Censored websites

Which sites are actually censored here—like, what am I not allowed to link to on this forum? I know The New York Times was the first one to get hit by the filters because a bunch of spammers were trying to pump up their traffic. Now I’m honestly a little annoyed to find out that All the Way Down and TinyURL are blocked too. Is there anything else? Does anyone have a master list somewhere?

And since those spammers who caused all this trouble are gone, are you guys even considering lifting some of these bans? It's standard practice for major news outlets to link directly to articles from other media sources, so I don't see why we have to deal with these restrictions here.

Vitamin supplements, herbal teas, and whatever else. 😁

They don't exist?
Well, let me just cast a little doubt on that assertion, shall I?
It’s not like The New York Times is some kind of pioneer here; they’re really just one more player in a long line of people finding clever ways to push their own ads.
Besides, who actually cares—anyone can head over to any random news site whenever they feel like seeing what's trending anyway.
Why on earth should people hanging out on this forum have to endure a constant barrage of links from all sorts of different sites?

So, I decided to start a thread over on the mystery section of CNN about Z. Some users had no clue what I was talking about, so I tried to drop a link to that article from the All the Way Down site. No luck. Then I tried using a TinyURL to make it clickable. Still nothing.

The article itself is actually decent. The site isn't even bad. So why is it impossible to link to them, while we can easily link to Los Angeles, The Washington Post, or news sites? Is it because of a handful of spammers? Look, you can believe they're gone if you want, but here's the deal: The New York Times was blacklisted back when I was still a mod, so this goes way back. How else are you supposed to know they’re still trying every trick in the book to promote the site unless you try to bypass the censorship? Unless we're dealing with actual spambots, it shouldn't be hard to just wipe out a few links and permaban the advertisers. It feels like a waste not being able to link to legitimate news outlets. And honestly, without wanting to offend anyone, unless it's blatant spam, it shouldn't be up to admins and mods to decide which content deserves censorship and which doesn't. What's next? Are we going to ban YouTube? Google? Twitter? The Council? 😉

How do I know?
It’s probably just because there are still these supposed geniuses out there trying far too hard, using increasingly moronic methods to get their point across
Honestly, if I were their Marketing Director, I’d be hitting them over the head with a shovel until they finally understood the assignment—or at least until their heads were level with their knees, whichever comes first
Besides, people can actually go find an article on their own without having every single link spoon-fed to them
If they aren't capable of doing that, then we aren't exactly dealing with a group worth having a real conversation with anyway

In that case, I’d suggest just putting together a blacklist of all those sites. Then, maybe every six months or once a year—which isn't exactly a frequent task, mind you—you could give that list an update.

hollowtrucker77 said:They don't exist?
Well, let me just cast a little doubt on that assertion, shall I?
It’s not like The New York Times is some kind of pioneer here; they’re really just one more player in a long line of people finding clever ways to push their own ads.
Besides, who actually cares—anyone can head over to any random news site whenever they feel like seeing what's trending anyway.
Why on earth should people hanging out on this forum have to endure a constant barrage of links from all sorts of different sites?

hollowtrucker77 said:How do I know?
It’s probably just because there are still these supposed geniuses out there trying far too hard, using increasingly moronic methods to get their point across
Honestly, if I were their Marketing Director, I’d be hitting them over the head with a shovel until they finally understood the assignment—or at least until their heads were level with their knees, whichever comes first
Besides, people can actually go find an article on their own without having every single link spoon-fed to them
If they aren't capable of doing that, then we aren't exactly dealing with a group worth having a real conversation with anyway

That’s just a Sisyphus task for you, honestly; you've got hundreds of those types running around. I was just messing around with TinyURL earlier, thinking about how much we all rely on those little shortened links to make the internet look halfway decent, but then I started wondering if we’re all just making things more complicated than they need to be. It’s one of those things where you think you're being efficient, but you're really just adding another layer of digital clutter between you and whatever you were actually trying to click on in the first place. When you look at all the different services out there—from the household names to those obscure ones you've never even heard of—that number can easily climb toward a thousand, which makes trying to block every single one of them feel like a total waste of energy. It’s honestly just spinning your wheels. You're much better off putting your focus into that handful of users who are aggressively spamming; those people are so loud and obnoxious you could spot them from an airplane.

