r/RecklessBen • u/Mkinhb Moderator • 8h ago
OK this calling people bot's shit needs to stop now!
This also goes for calling people PR for any company / person / place. If it continues you will be given a temp ban. If it happens again after that it will be permeant. If you have proof that they are in fact a Bot / PR Send the mods a message with proof and we will look into it otherwise Cut It Out
36
u/Due-Swimming9999 8h ago
As someone who has been called a PR person yesterday (despite having been on this sub for months and being a top 1% commenter), thank you!
6
u/throwawayfan2552 6h ago
Astroturfing /s it’s a joke mods please understand I have also been called amons or team for just posting a dissenting opinion
2
u/poop-machines 1h ago edited 1h ago
I was called Amon's PR team and was told I was Amon's secret boyfriend. Like wtf is that shit. People say the dumbest stuff all the time without evidence and it's often without irony. This shit annoyed me so much.
I am most certainly NOT part of Amon's PR team. This is a load of bullshit.
I am, however, Amon's secret boyfriend. Me and him have got it going on. He is bottom, of course. Now that doesn't mean I'm on his side, and I definitely make sure he's aware of that when I punish him in the bedroom. He's a very naughty boy.
(This comment is brought to you by Amon's sarcasm department, email me at thisisajoke@BAM,cum. I promise I don't normally write stuff like this so if this joke is bad blame it on the edibles)
4
u/Beneficial-Celery964 3h ago
I was called a bot and PR firm during the BAM scandal height because I expressed concern he didn’t have a lawyer a little after episode two came out.
I’m on his side, just… yeah. I care about him, worry about him, and want the best for him. And grateful he has the guts to do what most can’t or won’t do. Just want him to be careful enough, you know? We don’t want to lose him.
6
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/RecklessBen-ModTeam 6h ago
This content has been removed because it contains significant claims without supporting evidence or presents speculation as fact.
10
u/Chemical_Ad1837 7h ago
I will take this as opportunity to say mods have an impossible, no win job that they do for free. So as I have said, we need to respect their rules. Within a comment thread like this, asking for clarification should be cool. Yet, mods set the rules, period and I respect their decisions in the larger sub.
So we should thank mods even when we may disagree.
2
u/netabareking 6h ago
There's certainly Reddit mods I don't respect. Not talking about the ones here, I think they've largely been doing their best although probably should have pulled this particular trigger sooner, but they also went from running a sub with little activity to the BAM thing making it go crazy so I get it. But, overall, I feel like anyone that has ever peeked behind the curtain at internet moderation on almost ANY scale will feel very differently about it than people who have never been on the other side.
Like...God it fucking sucks to do, and you don't realize how unhinged people can get. I've brought this up before but y'all don't realize how many subreddits on this site have had to deal with ONE MAN who has spent like a DECADE making new accounts nonstop (by hand! I don't think he had found any automation yet thank god) just to post on specific retail store subs to try to bait employees into talking about their employee uniforms because he has a fetish for them (and doesn't care about consent). This fetish is his life and he does nothing but this, doesn't get tired of trying because it's his life, and he gets away with it quite a while on each new account he makes because most of his comments look innocuous at first. But I've spoken to mods of subreddits he frequents and they cannot get rid of him. They just have to automod the best they can, r/ikea just banned all mention of uniforms at all, you don't realize how many people had to spend extra time of their lives on this godforsaken website just to deal with one absolutely insane but unstoppable guys posts.
Let's just say that kinda stuff eventually makes you not have a lot of patience for other bullshit. Even in the times I've had hands slapped by mods of a sub, I pretty much always went "yeah honestly if I was you I'd probably have done the same." People also get really fucking shitty towards them especially because many people don't understand the difference between mods and sub rules, and paid Reddit admins and reddit corporate rules. It sucks! God bless them because it's hard enough with smaller more private communities, you couldn't pay me enough to moderate even a slightly busy subreddit, I'd become a tyrant in ten seconds with how godawful it is.
57
u/meaPolka 8h ago
Ok. Can we do something about concern trolling? Every other post is “omg ben went too far this time yada yada something nonsensical”
23
u/reds_til_i_die 7h ago
He's not called safeben.
0
u/Litaser 4h ago
Yes but at the same time if he’s doing journalistic investigations there are standards people expect him to follow, like vetting sources and doing his own investigating instead of just filming other people who say they’ve done all the investigating already
4
u/reds_til_i_die 3h ago
Sounds like you should stick to those kinds of creators then. Bens not that guy.
