Slashdot Mirror


Radical Leftists Built Their Own FOSS Alternative To Reddit After It Banned Them (vice.com)

eeplox shares a report from VICE, adding: "Community-built sites like these are very much needed since Reddit announced they were going closed source": After r/LeftWithSharpEdge was taken down, ziq [one of the subreddit's members] decided to leave Reddit and create an independent anarchist community free from its rules. Raddle.me, which was originally called Raddit.me, is an "alternative that is focused on community building and openness, and not controlled by a corporation," ziq told me. The original name was intended to sound similar to Reddit, but was later changed to avoid potential trademark issues. Raddle doesn't have advertisements or run analytical software, so its size is difficult to calculate -- but that's by design. The site is meant to be an alternative to social networks that profit by monitoring user behavior and serving advertisements. "We have no ads, no tracking, no user profiling and we don't collect or share any user data with anyone," ziq said. The site is community-built and anyone can contribute to the code.

Ziq's commitment to privacy is an appealing virtue for Raddle's users. "I'm always very uneasy about the lack of concern for privacy online," Tequila_Wolf, a user who posts frequently to Raddle, told me in a direct message. "When you have friends on government lists who get harassed at every border because, say, they are members of Anarchists Against The Wall, you know you don't want to get on that list." Raddle ultimately came out of more broad problems ziq and Emma saw with Reddit. Ziq complained about how it has increasingly become a recruiting ground for the alt-right, the social network's overemphasis on America (r/politics, a major subreddit, only discusses U.S.-based politics, for example), and the fact that the site's code isn't open source, among other issues. Emma mentioned what she says is a problem with harassment on the site. "To me, the biggest problem with Reddit is how its administrators ignore the routine harassment and witch-hunts of marginalized people that takes place, with r/The_Donald being the most prominent example," she said.

25 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. perfect NSA honey-trap by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Interesting

    sign up. log on. wave to the camera

  2. No way to create communities. by Lordpidey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right now the site seems to have no way to create forums (The equivelant of a subreddit), this concerns me, as if conversations are to be sequestered to an appropriate forum, then certain viewpoints can be silenced simply by not having an appropriate forum, turning the site into a large echo chamber.

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
    1. Re:No way to create communities. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they ARE leftists you know.

      Are they? Leftists are collectivists. TFA says these people are anarchists, which is the polar opposite of collectivism.

    2. Re:No way to create communities. by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Are they? Leftists are collectivists. TFA says these people are anarchists, which is the polar opposite of collectivism."

      These are not the anarchists you're looking for.

      By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?

      *1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      *2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:No way to create communities. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?

      *1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Very interesting link. So these people want to eliminate the government, and replace it with an organization empowered to coerce people into following a set of rules.

      Wow. No wonder they can't get anyone to take them seriously.

    4. Re:No way to create communities. by pots · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is absolutely wrong, it's literally the opposite of true. I realize that rhetoric in the US has corrupted the terms "political right" and "political left" but dude, come on.

      To repeat the historical origin, which I'm sure you've heard but... I don't know man. Anyway: the terms "political left" and "political right" come from the French Revolution. Supporters of the king (i.e.: "the dude in charge," "the government," "the authority") sat to the right in the hall where the National Assembly convened. Those opposed to the king (i.e.: anti-"the dude in charge," anti-"the government," anti-"the authority") sat on the left.

      Thus the left were the anti-authoritarians, anti-establishment, and in the most extreme examples: the anarchists. They are people who want less top-down rule. The right were the opposite of those things. Where you fell on this spectrum generally reflected what you feared the most: authoritarian rule, or mob rule. Fascism didn't exist yet, but the two extremes of the left-right political spectrum are typically given as anarchy on the left and fascism on the right.

      I don't know how these terms have become so corrupted in the US, but a guess: the US rebelled against rule by a central authority, and most of the popular rhetoric centers around anti-authoritarianism. "All men are created equal," "Democracy is good," yadda yadda. Thus both sides of the political spectrum have to make claims about being anti-authority, even while they may simultaneously give pro-authority speeches about needing "strong leadership" and so on.

      "Collectivism" falls nowhere on this spectrum. A preference for working or living as a group does not imply a central authority, nor does it reject a central authority. There is no reason why an anarchist can't be a collectivist, nor any reason why a fascist can't be a collectivist. In fact, anarchist collectives are common. Here's the first example a search turned up for me.

