×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reddit Bans Subreddit Dedicated To Finding Navy Yard Shooters

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the saving-us-all-from-armchair-detectives dept.

News 159

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reddit became a gathering place for amateur sleuthing in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year, fueling what some reports called 'online witch hunts' that resulted in some people being falsely identified as the bomber. Now Andrea Peterson reports at the Washington Post that a section on the popular online community for finding the Navy Yard shooters has been banned. 'We banned it because it violated site rules by encouraging the posting of personal information,' says Erik Martin from reddit. The shooting at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning left at least 12, including a gunman dead. But police say there may be another suspect at large, and they 'have reason to believe' this individual was involved in shootings."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

159 comments

and..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868349)

i have no idea

Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868367)

This is a story about reddit, l predict the usual anti-gun nuts will come out of the woodwork with their gun control agenda.

This is plainly offtopic and should be discouraged by modding all threads down.

Keep it ontopic folks, otherwise you are hijacking the conversation and violating slashdot policy.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1, Offtopic)

cheater512 (783349) | about 7 months ago | (#44868389)

Can someone please mod this nut offtopic?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868485)

No, I'm out of mod points. But thanks for asking.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868457)

Notice how civilised countries that dont have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of people dont have the long line of gun massacres? And are safer in general with less crime in general? So what is wrong with the picture here, or is it the USA is just fucked up?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868503)

oppression comes in many forms. Preventing the right of people to defend themselves from folks who don't care what the law says... well, that's even more fucked up than what you're describing.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868623)

Then how about the USA let other countries have weapons of mass destruction without lying about it and then invading them.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868677)

AHAHAHAHAHA and you think a gun will do that. Funny too how those safe countries have much harsher controls also are MORE free in actual important ways than your shithole.

Hey guess what - the fact the crime rates and murder rates AND massacres are MORE prevalent in the USA completely debunks your theory about self defence. And did you ever think that in an armed populance, the criminals just simply shoot first? How you gonna defend yourself if you are fucking dead?

Frankly I'll take being in a country where you are actually safe and have no fear of being assaulted - maybe instead of fellatio over the imagined protection of a gun you get your fuckign society in order and create an enviroment where poeple dont feel the need to shoot or be criminals int he first place? Oh wait you mean the real solution is too hard so you have to have to run and hide under so called gun rights?

Fuck you and your guns and your short sighted bullshit.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (1, Offtopic)

halivar (535827) | about 7 months ago | (#44869059)

This is getting tedious. America has had more guns than people since Euros first stepped foot on it 500 years ago. If guns haven't turned the US into a lawless Mad Max apocalyptic wasteland by now, chances are it isn't going to anytime soon.

Oh wait you mean the real solution is too hard so you have to have to run and hide under so called gun rights?

And WTF does it even mean to "run and hide" under gun rights? This is histrionic babble.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#44869855)

The argument about gun rights is about to dissolve into an argument about restricting chemistry, and we know how that ends. If people can print a gun then all bets are off.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868733)

Preventing the right of people to defend themselves from folks who don't care what the law says... well, that's even more fucked up than what you're describing.

yeah because that's worked out so well! do you carry a gun everywhere just in case there is a shooting massacre? what sort of fucked up hick wants to live in a society (pretty loose use of the term in this context) where everybody is carrying a deadly weapon and trained to kill? the best trained with the biggest gun will be the one left standing.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868771)

You would think that, and yet it is illegal to lay a simple minefield around my house to keep myself and my loved ones safe from criminals who don't care about the law. My guns are all well and good, but I have to sleep some time, and my guns aren't always with me, so I could easily be caught unprepared.

I'm also not allowed to have a single trifling little anti-aircraft missile system or iron dome system to protect my family in my own home. And yet any criminal who doesn't obey the law is perfectly free to lob mortars into my house willy-nilly.

And, get this, the oppressive state forces me to drive my loved friends and relatives around in a tin can car which has no reactive armor, no 120mm smoothbore cannon, and not even a 50 cal machine gun mounted on top of it. How could I possibly protect my family if some criminals who don't obey the law just decided to attack my car that is utterly defenseless thanks to the oppressive state?

Such oppressive bullshit. The state is practically patronizing me by allowing me to have a few pea shooters. They're basically saying "if the criminals who don't care about breaking the laws launch a full scale amphibious and aerial invasion of your property, then you may have a gun to shoot your family and loved ones with before turning on yourself, before the enemy can rape and torture and kill you all."

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#44869899)

When my daughter's psychotic abusive ex-boyfriend tried to push his way past me into my house to confront her I was within my right and able to end his life right then. But I didn't. I chose to not. Time will tell if I erred there, and the trend is "yes, that was a mistake".

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868507)

Notice how civilised countries that dont have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of people dont have the long line of gun massacres? And are safer in general with less crime in general? So what is wrong with the picture here, or is it the USA is just fucked up?

Get your nose out of the business of people who live in
other countries.

We don't care what your opinion is, we choose to do things
differently in the US and will continue to do so whether you
pathetic bootlicking self likes it or not.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868639)

Notice how civilised countries that dont have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of people dont have the long line of gun massacres? And are safer in general with less crime in general? So what is wrong with the picture here, or is it the USA is just fucked up?