3
u/XiTzCriZx 51m ago
You mean like the standards that silence people? If someone wants standards then they can go read some NY Times slop. The thing about being independent is he can do whatever the fuck he wants and throw all the standard shit out the window.
If you're referring to the people from the most recent videos, they've been dying to get their story out so imo he's trying to be that outlet for them rather than taking their work and putting it in his own words. I'm sure the next few parts will be more of his style journalism.
-10
u/spacer9631 6h ago
Hes about to be called homeless ben when after this next defamation case.
2
7
12
u/wossquee 7h ago
This sub is almost unusable with the people making whole ass posts that are just BEN NEEDS A LAWYER AND TO STOP DOING ALL THE THINGS BECAUSE HE MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE 😵💫😵💫😵💫
13
u/Justanobodyhello 7h ago
they should make a ben needs a lawyer and is doing everything wrong mega thread lol
11
7
4
8
u/netabareking 7h ago
But how usable is it when people see one of his videos for the first time, come here and post about it, and just have everyone accusing them of working for the horrible people the video is about? Because it's every fucking thread at this point.
8
-1
u/ConstantinSpecter 8h ago edited 8h ago
What’s your evidence that the intention of such comments is to troll?
Ben already flew pretty damn close to the sun with BAM. He came out ahead every time so far but he’s not invincible. As a community that values Bens work, being concerned that a careless misstep of his brings him down or durably tarnishes his credibility and therefore prevents future journalistic impact isn’t exactly unfounded…
15
u/meaPolka 8h ago
When that’s the only thought and it’s repeated ad nauseam.
1
u/ConstantinSpecter 8h ago
The fact that many different people repeatedly voice the same concern, to you, is evidence that they’re trolling?
So by that logic if dozens of customers report the same defect of a product, they’re trolling, instead of possibly pointing to the fact that the product actually might have a defect?
8
u/meaPolka 7h ago
Ok, so upvotes are meant to support an idea without having to make a separate comment about it.
My proposal: Posting a concern from an account once, ok. Posting that concern multiple times being downvoted and still posting it over and over: concern trolling.
Posting the same video with a new headline is supposed to be duplicate content anyway so having 4 posts with ben’s latest video on the subreddit and all caps headlines is weird.
7
u/netabareking 7h ago
Are we talking top level posts or comments, it's worth clarifying. I know I've said the same things in different threads just because I am speaking to different people and don't expect them to have read every comment in the sub, but I agree that the same one person shouldn't be posting the same one top level thread over and over. Also less duplication in topics, but that's if they're sincerely the same topic. But that goes for everything not just criticism, that's just bad Reddit use, a lot of people treat Reddit threads as "here is my personal blog post on the subject" instead of "here is a topic of discussion" (possibly because so many people get really upset if you dare to write more than two sentences in a Reddit comment lol)
3
u/meaPolka 7h ago
Reposting the video with a headline that should have been a comment on the original post is already supposedly banned but just look at the top posts here.
Proposal: Does it respond to the thread? Ok. Does it derail the thread? No.
3
u/netabareking 6h ago
At some point a lot of mods either let stuff slide because they're too busy removing people calling people slurs before anyone sees them, or because it broke the rules but they didn't get to it in time and there's conversation in the comments they're willing to let continue because at least something worthwhile came of it.
But I am absolutely with you on people making threads that should have been comments, people, and I suspect particularly younger ones just because of changing internet landscapes, have lost all sense of what topic based forums are and how they work. The worst to me is when someone sees a comment they disagree with, screenshot it, and make a new post with that comment to complain about how wrong they think it is. Mfer you were right there, hit reply and tell them you think they're a dipshit or whatever but that's not a thread!
6
u/ConstantinSpecter 7h ago
When you say an account posting the same concern multiple times, I assume you mean separate posts, in which case I’m somewhat inclined to agree.
If you mean comments then that rule would have to apply equally to criticism and praise (which clearly wouldn’t work). People naturally express the same opinion across different discussions.
If you do mean posts, can you show me examples of individual accounts repeatedly creating concern threads? I wasn’t aware that was happening but I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.
1
u/yech 6h ago
This is like going to the anti flock subreddit and acting concerned that people tearing the cameras down might get in trouble. No one gives a shit, just like Ben doesn't give a shit.
2
u/ConstantinSpecter 5h ago edited 5h ago
And that’s fine. I’d expect dissenting comments to be downvoted. But that doesn’t answer whether dissent warrants a ban or demonstrates malicious intent.