    5. Re:No way to create communities. by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?

      *1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Very interesting link. So these people want to eliminate the government, and replace it with an organization empowered to coerce people into following a set of rules.

      Wow. No wonder they can't get anyone to take them seriously.

      Is that so different from what the Alt-right and most of the Republicans/Tea-Party want to do? They want to smash the current democratic government and all it's structures (or what remains of them) and replace them with and authoritarian leader or possibly a clique of political oligarchs masquerading as a democratically elected body that heads an organisation empowered to force everybody to follow their set of rules and their social norms. The only place where the Republicans/Tea-Party and the Alt-Right differ is that for the former the resulting social order has to be a christian theocracy whereas the Alt-Right is flexible on that point.

    6. Re:No way to create communities. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The existing power structures (big government, big business, big anything really) lead to people in power and institutions and systems who protect their own power. The most delusional political activists think that if only we wiped the slate clean we could rebuild a new world order where nobody takes advantage of anyone else and it'll be so great people will join voluntarily. Which I suppose is a step up from communism where everybody will be forced to work for the greater good. The problem is that power structures appear out of nowhere almost instantly, even in kindergarten you can observe leaders, followers and outsiders as well as the power of social influence and social sanctions. Having a valuable resource to use or trade that others don't is a power structure, obviously private property is power. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is obviously a power structure, creating the rules for a shared resource is power. The only way to avoid power is if we all became totally self-sufficient hermits, the War Games solution - the only way to win is not to play.

      Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is those who confuse perfect competition with laissez-faire capitalism, that regulation hampers competition and deregulation will lead to more and better competition. Let me try to put it bluntly: Perfect competition presumes that vendors will engage in an intense, cut-throat competition to destroy their own profits and livelihood without any structural costs, barriers to competition, transaction costs, lack of transparency and without creating or protecting any unique brand or features. It's an entirely fictional concept to begin describing basic elements of capitalism which is why a lot of people have heard of it but understood so little. Basically almost every class following it is about how that's actually not true due to reality like economics of scale or network effects, how actual customers are relatively uninformed creatures of habit that don't all instantly jump ship because the competition is $0.01 cheaper, how to create your own unique brand that people prefer like Coke vs Pepsi, how to protect unique features through intellectual property rights (IPR) and so on.

      Particularly people fail to see how the prisoner's dilemma works when it's repeated, like if you lower prices and steal my customers I'll have to lower prices and steal your customers, we'll both lose money so let's not be idiots. Or when they all switch to terms that are unfavorable for the customers like forced arbitration. This kind of tacit collusion is why we need checks and balances, not just inside the branches of government but between the government and citizens, manufacturers and consumers, employers and workers and so on. If all the choices are bad you don't really have any choice, of course unless you have a gun to your head you in theory always have the War Games solution but practically it can be almost impossible. For example I doubt many people can avoid signing up for some kind of phone service, you can pick your poison but it's hard to not play the game. Unless you want to be a hermit in a cave again, something has to curb their ability to dictate terms, create lock-ins and shut out the competition. If they don't play nice now, they certainly won't play nice when the gloves come off.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Listen - I may not agree with them on every position - and may even see them as harmful to some of their own goals... but I do see them as a somewhat helpful kind of crazy.

    Why? Because for the past generation or so, we really haven't had any real forces of extreme leftwing pushing anything in the US. Not that this is a bad thing on it's own, mind you - but compared to the insanity of an extreme right wing pushing every button on every part of the societal machine, it's actually destabilizing to have the left version largely missing for so long.

    Now, I certainly hear an opposing idea just while I'm typing this - that we have Democrats or college campuses, or something - and if you think of that as extreme left wing, you have no idea how the rest of the world thinks.

    Without an extreme to exist as a philosophical sounding board, or as a 'wall' of what's too extreme to bounce against, the left of today in the US is largely crippled in culture - and obsessed with minor points of political correctness/friendiness to business, rather than actually tying to advance a real agenda of change.

    I'd actually LIKE to have a crazy left to actually exist out there, willing to be grumbled about and dismissed. I'd like to have something Michael Moore can say "Geesh - those loonie lefties", then make a point that plots a 'sensible middle ground', rather than having nationalized healthcare like many modern democracies seem like some loony idea by reflexive 'moderate' idealists.

    So go, you crazy folks - be extreme and let me disagree with you. It's cool with me.

