Free speech and discrimination based on politics and religion on Reddit

boldbadger1 said:And until then, Reddit is just an online hangout for anonymous users with zero legal standing

Only the legislature can decide that, or whoever actually has the authority to interpret the law...

Anyway, hiding behind legality is just stupid. It’s basically the last line of defense for any relationship that should really be built on mutual respect and not messing with people's integrity in the first place...

My main point—which I wasn't even directly referencing, just throwing out as a side argument—is that a moderator is a moderator, not some censor or editor. (Not to mention those shady posts and whatever else). I guess we should at least have some level of honesty here...

There's no reason to lie about who's on the right or the left... it seems to me that us Republicans don't really have a problem being upfront, whereas the liberals are always hiding behind... ... ... (quasi-)legal clauses.
That's just my general thought, nothing specifically tied to that post about the historical sites.

Kyle Nelson2 said:There’s really no reason to pretend when it comes to who sits on the right or the left... from where I'm sitting, us right-leaning folks don't have much trouble being upfront about it, whereas the lefties always seem to be hiding behind... well... certain (quasi)legal technicalities.

Now, I happen to be a "right-winger" myself—and let me tell you, I’ve been penalized and banned more times than I care to admit just for having "right-wing" views, constantly getting branded as a die-hard Republican or some other label... Eventually, they even scrubbed me from Politics and History sections entirely. I tried requesting a partial restoration, but once a year or two had passed and I asked to have those restrictions lifted, they basically decided it was easier to just keep me exiled from those specific discussions.

So, your conclusion that I’m a leftist is—to put it mildly—pretty far off the mark (even though I consider myself a liberal, socially conscious individual who gives a damn about our society and identity, which apparently makes me a "right-winger" in people's eyes).

I think I'm just being extremely objective regarding the legal rights of anonymous internet users.

Alright, we get it... you aren't exactly a lawyer, just some guy on Reddit trying to play theologian with the Kuran.

☕ 🙂

boldbadger1 said:First off, you can't really expect rights guaranteed by the US Constitution when you're just an anonymous handle, since those protections apply to citizens—and we all know what defines a citizen, right? It’s your name, your SSN, the whole deal, which brings both your rights and your legal obligations under the law...

That being said, you still have a responsibility to respect the laws and constitutional categories, because they're the foundation of our society, and even an anonymous user isn't exempt from following them...

Until there's some actual regulation regarding our digital existence, you don't really have any grounds to demand that Reddit respect your civil rights, because, well, they don't technically exist in this context...

I should probably mention that compared to the rest of the American media landscape—you know, the endless comment sections and the constant influx of hate speech and intolerance—Reddit is actually top-tier when it comes to moderation and handling anonymous opinions. They maintain pretty high standards for discussion quality, and honestly, it's their prerogative to have certain political or social preferences within their space... whether you choose to participate or not is up to you, including the choice to risk a ban if you happen to disagree with how a moderator runs things...

Look, I won't repeat myself, but that's basically the gist of it. An internet nickname isn't a person entitled to claim human rights, and "posting comments on Reddit" isn't a human right for anyone, even someone using their real name...

Like I mentioned before, freedom of speech means an average Joe won't end up in jail or lose his job for his opinions—it doesn't mean he has a right to dump those opinions wherever he wants. If Joe Smith wants half an hour of airtime on PBS to voice his views, he can go try to get it there...😁

Kyle Nelson2 said:Only the legislature can decide that, along with whoever is authorized to interpret the law...

Every once in a while, someone pops up claiming they've already consulted a lawyer and are prepping a lawsuit just because a post was deleted or they got banned, usually dragging in the same links they used in their first post...
Then, miraculously, they never show up again, and those lawsuits apparently get lost in the mail or something, because we never see them materialize...
The bottom line is—the law has spoken, and it's pretty straightforward...

My initial point, which wasn't even my main argument but just a side note, was that a moderator is a moderator, not a censor or an editor. (Ignoring the suspicious posts and such), and that we really ought to have at least some level of honesty here...

That's beside the point in this thread. You're more than welcome to think the moderators here are incompetent, censors, or unfair, and that everything about this place is a mess... that's a completely different conversation...

You don't really have any ground to stand on when claiming your human rights are being violated just because you got handed a digital card or a ban on Reddit... I mean, sure, you have the right to say it, but it’s still just nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

It's fine if you think a referee is an idiot for giving you a red card during a game, but you're honestly being ridiculous—again, anyone who does this—if you whine that they've violated your fundamental rights just because you wanted to play for the full ninety minutes.

Reddit is private property, plain and simple. The owner appoints the moderators, so you can certainly believe they're all total morons, but that won't suddenly make your complaints relevant to any legal statutes or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Anderlon could decide tomorrow to delete every single post containing the letter F or ban every username that uses capital letters, and there isn't a single law in the US that would stop them...

