It was originally thedonald.win but there was some dispute with the domain owner who left the (anonymous) team behind the site.
Nobody really knows who the ownership is, but objectively speaking the programming and build quality isn't bad. They've tried to branch out with communities.win but it's still suffering from the Voat problem of a high concentratation of banned subreddits.
Don't ask me. The whole setup is kinda sketchy IMO, I'd be careful what you post there. At least one person was arrested for comments made on the site. Obviously, you shouldn't post things that could be construed as a threat on any forum... but that one in particular is likely some sort of honeypot.
This is also their partner's comments regarding attraction to children[0]
I'll save you the awfulness and just leave you with the damning "I fantasize about children having sex, sometimes with adults, sometimes with other children, sometimes kidnapped and forced into bad situations"
What's that saying again? "if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis."
What on EARTH possesses people to write things like that, and tie it to their real identity, no less? I fundamentally do not understand this phenomenon.
> In August 2018, Knight's father David Challenor was sentenced to 22 years in prison for raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl *in the attic of the home shared by him, his wife Tina Challenor, and Knight*.
> Knight's recruitment of her father, despite her knowledge of the charges for 22 sexual offences, led to an investigation and Knight's suspension from the Green Party.
I find it interesting that suddenly the censorship and admin intervention is a bad thing now that Reddit is becoming "too greedy" for their IPO but when this happened or subs that went against the mainstream Reddit narratives were banned (first quarantined to slowly suffocate them) it was cheered on.
This is just the next logical conclusion of user and narrative control.
Toxic communities is what you call them before censoring them because they have the wrong politics.
Any sub I mention you will find a way to justify a ban for.
> why do you think a specific company should have to make it as accessible as possible?
The bullshit about "private companies can do what they want, it's not censorship" goes away when
- it's actually not private companies but the gov/political parties are involved as well (evidence by twitter files but that was obvious well before).
- they claim to allow discussion and debate and then it's clear that it's all about US centric politics being a driving censor.
Any sub I mention you will find a way to justify a ban for.
The fact that you won't mention a single one or give an example is telling. In your other comments you are upset about r/The_Donald
The bullshit about "private companies can do what they want, it's not censorship"
I never said that it wasn't censorship. It is, and agree with it or not there is a reason it happens. Companies don't want to host and broadcast threats of violence and hate speech.
US centric politics
The mistake here is what you think of as 'politics' a lot of other people would think of as stochastic terrorism.
There are plenty of places where you can give your opinion backed up by evidence. There are even plenty of places where you can say anything you want (like voat) regardless of how awful and disgusting it is. The problem isn't that you want to be able to say what you want, the problem is that you want your toxicity broadcasted to a wider audience and no one has to do that.
> What taxes people should pay is politics, allowing excessive threatening of public figures with violence is not politics
On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest. On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK. Why? Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence".
It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you".
> The fact that you won't mention a single one or give an example is telling. In your other comments you are upset about r/The_Donald
Nah. I know the likes of you. You're a dishonest person who will use ad homs and distract from the point. I have no intention of arguing about each sub. TD is a very obvious one but you could just as well talk about other subs, there's plenty, who were slowly muzzled. This includes balcan subs, lefty subs, feminist subs... Just as long as they weren't playing a specific tune. Obviously there's more towards US right leaning but not limited to.
TD was just an impressively obvious example. NNN was another one.
> Companies don't want to host and broadcast threats of violence and hate speech.
They do. Happily. Just have to be against the right targets. Around 2001 it was Muslims. Today it's Christans. I defended both. I can criticize their faith or culture without wanting to deplatform or hide them from view.
> The mistake here is what you think of as 'politics' a lot of other people would think of as stochastic terrorism
Yeah. Yeah. 2001 called and said stop the "terrorism" bullshit. It's not an argument. It's your own bs definition ripe for abuse. To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs.
> There are plenty of places where you can give your opinion backed up by evidence. There are even plenty of places where you can say anything you want (like voat) regardless of how awful and disgusting it is. The problem isn't that you want to be able to say what you want, the problem is that you want your toxicity broadcasted to a wider audience and no one has to do that.
Nah. That's bullshit. You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas than you by virtue of having political or economic power. They did this to people against the war of Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine. They did it if you opposed Israel's apartheid or if you opposed covid policies. They did it calling you extreme left or extreme right but it's always some bs authortiarian pretending to have a moral standing when all they have is a lever to shut you up.
It's not even that the majority agrees. It's literally aggressive deplatforming by political maneuvers. Politicians routinely squash news articles too, with the same absurd reasoning.
On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest.
Reddit let it go for a long time until they couldn't any more.
On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK.
Where is your evidence for this?
Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence".
Putin is a war criminal committing genocide. No one on an internet forum is going to be able to threaten him, but most of the world hopes he dies. This is a bizarre stance to take.
It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you".
No one has to claim it, people are putting it in writing and leaving it on forums instead of deleting it.
use ad homs
Show me one. An ad hominem would be something like 'you're fat' instead of addressing an argument. I don't think you understand what it means.
To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs.
Threatening violence against people is terrorism.
Me explaining reality to you is not terrorism.
A company not wanting to broadcast threats and hate speech is not terrorism.
You aren't entitled to everyone hearing what you have to say.
You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas
I'm not doing anything, I just explained to you why you can't say whatever you want on reddit.
By the way, your username is controversial and bannable in many environments. The irony of the censorious authortiarian not resisting the minimal scrutiny.
Nilay Patel edited comments? That's crazy, do you have a link?