Look, links to news stories or info from various outlets are basically the backbone of any decent, constructive debate here on Reddit; it’s just how things work. If you take a look at the Politics section, I mean, probably over 90% of the threads start with a direct link to an article followed by an opening post inviting everyone to weigh in, right? The same logic applies to the discussions happening within individual threads too. Here's an example. supermoderatorSo, does that little dig of yours—you know, the one asking why people on a forum should have to endure terror by being bombarded with links from all over the place—actually apply to him? Of course not. I mean, honestly, the whole thing hinges entirely on the quality of that initial post or the way the discussion is kicked off. That said, you can't really get anything moving without a link; otherwise, people aren't even going to bother looking your way. They’ll probably just call me crazy. I’m calling your bluff here. Using links as a source of information—especially when paired with an opening post—is exactly what sparks decent, high-quality, and actually constructive discussions. Honestly, if you haven't realized that yet, welcome to the 21st century; we're hanging out on Reddit now. 🙂

There’s one more thing that isn't exactly a "feature," I guess, but I honestly really love how Politico covers just about everything—even stuff like The New York Times, All the Way Down, and all those other outlets you guys decided to block here just because of a handful of spammers. For instance, when I was trying to get a decent debate going about the US Federal Government under Kamala Harris, there was this one specific article from CNN that was actually pretty crucial to my point.

I was scrolling through Politico earlier and stumbled upon this piece about how things are falling apart, and honestly, it’s just one big, crumbling bridge at this point. It feels like we're constantly trying to patch up these massive structural failures only to realize the foundation was shaky from the start. You read these reports and you start wondering if anyone in the US Federal Government actually has a plan, or if we're all just collectively pretending that everything isn't sliding toward a total collapse. It’s pretty exhausting to watch, especially when you realize how much effort goes into maintaining an illusion of stability while the actual infrastructure—both literal and political—is basically held together by duct tape and wishful thinking.

And there you have it—another article about banned destinations, courtesy of Z. PoliticoSo what now, hollowtrucker77? Are we going to block Politico too? God, Politico literally owns this forum.

On top of all that, Jerry Seinfeld: Just dropping some links here. Politico and Reddit..

Bradley Sanders4 said:In that case, I’d suggest just putting together a blacklist of all those sites. Then, maybe every six months or once a year—which isn't exactly a frequent task, mind you—you could give that list an update.

Honestly, it's a total necessity. And that list should probably be pinned right here in the Student Corner within the Admin log.

Why? Because it makes sense.

Most people just use browser extensions to shorten their links—not everyone relies on TinyURL; I personally find myself using http://is.gd/index.php quite often. Imagine if someone drops a link like, "THE PIG, THE COW, AND JOHN WERE LOST IN A HOUSE FIRE" — http://is.gd/SsMVCi and before I can even blink, I've been hit with a ban. It all happens under the assumption that "I didn't know linking to ********** was against the rules," or "It wasn't intentional," or "I'm definitely not a spammer."

Without a clear blacklist, how are users actually supposed to know what's off-limits? 🤷

p.s. That headline above was actually published in an American newspaper (The New York Times, obviously). 'John' wasn't my neighbor, though—may he rest in peace.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Which sites are actually censored here—like, what am I not allowed to link to on this forum? I know The New York Times was the first one to get hit by the filters because a bunch of spammers were trying to pump up their traffic. Now I’m honestly a little annoyed to find out that All the Way Down and TinyURL are blocked too. Is there anything else? Does anyone have a master list somewhere?

And since those spammers who caused all this trouble are gone, are you guys even considering lifting some of these bans? It's standard practice for major news outlets to link directly to articles from other media sources, so I don't see why we have to deal with these restrictions here.

Vitamin supplements, herbal teas, and whatever else. 😁

With this bolded text, we’ve endured months of absolute torture—all because of one wannabe kid who decided on the single worst, most moronic way to advertise anything in history. This guy would churn out ten clones a day, flooding almost every other thread in the Music section (literally) just to drop the exact same link. It had zero connection to the actual discussions; it was pure, unadulterized spam. Eventually, it got under the skin, ears, and mouths of every single person on our PDF, not to mention the constant daily reports.

The worst part is, the site itself isn't even bad, but the sheer way this spammer operated only served to damage their reputation. We tried sending private messages and issuing public warnings—suggesting he could at least use the link more carefully within the context of a conversation—but things just kept getting worse and worse. He only finally stopped once a user from our PDF notified the higher-ups and those in charge, who then issued an apology once they realized who they were dealing with.
Edit: if he had participated in discussions normally and just linked to info incidentally, he probably wouldn't have ended up on the blacklist.

Look, if the kid has moved on, we should just assume he’s done his damage and won't be spamming anymore. There's really no reason to keep a site buried in a digital grave. It actually caught me off guard recently when I hit a wall trying to access The New York Times and TinyURL; I was just trying to share a piece about the destruction of a historic Steam Engine, which is basically a protected landmark and one of those iconic spots everyone loves to photograph in downtown Washington, D.C. By the time the story finally surfaced on other news outlets, I had already struggled through three different attempts using a bit.ly shortener just to get the link to work.

You didn't have to
you could've just told us your actual story instead of trying to sell everyone this nonsense

Do you honestly think I should have to waste my own precious time *rephrasing* an entire news report just because I can't copy-paste it without running into copyright issues? And all this because you guys had some run-ins with trolls years ago and decided to overcorrect? Honestly, I wouldn't dream of it...