Kyle Nelson2 said:Alright, I think we've finally figured it out... you aren't actually a lawyer—you're just some guy on Reddit playing amateur theologian with the Kuran.

☕ 🙂

Wait, weren't you the one who wrote that whole high-minded post earlier about mutual respect and not attacking anyone's identity?🙏

lonebadger6 said:...An internet handle isn't a person you can cite when talking about human rights...

Let’s say someone threatens this wannabe moderator on this forum—say they threaten to "straighten his teeth" or issue some other vague, low-life threat. Could that person actually turn to the proper legal institutions and seek protection? And who would be held responsible and face the consequences?
Is it the internet handle, or the actual human being behind that handle...

Asking for a friend. 😁

hiddenmoose16 said:Let’s say someone threatens this wannabe moderator on this site—you know, maybe tells him they'll knock his teeth out or some other half-baked threat, God forbid—could that guy actually take it to the authorities and ask for protection? And if he did, who would actually be held accountable and face the consequences?

The internet handle or the actual person hiding behind that handle...

Asking for a friend. 😁

According to how these rule-interpreters see things, the platform itself is responsible.
I mean, if Plenković happened to feel insulted by some random post on a site like Reddit, the legal and financial responsibility would fall on—Reddit.

@lonebadger6
Obviously, you can't just dump comments on PBS where they don't belong, any more than you could go spray-painting a wall.
But, guess what—this platform is meant for discussion...

lonebadger6 said:Reddit is privately owned, and the owner picked the moderators. You might think they’re all total idiots...

The current score from that style of management is 13:3.
Maybe the owner just wants some ego stroking, or maybe those mods get a kick out of it too since they're getting paid.
The message is loud and clear: the moderator is always right, and their decisions aren't up for debate—even if debating them might actually benefit the users who keep this place running by maybe 5-10%.
If the owner really didn't want us commenting on it, the score would probably be 13:2.
Looking at the numbers, it's pretty obvious free speech is being stifled here. If we want things to change, we need to push for a whole new set of rules for the mods.

lonebadger6 said:Reddit is privately owned—period. The owner picks the moderators, and hey, you can think they’re all absolute morons if you want, but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to your "human rights" or any legal declarations. Anderlon could decide tomorrow that anyone using the letter F is getting nuked, or just ban every username with capital letters, and there isn't a single law in the book that can stop him.

Spot on.
Total truth right there.
Anderlon is the owner.
This whole thing is his private property.
Nobody is questioning that, disputing it, or even trying to argue against it.

But here's the thing.
The people on this forum are part of that world.
We're the ones creating the content.
All of us are chipping away at building something that actually connects us.
We put a piece of ourselves into this platform—and look, we aren't trying to be enemies or opponents of the site.
We actually *want* to be here and be an integral part of this community.

So why the hostile attitude toward the users?
I get that mods are doing their best, but since when is constructive criticism off-limits? Isn't that supposed to be in the interest of making the forum better?
Look, I realize being a mod is a massive responsibility and nobody can be perfect all the time... definitely not.
But the whole point of a forum is to bring people together.
When one moderator does the exact opposite, it’s the users' job to call it out.
That's our responsibility and our loyalty to the forum itself.
And ultimately, that's our loyalty to the owner, Anderlon.

hiddenmoose16 said:Let's say someone threatens this wannabe moderator on this site—maybe tells him they're going to knock his teeth out or makes some other pathetic threat—could he actually go to the authorities and ask for protection? And who would actually be held responsible for that...
The internet handle or the actual person behind it...

Just asking for a friend 😁

I know you think you're being clever, but we're still stuck in the exact same spot 🙂

It’s the guy behind the screen who’d be liable, not the username—just like a person has rights under the law, regardless of what their handle happens to be 😉

Besides, none of this really touches the actual point, since posting on private sites or forums isn't covered by human rights, even if you decide to use your real name—legally, you only have a right to respond or correct things if someone is actually defaming you or spreading lies, and that applies to forums too

Threats aren't allowed, period, whether you're using your legal name or an anonymous alias

It shouldn't be this complicated, no matter how much someone tries to troll or spin the argument

Getting back to basics:

Freedom of speech and expression protects an individual from persecution based on their opinions... (it's limited, but let's not get bogged down in the weeds right now)

You don't have any legal, constitutional, or otherwise right to be hosted on a private platform at all. That access is granted by the owner of the platform, and they can revoke it whenever they feel like it

To put it even more simply:

No, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't give you a right to post on Reddit. It just protects you from being legally prosecuted for what you say

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Anderlon is suing you, Anderlon is judging you. ☕

