's researched, I didn't just listen to one person. The sub is literally based on the idea of throwing communists and gays out of helicopters.

[–]Drewski 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Physical Removal is a concept which was coined by Libertarian / Anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in which certain people would need to be expelled to have a Libertarian society. I don't agree with many of Hoppe's claims, but I think do that open discussion should be allowed to root out bad ideas or philosophies.

As for promoting actual violence, AFAIK the helicopter / Pinochet memes are meant as a joke (even if they are in bad taste) and I don't think banning the sub without any warnings or proper explanation sets a good precedent.

[–]magnora7 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It is a "joke" that is not really a joke.

The saying "Let's throw communists and gays out of helicopters, so to speak" is hard to read as anything other than advocating violence. Also the worship of Pinochet is not helping the case that it's a joke.

It's literally advocating violence.

[–]eaterjollyarmy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You hadn't refuted this point:

Physical Removal is a concept which was coined by Libertarian / Anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in which certain people would need to be expelled to have a Libertarian society. I don't agree with many of Hoppe's claims, but I think do that open discussion should be allowed to root out bad ideas or philosophies.

I'll add I suppose allowing for a "club ground" differs significantly from allowing for open discussion.

When an ethic generates information entropy, the ethic tends to root in the mind regardless of how immoral, unjust, or incorrect. That depends more on the worthiness of the individuals to integrate with each other, than any specific title or topic. Whether they advocate violence or not: if doing so without comedy infavor, then comedy out-of-favor would justify their ethic.

Creating an independent thread for each banned sub or account to deliberate on their ideology within enforcing (what I'd call) a hypofae frequent mode allowing only one comment per a preset period. A long wait requires more information entropy from external sources to maintain ideological stance paired with attachment to a critical thread.

[–]IdleHands 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

While the basis for /s/sanctionedsuicide is to support people who want to commit suicide TO COMMIT SUICIDE.

The basis of /s/watchpeopledie is to share usually illegally obtained videos of scared people, often humiliated, in their final moments before a usually gruesome death.

I think you are being hypocritical.

[–]Zombi 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think the clear distinction here is between advocating for something and passively watching. Sanctioned suicide isn't advocating for people to commit suicide, it's supporting those that have already made the decision. Watchpeopledie is also passively watching death, not advocating or trying to incite death.

The clear difference in u/magnora7's judgement of these three subs is right in his post:

Neither openly advocate violence

Please notice neither ADVOCATE violence, meaning none call for others to commit violent acts. From what he said, s/PhysicalRemoval was openly calling for violent acts. I don't really see how there's confusion here, he said it pretty clearly already...

[–]wizzwizz4 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with neither of those subs, and would ban them if I were running Saidit… but technically /u/magnora7 isn't being hypocritical. He's just working from a fundamentally different framework, which ranks things in a different order of "badness" to us (and we probably also disagree on how to rank certain things).

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The basis of /s/watchpeopledie is to share usually illegally obtained videos of scared people, often humiliated, in their final moments before a usually gruesome death.

That's just not true. Some videos fit this description, but that's certainly not the basis of the sub. I wouldn't be opposed to WPD having additional limitations, for example, no glorifying or celebrating the content.

[–]papiersackratte 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I guess the main problem for /s/Sanctionedsuicide is that it seems unmoderated.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As a person who once suffered so much that I tried to commit suicide several times, and having gotten past that torture, I don't regret it. And I would have liked to have had better resources and options available. I am better prepared now. Fortunately my problems then were not terminal. In the future I fully intend to commit suicide before I die of natural causes in my old age for many reasons. Firstly to minimize unnecessary suffering, if I have something like cancer or Alzheimers, secondly, not to be a burden, thirdly to not waste resources that my family could have - just to draw out a miserable death "naturally".

I'm won't watch /s/WatchPeopleDie, but I'm also not against it, according to their rules.

[–]Troll 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Hi! I was a founder of coontown and a top moderator at physical_removal. Both these subreddits have been banned on saidit. I have attempted to discuss this with the admin, magnora7, but he said he "didn't feel like talking about this."

I do not believe either subreddit advocated violence. This was basically admitted by reddit's admins, hence why fatpeoplehate was banned prior. Physical_Removal, on the other hand, believes that self-defense against communist social engineering is a basic right, and that leftists are not people anyways so ethically speaking it's not murder (though I want to avoid a semantic debate).

I don't think this website has thought out their approach to discussion very well.

[–]prometheus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I agree, I am currently working on a censorship free alternative that would accept these sort of subs. Pm me if you are interested.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you want help with setting it up, I'm game. The code's open source, so you can make your own Saidit easily (though please change the name, logo and site theme so we can tell the difference!).

[–]prometheus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ill pm you the address if you want to see what I have so far. Its based off of a different codebase. Its written in php, python and nodejs

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ooh; a custom build? Do you think you could implement Mastodon-compatible ActivityPub support, perhaps?

I'd love to see what you have so far.

[–]prometheus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Mastodon-compatible ActivityPub support

I havent heard of that but I would love to give it a try. Let me pm you the url.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]prometheus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just read the Aether documentation , it’s seems like a really neat idea, I’ll definitely look into compatibility. Dissent right now iis balances across 3 main origin servers, I would definitely like to make it a bit more decentralized

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm updating the lists: /s/SaidIt/wiki/bannedfromreddit

Was fatpeoplehate on Reddit or SaidIt?

Was there really no reason for Physical_Removal's removal? (Is there irony in the name?)

Physical removal is not a solution when battling dogmas, better ideas and counter-propaganda are. And healthy skepticism of the Hegelian dialectic, as if the two sides are the only options when really they're just manipulative tools to divide us all and keep us from questioning the entire rigged matrix of full spectrum dominance systems serving the elites and making the rest of us suffer.

I don't think you've thought your position very well or you'd see this.

[–]Troll 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I have. Remove leftists, then rebuild .

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why not try converting leftists instead?

I'm an anarcho-leftist. You won't remove me. Convert me.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)