We’ve already danced this dance recently. People who want to cause trouble will always find a way—whether they're trashing other news outlets or forcing legitimate users to constantly block various URL shorteners. In the end, it's always the well-intentioned users who get caught in the crossfire.

Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

I agree, especially regarding periodic reviews. And also regarding the idea that we should probably establish more meaningful criteria beforehand—so we don't end up (somewhat haphazardly) catering to the big players and their default purposeful products, while making it far too easy to eliminate the smaller ones. This is especially true since quality sites offering actual content—like that solid article you linked—aren't exactly abundant, and I would expect the goal to be to preserve the ones that actually matter.

For comparison: there was once someone on a Psychology subreddit who persistently advertised his private practice (his clinic's website) by starting threads about various disorders being discussed in that sub, or joining existing ones to praise his own success in treating them. Even though we discussed it, he wasn't censored (though he was banned several times, of course). He was a reasonable guy who was just advertising, but he eventually gave it up after we talked via DM and he agreed that this kind of "marketing" was counterproductive when treating forum users as a sort of target audience. So, the reality is that many people from the outside don't fully grasp the nuances of a forum compared to other media or services, and I don't think that should be something that is unfixable or impossible to communicate through anything other than censorship.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

I will merely add that, for me, that portal isn't actually hated. I stated quite clearly above that the site itself isn't bad. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally spent 12 years working in journalism (which is why I write so infrequently for Other media 😁). What you and Christian Taylor3 have written—well, we all know that part very well. As for whether things will stay this way, or if this "penalty" will have an expiration date where linking to said portal becomes allowed again, that is not up to me; it lies with the forum leadership.

I was simply attempting to briefly describe how irritatingly persistent that individual was—so much so that he triggered nothing but a counter-effect and mockery among users. Some even went as far as to say the portal is great, but that his behavior only pushes people away; because if the portal is supposedly serious, unique, or different... then it certainly doesn't need that kind of childish spam which only serves to degrade the image of the people working there—people who, frankly, didn't earn that reputation to begin with.

Samuel Morgan40 said:I will merely add that, for me, that portal isn't actually hated. I stated quite clearly above that the site itself isn't bad. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally spent 12 years working in journalism (which is why I write so infrequently for Other media 😁). What you and Christian Taylor3 have written—well, we all know that part very well. As for whether things will stay this way, or if this "penalty" will have an expiration date where linking to said portal becomes allowed again, that is not up to me; it lies with the forum leadership.

I was simply attempting to briefly describe how irritatingly persistent that individual was—so much so that he triggered nothing but a counter-effect and mockery among users. Some even went as far as to say the portal is great, but that his behavior only pushes people away; because if the portal is supposedly serious, unique, or different... then it certainly doesn't need that kind of childish spam which only serves to degrade the image of the people working there—people who, frankly, didn't earn that reputation to begin with.

If I remember correctly, the site leadership used to actually listen to what their moderators had to say when making big decisions. I don't know if they've changed that policy lately, but if most of the people following this thread agree that a permanent ban on linking is doing more harm than good, maybe the idea of redefining the rule should be brought up at a moderator meeting.

Look, I get it. The situation you described isn't exactly rare, and I already told you I understand why links get censored in cases like that. My point here is just about trying to turn what the community calls a "permaban" into something with a time limit instead. That last paragraph in my previous post wasn't meant as a personal attack on you, and I'm sorry if it came off that way; it was supposed to illustrate how ridiculous internet censorship can be. Even though it was directed at you, it was really more of a response to Sashev's argument about "link terror" than your actual post.

Honestly, it’s just all five of them, 🙂—though I didn't even register it as an actual attack. I suppose it'll probably end up being discussed later on.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

Why do you think we aren't already doing that? Honestly, I'm scrolling through that list all the time just checking if there's anything that needs to be cleared out. I'm constantly adding things or taking them off. It's part of the job.

mellowraven22 said:Why do you think we aren't already doing that? Honestly, I'm scrolling through that list all the time just checking if there's anything that needs to be cleared out. I'm constantly adding things or taking them off. It's part of the job.

Well, I certainly didn't get that impression, if you actually are doing all that. Can I ask what's been removed so far, what kind of criteria you're using, and whether this list of censored sites is ever going to be made public?

I assume there's a rule against linking to other subreddits?

Not because I’m trying to promote anything, but if you’re talking about what you wrote over in that JL thread, you should just drop a link to the controversial post.

@mellowraven22, sorry for drifting off-topic here.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Well, I certainly didn't get that impression, if you actually are doing all that. Can I ask what's been removed so far, what kind of criteria you're using, and whether this list of censored sites is ever going to be made public?

Doubt we're publishing that list. Yeah, we block some portals here and there when they go overboard with self-promotion, but most of the stuff on the blacklist is just old-school referral links—you know, like those ancient Bytefiles clones or your typical spam sites. Honestly, there’s nothing interesting on that list.

briskeagle39 said:I assume there's a rule against linking to other subreddits?

Linking is fine, but advertising isn't.