  4. Fools by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"We have no ads, no tracking, no user profiling and we don't collect or share any user data with anyone

    Two things will happen if the site survives a significant length of time:

    1) Whoever is funding it will become a dictator, deleting posts and banning posters with whom they disagree, without admitting they're doing it and in fact doing their best to keep the fact a secret.

    2) When the money runs out, they'll convince themselves that 'just a little bit of advertising is OK', and slowly sell out.

  5. Great, more echo chambers by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that's just what we need now.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Re:They're too far to the left even for Reddit?! by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reddit is too big to lump into a single category. It has multiple communities from all across the political spectrum.

    Is /r/latestagecapitalism left wing? Yes.
    Is /r/thedonald left wing? No.

    Typically reddit puts up with subreddits as long as they don't advocate or end up used to commit violence. Both /r/politics and /r/thedonald want each other gone, but it's not happening until it becomes evident that purpose of the subreddit itself is problematic. It's not the level of political extremism, it's what the sub is getting used for and advocates for that dictates whether or not it's allowed.

    Calling liberals or conservatives a "cancer on our nation that should just fuck off and die" isn't actually against the rules. Saying "so-and-so is a liberal/conservative, here's his/her address, go get 'em wink wink" is against the rules. If you have enough of the latter on your sub, it's getting the boot.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  7. Re:Liberals create echo chamber by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think Liberal == Radical Leftist, then you have your head up your ass.

    Peoples' political views can fall across a wide spectrum. It's convenient to demonize your opponents by shoving them all to one extreme end of that spectrum. Convenient and wrong.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  8. Re: How typical of leftists by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Left winger here. I'll happily debate politics with people interested in a calm (if passionate) rational discussion. I will not waste my time arguing with somebody spewing racist dogwhistles with no intention of listening or thinking about the points made.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  9. Re: I don't have a problem with this by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    SoylentNews was at least up during recent "offline mode" downtime of Slashdot.

  10. Voat? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

    So, I'm guessing Voat wouldn't have them, either? That alone should probably tell you most of these people are fuckwits of the highest order in the first place.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  11. Nope, just another echo chamber. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they really dont like is the presence of anyone who does not agree with them.

    So they have gone and made their own little club, out the in the back shed, where they can make sure anyone who does not agree with them will be kicked out (the equivalent of the 'no girls!' club sign). They will make their big plans there, all competing to out do the others in how 'revolutionary' they are.they will virtue signal until they are red in the face and their 'community' will slowly shrink as anyone who isnt revolutionary ENOUGH this week gets excluded.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world will get on with actual life, something they will be less and less in touch with.

    Sad? yes.
    Pathetic? yes.

    But hey, its no different 'because its on the internet', the only odd thing here is that someone thinks its newsworthy. Its not.

    1. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be honest, a lot of the time it is centrists being called radical leftists.

      I'm a centrist and i've never been called radical left, I only ever get accused of being rightwing. Apparently the view that rules should apply e regardless of race or sex is a rightwing view. Me saying that if black-only or women-only clubs are acceptable then so are whites-only or men-only clubs apparently makes me some sort of nazi (in my case a black one).

      The left is now mostly a speech-suppression movement which is antithetical to a free society. For example, I am a lifelong atheist, but I have never in my life campaigned to prevent religious propagandists from talking at a university.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As society as increasingly become more racially tolerant, the racial equity movements have had to turn to increasingly ephemeral explanations (micro-aggression, etc) to justify African American problems.

      The broad hiring of Latinos nation-wide in low wage labor positions, the mass hiring of South Asians in IT positions and how it has mostly worked without broad resistance has really made African Americans reliance on "racism" as the principal source of their present problems increasingly less believable.

      So they've turned to increasingly more comprehensive and inescapable explanations of white racism. Whites are generally now assumed to be racist in ways they aren't considered capable of overcoming. In the 1960s you could support civil rights and have black friends and easily not be considered racist -- in fact, you were probably considered suspect by conservatives. Now that's not good enough, you have to permanently accept your inherent racism.

      Questioning this narrative of course makes you "obviously racist" and trying to seek alternative explanations for African American suffering (broken families, gang membership and high levels of criminal participation, poor work ethic in school or labor force participation) gets you shouted down or worse.