Anderlon is playing the big man, acting as if all this chaos surrounding Zoran doesn't affect him one bit. He thinks he can just ride this out—that once the passions cool down, he can go right back to his old ways. But Oštrić has, to put it bluntly, really made a mess of things in several different ways: he’s acting purely on whim, insulting people, discriminating, and trying to force his specific ideological and political worldview down everyone's throats. In short, he’s behaving like some kind of dictator who thinks he’s untouchable—as if he exists above the law and we’re all just his subjects.
The truth is, the responsibility also lies with Erik as the director, and even the administrators, who fail to react to complaints and instead settle for moderator explanations that simply don't hold water.
I get where they're coming from—it isn't easy for them either, having to stick together—but still, when it comes to serious, documented insults... well, you have to take action. Not everyone is going to be like boldbadger1, just bowing their head and submitting to a dictatorship.

We drove the invaders out over three centuries ago, yet somehow we still haven't shaken off their customs, even while we swear by democracy and tolerance. The whole point of being tolerant isn't about being nice to someone who agrees with you; it's about how you treat the person who thinks differently.

Jeffrey Adams said:Anderlon is playing the innocent bystander here—acting like all this drama surrounding Zoran doesn't touch him. He thinks he can just ride this out, wait for the storm to pass, and then go right back to business as usual. But let’s be real: Oštrić has, to put it bluntly, absolutely shat the bed on multiple fronts. He’s acting on whims, being insulting, discriminating against people, and basically forcing his specific ideological and political worldview down everyone's throats. In short, he’s behaving like some kind of dictator who thinks he’s untouchable, like he's above the law and we're all just his subjects.
The truth is, the responsibility falls on Erik as the director, and on the admins too, who aren't even reacting to complaints and seem perfectly happy with moderator explanations that don't hold any water at all.
I get it, I really do—it's not easy for them either, they have to stick together as a group, but still, when you're dealing with blatant, documented insults, you've gotta take action. Not everyone is going to be like boldbadger1, just bowing their head and submitting to a dictatorship.

We kicked the British out over two centuries ago, yet somehow we're still struggling to shake off certain old-school habits, even while we preach about democracy and tolerance. The whole point of tolerance isn't about being nice to people who agree with you; it's about how you treat the ones who think differently.

If Zoran Oštrić is working directly against the interests of this site, why on earth would the owner, Anderlon, just sit there and tolerate it?

Jonathan Wright2 said:If Zoran Oštrić is actively working against the interests of this community, why on earth would the owner, Anderlon, just sit there and tolerate it?

Yeah, that’s a valid point—a damn good one, actually—but the answer to that is known only to Anderlon... and he’s still choosing to stay silent.

lonebadger6 said:Freedom of thought and expression protects an individual from being persecuted just for having—and voicing—an opinion. (And sure, that right is limited, but let’s not get bogged down in the weeds right now).

You don't have any legal, declaratory, or whatsoever right to be admitted to some private platform in the first place. That "right" is granted to you by the owner of that specific private platform. And they can take it away whenever they feel like it.

To put it even more bluntly:

No, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't give you the right to post on Reddit. It simply protects you from legal prosecution for your opinions.

Actually, we *do* need to go deeper here, because this isn't just about being denied the freedom to speak—it's about discrimination and defamation through labeling users with adjectives that are anything but harmless.
If Reddit is a commercial entity registered in the US providing information society services—maintaining this website for debate and having accepted me as a member, an active one at that—then I should be protected first by this forum's internal rules, and subsequently by US law, because I have become a consumer and a client of this forum, specifically of the business entity Reddit LLC, for its promotion and services. Do you see what I'm getting at now?

Of course, Reddit can deny me access without any valid reason—if they want to, fine—but until they actually do, I expect to be treated correctly and to be protected from Zoran's persecution just because I hold a different view.

boldbadger1 said:So, have you actually linked your account to any of your real-life info? Honestly, all you really need to provide is just a random email address.

Just head down to the clinic and get your ID updated with just an email address. Then you can see exactly what your rights are under the US Constitution and the law. ☕

Anonymity on a forum like Reddit is nothing more than fairy dust. It only exists in the minds of us little users. Sure, you can use a fake email and hide your personal details so that the site owners or moderators don't know who you really are—but that's not the problem. On this platform, there are users who will slide into your DMs and drop your full legal name right in front of you. Once that happens, you start questioning everything.

If you decide to write down a serious threat or confess to a crime online, don't kid yourself about being anonymous. The feds will be knocking on your door before you can even blink.

Jeffrey Adams said:Yeah, that’s a fair question, but honestly, only Anderlon knows the answer—and he’s still staying silent.