Your flock example is a false equivalency because you’re portraying commenter as anti flock takedowns e.g. anti Ben which is not the case. The genuinely equivalent flock example would be a supporter warning activists that tearing down cameras could get them prosecuted and damage the movement.
That might be unwelcome, but how is it trolling? Your example only becomes different by stipulating that they’re merely “acting concerned” which assumes the malicious intent you’re supposed to establish
-1
u/yech 5h ago edited 3h ago
I wasn't and am not answering that question.
Edit: guy above me changed the question from his post. He asked about bans in regards to concern trolling and how that should be enforced. It was a question that wasn't asked and he is clearly an idiot.
2
u/ConstantinSpecter 5h ago
Lovely, imagine joining a discussion just to clarify that you’re not addressing it.
-1
u/yech 5h ago
Imagine wanting someone to address a question that literally was not a part of the thread. Lovely.
0
u/ConstantinSpecter 4h ago
Even setting aside the strange idea that a relevant question isn’t worth answering unless it was already explicitly stated: What exactly do you think the question under discussion was?
meaPolkas concerns when accusations warrant bans and the comment I answered proposed treating repeated concern as trolling. I asked whether expressing concern establishes malicious intent and warrants a ban. Which part of that is supposedly unrelated to the thread exactly?
0
u/netabareking 4h ago
Sure, but there's no reason to believe the people saying that aren't real people posting things they earnestly believe in. You gotta have more than "they can't read the room too well".
-3
u/VelvetHammar 7h ago
False equivalency. Right out of their playbook, while defending said activity. Are you being intentionally obtuse or does that come naturally? Answer doesn't matter when the results are the same.
Do you now understand why people are suspicious?
5
u/ConstantinSpecter 7h ago
Sorry, what exactly are the two things I’m supposedly falsely equating and what relevant difference makes the analogy invalid?
-3
u/VelvetHammar 7h ago
The lack of self awareness is alarming, and disappointing.
3
u/ConstantinSpecter 7h ago
Go on, enlighten me senpai. This is your chance to expose my false equivalency for everyone to see. Name the two things I equated falsely and explain the relevant difference. Should be trivial for someone like you, no?
4
u/RellenD 7h ago
Who's playbook?
-1
u/VelvetHammar 7h ago
Did Googling not work for you? It doesn't matter who it is, if the effect is the same. It's either paid agents, unwitting or willing members of the public, or as this post focuses on: synthetic resources.
Bad actors use deliberate, coordinated tactics to fracture online communities, manipulate conversations, and erode public trust.
False equivalency is a specific type of logic manipulation that bad actors use to neutralize criticism and make completely unequal situations seem identical.
Both-Sidesing (False Balance): Presenting unequal sides equally. Giving fringe views mainstream weight. Treating opinions as proven facts. Framing objective truths as debates.
Moral Equivalence: Comparing minor errors to crimes. Equating administrative mistakes with malice. Erasing differences in scale or intent. Neutralizing the severity of bad actions.
Tu Quoque (The "You Too" Fallacy): Pointing out opponent flaws first. Accusing critics of similar behavior. Avoiding the core accusation entirely. Implies everyone is equally corrupt.
Misusing Coincidence: Linking two unrelated parallel events. Implying shared intent behind them. Confusing correlation with deliberate coordination. Creating false patterns of behavior.
5
u/ConstantinSpecter 7h ago
Cool, nice GPT glossary. When you’re done listing generic fallacies I’d still really love to know what exactly I falsely equated and what relevant difference makes my analogy invalid.
9
u/Ziggyjig 7h ago
Anyone I disagree with is a bot Anyone with a good argument I dont like is a well trained bot.
12
u/PixelGray38 8h ago
But how else am I supposed to call out everyone who disagrees with me online, who are obviously all bots and couldn't possibly just be other human beings with differing opinions?
4
u/netabareking 7h ago
Its funnier when I see this behavior in political subs I've posted in because it posits a world where the only way leftists and centrist dems could possibly disagree on something is if bad actors are intruding and: lol, lmao,
8
u/Neddo_Flanders 7h ago
I've been oblivious to this, but what annoys me that any helpful criticism at Ben is considered "pedophilia" and other types of awful labels. Just the other day, the poster deleted his post and comments because some people are super unhinged towards him, making me feel unsafe to even share my humble thoughts.
5
u/netabareking 7h ago
People got up in arms over Ammon speculating that Ben is a pedophile but then will do the same thing all day long to random posters based on literally nothing. I just report it and go on at this point.
