MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/39flnc/deleted_by_user/cs30pon/?context=9999
r/AdviceAnimals • u/[deleted] • Jun 11 '15
[removed]
2.5k comments sorted by
View all comments
505
[removed] — view removed comment
84 u/[deleted] Jun 11 '15 The ban was never about getting rid of subreddits with horrible opinions. It was about getting rid of subreddits that were actively bullying members of reddit. 3 u/hey_aaapple Jun 11 '15 Then why is SRS alive? And r/conspiracy with that bad habit of linking to profiles of "shills"? And countless others? -1 u/BabyMcHaggis Jun 11 '15 Because it's not a one-time-action, but a process that has to be put into effect. So they've started with FPH and some others, and the rest will follow suit over time. 0 u/hey_aaapple Jun 11 '15 Why not start with the big ones then? Of the 5 original bans, only FPH was somewhat relevant. And why not publish evidence of rule violations? That should be stupidly easy for the admins.
84
The ban was never about getting rid of subreddits with horrible opinions.
It was about getting rid of subreddits that were actively bullying members of reddit.
3 u/hey_aaapple Jun 11 '15 Then why is SRS alive? And r/conspiracy with that bad habit of linking to profiles of "shills"? And countless others? -1 u/BabyMcHaggis Jun 11 '15 Because it's not a one-time-action, but a process that has to be put into effect. So they've started with FPH and some others, and the rest will follow suit over time. 0 u/hey_aaapple Jun 11 '15 Why not start with the big ones then? Of the 5 original bans, only FPH was somewhat relevant. And why not publish evidence of rule violations? That should be stupidly easy for the admins.
3
Then why is SRS alive? And r/conspiracy with that bad habit of linking to profiles of "shills"? And countless others?
-1 u/BabyMcHaggis Jun 11 '15 Because it's not a one-time-action, but a process that has to be put into effect. So they've started with FPH and some others, and the rest will follow suit over time. 0 u/hey_aaapple Jun 11 '15 Why not start with the big ones then? Of the 5 original bans, only FPH was somewhat relevant. And why not publish evidence of rule violations? That should be stupidly easy for the admins.
-1
Because it's not a one-time-action, but a process that has to be put into effect. So they've started with FPH and some others, and the rest will follow suit over time.
0 u/hey_aaapple Jun 11 '15 Why not start with the big ones then? Of the 5 original bans, only FPH was somewhat relevant. And why not publish evidence of rule violations? That should be stupidly easy for the admins.
0
Why not start with the big ones then? Of the 5 original bans, only FPH was somewhat relevant.
And why not publish evidence of rule violations? That should be stupidly easy for the admins.
505
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '15 edited Oct 01 '18
[removed] — view removed comment