Look, Anderlon doesn't owe anyone an explanation.
He owns the place, so he can do whatever he damn well pleases.
It’s kind of ironic how people on Reddit pour all this energy into stuff that just ends up blowing up in their own faces.
Obviously, having some order on a busy platform makes sense—it has to.

And sure, you need moderators acting as part of the site's architecture just to keep the whole structure from collapsing.

But at the same time, users should be called upon to help maintain and actually improve the quality of the community.
If someone is actively working against the grain, they should be called out, but ultimately, it's up to the admins and the owner to decide what kind of vibe this site is going to have.

lonebadger6 said:I know what you're thinking....

This is exactly the issue with Reddit...
The mods here clearly know my thoughts, they know exactly what I was trying to say, and who knows what else they've gathered about me. 😲
I'm out.

I’m not going at this from a legal standpoint—I’m no lawyer—so I’ll stick to the philosophy of it. 😁

Is being both a moderator and an active participant on the same topic essentially a conflict of interest? 😁 Speaking from experience, acting as a moderator made me a terrible debater, which in turn made me a lousy moderator.

It’s especially bad when a moderator is stuck in their own delusions and refuses to face reality. Take this example: Oštrić is pushing these highly strained, wishful-thinking theories as if they were gospel, claiming that in Canada, the only legitimate force was the Muslim army—presenting it as an indisputable fact.

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...&postcount=782

The thing is, there isn't a single state or international legal document that supports that claim. Meanwhile, I’m citing the Veterans Act from the Federation's official government website, which clearly puts everyone on equal footing— yet my posts keep getting deleted and I keep getting flagged... simply because the moderator refuses to accept reality.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep moderating this way if you want—which you probably will—but then you have to ask yourself what the point of this sub-forum even is. 🤷

Jeffrey Adams said:I didn't come here to lecture anyone; I came here to learn.

You aren't listening. You showed up here just to spout your own nonsense, but the second anyone calls you out on it, you suddenly start whining about unfairness and human rights.

Jonathan Wright2 said:It is genuinely paradoxical how much energy people on Reddit pour into these debates, only to have it all blow up in their faces in the end.

The core issue here is this: samo I honestly don't understand why you bother pouring so much energy into this. These posts belong in the "Alternative" section, not under History. I’m not sure what you're actually waiting for, but over there, nobody is going to call you out for making up historical terms, creatively butchering direct quotes from actual sources, or being incredibly stingy—if not outright negligent—with your references. 😁 If you’re struggling to get through your History coursework, don't sweat it too much—just head over to the Alternative sub on Reddit, where a promised land awaits you.

Arthur Smith15 said:The issue is just that you're "pouring energy" into writing stuff that belongs over on Alternative rather than here in History. I don't know what the hell you're waiting for—over there, nobody's going to slap your wrists for making up historical terms, creatively butchering quotes from texts, or being stingy with references and all that. 😁 You're busting your gut in History when Alternative is where your promised land awaits...

Thanks for the comment...
You hit the nail on the head... I am pouring energy into this. That’s just what we do—everyone who actually views history as a vital field of knowledge does it, especially here on this forum, where history shouldn't be as rigid as some stuffy academic textbook. Instead, it should follow the core logic of this forum—free debate fueled by an endless supply of theories and people hanging out to talk about the same damn topic.

Alternative would be if I were pushing the idea that aliens have been pulling the strings throughout history, but I'm not exactly an expert at that, so I'll stick to standard history.
But hey, thanks for reminding me of one specific thing.
See, in a book about Nikola Tesla, it literally states his idea that he offered lasers to the Government of Yugoslavia, which could have been positioned on high ground across Yugoslavia to wipe out German tanks...
If modern folks couldn't wrap their heads around what Nikola was talking about back then, they'd understand him even less now.
And look... that isn't my own invention; it’s written right there. Go check it yourself, please.
But the kicker is that lonetrucker4 shut that down immediately.
Because apparently, if he hasn't read it himself, it simply doesn't exist.

And since you asked, I'm happy to answer.
Those quotes I supposedly "twisted" or "misinterpreted"—I've gone into detail explaining them more than once.
They aren't wrong quotes; they're the result of censorship that's been around since 1945.
And let's get one thing straight right now: I am not some far-right revisionist, a hardline nationalist, or some radical extremist, nor would it ever cross my mind to try and deny the crimes committed by those groups.
It's not even on my radar.
I'm just stating that the Communists went way too far during their rule, and in doing so, they actually damaged the very legacy of the resistance movement they helped create.
So, I tell lonetrucker4 that my historical search is really about finding all the free anti-fascists, the democrats, the liberals, the patriots, and the free spirits who weren't tied to any single ideology, yet still took up arms against the mortal threat of Nazism—and he tells me that those people don't exist, and never will.

Sad, isn't it?