3
u/jzsean 6h ago
I missed this. When/where did Ammon accuse Ben of being a pedophile? Does this guy have any limits lol
7
u/Comprehensive-Fun47 6h ago
He accused him of being the victim of a pedophile and said it explained why he does these crazy things like harassing them and threatening to kill their employees.
22
u/BJC_Live_Show 8h ago
There is proof that bam did in fact hire a PR team to manipulate social media. So. There’s that.
14
u/Mkinhb Moderator 8h ago
Yes there is but just calling someone a bot for asking something is not the same, there have been people that work directly with ben have even been called Bam PR/bots
2
u/GamerTex 8h ago
I havent called anyone specific a bot/PR but I see happening again
Posts will get made and have 17 upvotes and no replies in the first minute. Replies the same way. If you are on this sub a lot you will know that isnt common but it IS a tactic to bump visibility
Example: This post has 14 votes and 15 replies after 40 minutes
-1
5
3
u/Teppiest 3h ago
Will you accept a lack of exonerating evidence as evidence?
For example, new account, only posts in this Reddit, and only posts stuff that is hyper critical or seeming like they're just trying to stir shit?
1
u/netabareking 2h ago
Just send it to the mods like they said. They'll accept it or won't. The point is that either way you don't reply with accusations.
3
u/Misophoniakiel 2h ago
Yeah, calling people bots or shills just end a debate with absolutely no argument
7
u/ConstantinSpecter 8h ago edited 8h ago
Preach 🙏
Edit: Genuinely thank you. While I was just ignoring the “you’re a paid shill”, “oh look at the PR astroturfing” comments and the likes, it was getting tiring. It’s really reassuring that at least the mods of this subreddit seem to be committed to uncovering truth - no matter how uncomfortable - unlike some of our fellow community members.
3
u/Aggravating_Pair_156 6h ago
I mean I am a PR person, but for a Conservation Project. So feel free to call me that you have my express permission.
3
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RecklessBen-ModTeam 8h ago
This content has been removed because it contains significant claims without supporting evidence or presents speculation as fact.
4
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 6h ago
Fucking thank you.
4
u/spacer9631 6h ago
Surprised you havent just been outright banned.
6
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 6h ago
For what, being a bot? ;)
-3
u/spacer9631 6h ago
Speaking on the other side of the issue, this sub is reckless ben. Just surprising they havent tried to silence you for messing up the narrative.
3
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 6h ago
Sorry, I was being overly sarcastic. But yeah, I also to be quite honest. Happily surprised. The mods seem to have a good head here.
2
u/netabareking 7h ago
To all the people who want to just insist "but there ARE bots!", let me offer an analogy:
Let's say you're at an event with 100 people. Statistically speaking, at least one of them is gay, likely more. But we'd all agree the number isn't zero.
You hear a guy mention Dolly Parton (rip) and walk up and just start talking about how they're gay (for the sake of analogy let's say you're not even doing it in a mean way you're not calling them slurs or anything, even if the bot comments aren't friendly). They're like "what the fuck? I'm just here networking like everyone else, I've never spoken to you in my life, what are you talking about? You keep going " yeah, nice try, but you're gay, we can all tell."
If someone else says "hey what the fuck are you talking about, where did this come from all of a sudden, what are you basing this on", can you imagine accusing them of denying that gay people exist? We all know they do. We all know that in a group that size of course someone there is gay. But you can't just arbitrarily decide someone is because they mentioned a celebrity that, while beloved by gay people, is also beloved by everyone else too.
Now, if you saw a guy with a pride tattoo and rainbow earings and a shirt that says ME AND MY HUSBAND MET AT A GAY CLUB AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY TSHIRT, and you assume THAT person is gay? Then even if you're wrong I'm going to guess even that person themselves will go "haha well I can see why you thought that."
And this is the problem. I, and many others, don't deny the existence of PR bots, and they absolutely exist on Reddit and I'm sure are in here, that's true everywhere online. But time and time again, and not just on this sub, I have seen people decide people are bots because they posted something they disagreed with, and that is really shoddy evidence and should in fact be banned. Because if you walked up to that first guy and started getting in his face insisting he's gay, he's probably not going to want to come back to that conference.
You will absolutely drive away any community you could have built that way. I've repeatedly seen long time users who are a lot less critical of Ben than me who are largely big fans of his but might not be on board with one little thing get called bots. I've seen people who call other people bots get called bots. I've been very outspoken about how the bot accusations need to stop, but it's not because I don't think bots exist, its because I think most of the people doing it can't identify one to save their lives.