I got banned from the Verge quite a while ago for being a "troll/coordinated inauthentic behaviour", allegedly in favour of China or Iran. I live in Australia and am simply critical of the US consistently, while also occasionally being critical of countries like China I have no cultural ties to. Apparently that was enough for a ban there.
45 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 96.9 ms ] threadif he can push a hot mess of an IPO over the line, there will be assumptions that his fortune has improved.
it may bring out some knives.
Nope, bored; see first comment
It was originally thedonald.win but there was some dispute with the domain owner who left the (anonymous) team behind the site.
Nobody really knows who the ownership is, but objectively speaking the programming and build quality isn't bad. They've tried to branch out with communities.win but it's still suffering from the Voat problem of a high concentratation of banned subreddits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor
I'll save you the awfulness and just leave you with the damning "I fantasize about children having sex, sometimes with adults, sometimes with other children, sometimes kidnapped and forced into bad situations"
What's that saying again? "if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis."
https://archive.ph/20191111012953/https://threader.app/threa...
> In August 2018, Knight's father David Challenor was sentenced to 22 years in prison for raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl *in the attic of the home shared by him, his wife Tina Challenor, and Knight*.
> Knight's recruitment of her father, despite her knowledge of the charges for 22 sexual offences, led to an investigation and Knight's suspension from the Green Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor
https://www.dailydot.com/society/reddit-r-jailbait-teen-pics...
This is just the next logical conclusion of user and narrative control.
What quarantined subreddit are you specifically upset about and why do you think a specific company should have to make it as accessible as possible?
Any sub I mention you will find a way to justify a ban for.
> why do you think a specific company should have to make it as accessible as possible?
The bullshit about "private companies can do what they want, it's not censorship" goes away when - it's actually not private companies but the gov/political parties are involved as well (evidence by twitter files but that was obvious well before). - they claim to allow discussion and debate and then it's clear that it's all about US centric politics being a driving censor.
What taxes people should pay is politics, allowing excessive threatening of public figures with violence is not politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/The_Donald
Any sub I mention you will find a way to justify a ban for.
The fact that you won't mention a single one or give an example is telling. In your other comments you are upset about r/The_Donald
The bullshit about "private companies can do what they want, it's not censorship"
I never said that it wasn't censorship. It is, and agree with it or not there is a reason it happens. Companies don't want to host and broadcast threats of violence and hate speech.
US centric politics
The mistake here is what you think of as 'politics' a lot of other people would think of as stochastic terrorism.
There are plenty of places where you can give your opinion backed up by evidence. There are even plenty of places where you can say anything you want (like voat) regardless of how awful and disgusting it is. The problem isn't that you want to be able to say what you want, the problem is that you want your toxicity broadcasted to a wider audience and no one has to do that.
On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest. On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK. Why? Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence".
It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you".
> The fact that you won't mention a single one or give an example is telling. In your other comments you are upset about r/The_Donald
Nah. I know the likes of you. You're a dishonest person who will use ad homs and distract from the point. I have no intention of arguing about each sub. TD is a very obvious one but you could just as well talk about other subs, there's plenty, who were slowly muzzled. This includes balcan subs, lefty subs, feminist subs... Just as long as they weren't playing a specific tune. Obviously there's more towards US right leaning but not limited to.
TD was just an impressively obvious example. NNN was another one.
> Companies don't want to host and broadcast threats of violence and hate speech.
They do. Happily. Just have to be against the right targets. Around 2001 it was Muslims. Today it's Christans. I defended both. I can criticize their faith or culture without wanting to deplatform or hide them from view.
> The mistake here is what you think of as 'politics' a lot of other people would think of as stochastic terrorism
Yeah. Yeah. 2001 called and said stop the "terrorism" bullshit. It's not an argument. It's your own bs definition ripe for abuse. To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs.
> There are plenty of places where you can give your opinion backed up by evidence. There are even plenty of places where you can say anything you want (like voat) regardless of how awful and disgusting it is. The problem isn't that you want to be able to say what you want, the problem is that you want your toxicity broadcasted to a wider audience and no one has to do that.
Nah. That's bullshit. You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas than you by virtue of having political or economic power. They did this to people against the war of Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine. They did it if you opposed Israel's apartheid or if you opposed covid policies. They did it calling you extreme left or extreme right but it's always some bs authortiarian pretending to have a moral standing when all they have is a lever to shut you up.
It's not even that the majority agrees. It's literally aggressive deplatforming by political maneuvers. Politicians routinely squash news articles too, with the same absurd reasoning.
You're the problem.
Reddit let it go for a long time until they couldn't any more.
On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK.
Where is your evidence for this?
Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence".
Putin is a war criminal committing genocide. No one on an internet forum is going to be able to threaten him, but most of the world hopes he dies. This is a bizarre stance to take.
It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you".
No one has to claim it, people are putting it in writing and leaving it on forums instead of deleting it.
use ad homs
Show me one. An ad hominem would be something like 'you're fat' instead of addressing an argument. I don't think you understand what it means.
To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs.
Threatening violence against people is terrorism.
Me explaining reality to you is not terrorism.
A company not wanting to broadcast threats and hate speech is not terrorism.
You aren't entitled to everyone hearing what you have to say.
You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas
I'm not doing anything, I just explained to you why you can't say whatever you want on reddit.
He also sent lawyers after youtubers when they dared mock him during the whole PC building fiasco.
I got banned from the Verge quite a while ago for being a "troll/coordinated inauthentic behaviour", allegedly in favour of China or Iran. I live in Australia and am simply critical of the US consistently, while also occasionally being critical of countries like China I have no cultural ties to. Apparently that was enough for a ban there.