  12. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's true to a point as long as you do a few things:

    1) Group all anti-government, non-Muslim religious based attacks as well as white supremacist attacks into the far-right category while at the same time often miscategorizing other attacks such as classifying Fort Hood as 'workplace violence' even with Hasan's confession about his motivations. That actually required an act of Congress to have to the dead and wounded be recognized as victims of a terrorist attack and awarded Purple Hearts.

    2) Assign political motivations to non-political attacks. Not all attacks by right wingers are motivated by their ideology in the same way not all attacks by left wingers or Jihadists are motivated by theirs; sometimes an attack in a parking lot is just road rage with no deeper meaning.

    3) Start tracking after 2001 and stop tracking after 2015.

    4) Change the definition of threat as it suits your needs. In some reports "threat" is based off of actual deaths and in others it's by incident. So when you need a bigger number you count the 5 times someone was harassed on the street (with no injury) and say that is a bigger threat than a single shooting that killed multiple people.

    There is also the fact that many Jihadist plots are stopped before the threat ever materializes due to the massive manpower dedicated to just that while far right attacks are not due to their limited nature and next to no dedicated special policing (they seem to be mostly of the "lone gunman", small or single target variety which are very difficult to prevent) . i.e. it's hard to stop a crazy person with a knife until the attack starts vs someone trying to buy large quantities of explosives.

    It's just another case of statistics telling you whatever you want them to and not necessarily the truth.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  13. Re: Liberals create echo chamber by oobayly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a colleague who said "fucking liberals" when I told him it's stupid to think that electric car technology isn't going to improve in the future.

    To him, liberal is just an insult, he has no idea what it actually means.

  14. Re:Psst. Democrats are right wingers too. by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Informative

    Antifa and BLM are regularly killing police? On what planet?

    I would guess he's talking about the high-profile shooting of five Dallas police officers and the subsequent victims' relatives' lawsuit against BLM. However, we don't have any evidence the shooter was a member of BLM, just that he was angry over police shootings of black men. He was once a member of the New Black Panther Party, but they kicked him out because they thought he was too dangerous.

  15. Re: How typical of leftists by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer to not call people nazis unless they are actually nazis. I find it lessens the impact of the term to misuse it.

    And rational does not mean they agree with me - far from it. Rational means their arguments and positions support their professed viewpoints, nothing more or less. I have no interest in having arguments with people that won't be honest with themselves or me.

    If somebody tells me that public health care is bad because the government wastes tons of money despite heaps of evidence to the contrary, I cannot have a debate with them because they do not believe in research, logic, or honest debate. If they tells me public health care is bad because the government's role is not to provide health care, then I can talk with them, because while I disagree with that viewpoint there's nothing wrong with the logic itself.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  16. They forgot about what by edgedmurasame · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "To me, the biggest problem with Reddit is how its administrators ignore the routine harassment and witch-hunts of marginalized people that takes place, with r/The_Donald being the most prominent example,"

    Never mind that Reddit has done a lot to silence that (and other non-leftist) community under that exact excuse. After they dealt with the Violentacrez incident, they went from a user-driven site to an admin-driven site with highly-left leanings.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  17. Re:Institutional Racism by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order to keep the narrative of white racism alive, "activists" keep turning to more and more ephemeral forms of racism, most of which require no conscious action at all on the part of whites. Conveniently, whites can not refute these racist acts nor can they really change, they can only *atone* for their inherent racism. Racism has become a kind of secular "original sin" -- an inalienable state of being for which they may only pay penance.

    Unfortunately as more and more non-white ethnic groups immigrate and rise within the United States, it's becoming apparent that the "race problem" isn't "white racism" as broad, whites vs. nonwhites phenomenon, but is instead something more like "Why can't blacks succeed when others have?"

    And the laundry list of others is pretty long -- Latinos, many of whom *don't even speak English*, have managed to thrive in the United States. The Hmong, living like it was the sometime before the 19th century managed to get ripped out of their own country by the US war machine and resettled to the prairies of the Midwest and thrived. The *Somalis* managed to escape a live-action version of "The Road Warrior" and thrive in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in spite of the obvious handicaps of negative sentiment towards Muslims *and* being African (inheriting existing negative sentiment towards American blacks).

    How have all of these groups managed to establish working communities not defined by broken families and crime despite substantial cultural obstacles in mere decades or less while native African Americans continue to fail? Surely at some point we can start to talk about problems inherent to and unique to African American communities which cannot be blamed on "racism".