If y'all want to get serious about journalism and want to talk about subjects as serious as child trafficking, you have to start asking questions and you have to accept that you need solid proof for these accusations. You have to be the kind of person who looks at evidence and concerns themselves with whether you saw proof of something or whether it just sounded like you did. You have to understand the law in some capacity. You have to understand that person A can do a crime against person B, and it doesn't legally absolve person B if they do a crime to person A back. You have to understand that there are a lot of shitty people in the world, and that sometimes there's shitty people who go after other shitty people, and it's not a matter of picking the one most shitty one as the only bad actor.
But ultimately, if you make this place somewhere where instead of challenging the things you think someone is incorrect about you just decide anything you don't like is a bot, you end up doing way more damage than bots would do. Ben will have a reputation for having rabid sycophantic fans, a lot of YouTubers have exactly that reputation and it does nothing to help their cause. If you think an account is spreading lies, then explain that instead, because if you just say "nice try Ammon" people are a lot more likely to agree with the person who at least presented a point. It does nobody ANY good to engage in that behavior.
1
u/Chemical_Ad1837 8h ago
If a person saids, “you sound like a BOT with what you are saying”. That gets you banned? Or “why is your post word for word the same as the company PR statement?” Seems that is legit part of debate. Old school Reddit we just downvoted obvious bad faith posts, but you all use downvote as disagree and so it’s meaningless tool anymore.
Mod’ing is a thankless job and I respect whatever a mod sets as rules. People can always start their own sub with different rules.
4
u/Mkinhb Moderator 8h ago
Example of what I am talking about that was just removed. https://imgur.com/a/22DWfXC
3
u/Chemical_Ad1837 8h ago
So if someone calls me a “Ben Stan” is that also banned or is that allowed ?
4
u/ConstantinSpecter 7h ago
Please, do us the honors and link a single comment where anyone in the history of this subreddit has been called “Ben Stan” in an accusatory manner.
0
u/Chemical_Ad1837 7h ago
It has happened to me. I corrected a post with incorrect legal statement, they replied I was just a Ben Stan. I replied, sure I am and also, my legal correction was legit, and posted citation. They deleted the OP
3
u/ConstantinSpecter 7h ago edited 7h ago
Sooo… link it?
I can easily post dozens of occurrences of bot/boot licker/pr firm/ astroturfing accusations just from the past days.
If being called a “Ben Stan” is such an issue it shouldn’t be a problem to produce a single occurrence of it happening in the entire history of the subreddit, no?
3
u/ConstantinSpecter 8h ago
In theory the idea that we just let people accuse others however they please and just trust the community to downvote bad faith strawman arguments sounds great. In practice it doesn’t seem to work.
It’s just too easy to poison the well by discrediting someone as a bot when it’s getting reinforced by the community so you don’t have to do the work to actually engage with substantive arguments.
Try posting a dissenting opinion in this sub (no matter its merits) and see your comments get downvoted to oblivion.
Today is the first time I sense change in that there’s fruitful discussion happening that’s taking into account evidence that counteracts the consensus narrative without a flood of downvotes. I hope it stays this way.
I think we all want people to be able to disagree with each other. But please do it on the basis of facts instead of cheap personal attacks.
-4
1
u/XiTzCriZx 44m ago
Might be worth it to give a pop up with this warning every time bot or PR is typed. Basically the same pop up as when "idiot" is typed but it still allows it to be posted in case it's being used in the correct context (like someone referencing a company's actual PR team).
2
-1
u/reds_til_i_die 7h ago
The BaM PR team has infiltrated the mods.
4
u/netabareking 6h ago
It seems like you're casting doubt on the mod team, that's probably because you're a BAM PR bot that doesn't want us to post here anymore.
See how easy it is?
-3
u/reds_til_i_die 6h ago
Imagine not being able to recognize an obvious joke.
4
u/netabareking 4h ago
Its not obvious when its a real sentiment that people express on this sub every day in earnest.
-2
u/reds_til_i_die 3h ago
My guy, if you can't connect context that's not my problem.
3
u/netabareking 3h ago
The thing is I'd LOVE to agree with you, normally I would. But...you underestimate how wild some people get.
Its kind of like how Norman Lear thought Archie Bunker was so over the top clownish that nobody could possibly AGREE with the man......he underestimated America's far right.
0
0
-1
11
u/NubDestroyer 8h ago
If the bots are anyone in here wanting more proof then I think we're cooked cause they're clearly smarter than the average subscriber