The USA is not a civilized country. Period.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 months ago | (#44868891)

Compared to what? Japan where more people are murdered by their own hand? Syria? North Korea? Mexico?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1, Offtopic)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 7 months ago | (#44869123)

How dare you criticize such a well thought out and rational point of argument?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 months ago | (#44868659)

And are safer in general with less crime in general?

You might want to look at those crime stats again. The USA has a fuckload of homicides compared to Western Europe, especially by gun, but violent crime overall is not bad [msn.co.nz] . And that's a minor miracle considering our public policy regarding the urban poor. So yes, in the US if you are involved with gang warfare, you stand a larger chance of being murdered than in Europe. On the other hand, if you are just walking down the street, you are a lot more likely to get mugged in Europe. So there you go.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869869)

Lack of gun ownership has lead to hideously destructive wars as dictators could easily take over. If you average in those deaths, gun control is massively murderous. Enjoy your Pax Americana, Europa Europa.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870625)

Oh yeah, we've had horrible dictators in Europe. They jailed and tortured people based on their nationality or religion, started wars, limited the freedom to travel, engaged in mass surveilance to the best of their abilities, controled peoples money even beyond their borders -- even requiring foreign banks to denounce on their citizens incomes and wealth, employed secret courts, blatantly disregarded their laws or even constitution. OH WAIT.
So when are You going to start Your revolt?

Anyway, speaking plainly, because I know the situation of Your schools: just having guns doesn't mean shit. In order to wage war on a dictator and his well organized army You need supplies and organization. An armed mob can't march on the capitol on an empty stomach (or an extremely fat one). And an armed mob can't do much against bombs dropped from several kilometers (You can put miles here, I know You are not accustomed to rational measuring systems) away or above, or against gas or other weapons of mass terror, destruction or crowd control. Even police could control Your mob of crazed gun owners, and easily. Army would only get involved if shit really hit the fan -- and then what are You going to do with Your assault rifles against tanks?

Not only that, are You going to fight an army with an uprising? So You basically start an another hideously destructive war, only this time it's a civil war.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868689)

What's wrong with a massacre? You make it sound like nipples were shown during the killings.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (1, Offtopic)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 7 months ago | (#44868695)

Civilized countries like Switzerland, where almost everyone has an assault rifle at home at one time or another and has an option to take a fire arm home for free from the government after their mandatory military service? That country is pretty goddamn civilized.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (2)

cbope (130292) | about 7 months ago | (#44870765)

The difference compared to the US is that in Switzerland, all those guns are kept at home by people who have been trained and serve(d) in the military. As in, they have been through a selection process to weed out the unstable idiots who should not have guns, because you do not want unstable idiots to have firearms period, whether in the military or not.

In the US, any Billy Joe Bob Gun-nut can go out and buy an assault rifle with little more than a basic background check. There is no training requirement and there is no psychological check in place to prevent guns from ending up in the wrong person's hands.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870897)

You are implying military service in general and conscription specifically include a comprehensive psychological and emotional analysis. They don't. (I have served.)

Further, assault rifles are no more legal in the US than in Canada, England, Australia, or Germany. It is very uncommon for civilians to rock fully-automatic weapons. Perhaps you are thinking of semi-automatic weapons.

I get the beef with the AR-15 because it looks almost identical to the M-16, but functionally it is no different from a semi-automatic handgun. One press of the trigger, one bullet comes out. Trigger must be released before another bullet can be fired. This is common sense, since neither short nor long bursts of suppressing fire are particularly useful in the context of engaging one or two hostiles during a school/mass shooting. They would be employed to suppress large groups of enemies on the battlefield.

Some SWAT teams, for example, use rifles that incorporate a two-round burst capability, allowing SWAT officers to deliver the proverbial "double tap" with one press of the trigger. That is about the only useful capability I can imagine for automated fire on civvie street.

Have I shot automatic weapons? Yes. Is it fun as hell? Also yes. Do we, as civvies, want automatic weapons? Sure, many of us do.

Do we "need" them? My answer is "I don't know". A better answer is probably "Not yet, hopefully not ever".

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868741)

I like the part where you're attempting to compare the monocultures of Europe with the US.

Protip, kid: You have no fucking clue.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869521)

Protip little manchild : You are a fucking idiot

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#44869827)

Guns owned by Americans still outnumber Americans, as they have since WWII. Americans are still more likely to be killed by an agent of the government, or themselves, than another armed citizen. Ownership of guns is not the problem. Lack of mental health care is the problem.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (1)

cbope (130292) | about 7 months ago | (#44870775)

To further refine that, it's a lack of mental healthcare PLUS the easy availability of guns that is the problem. One without the other would not really be a problem.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868615)

you're an ignorant hypocrite

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868961)

If your aim was really to prevent partisan bickering, I would like to think you'd have left "anti-gun nuts" out of it entirely and presented a neutral stance instead. As it stands, you're just making a pre-emptive strike.

Actually, if you drop "anti-gun" and change "agenda" to "agendas", this sounds like a downright reasonable post. Perhaps keep that in mind next time?

Freedom of speech... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868395)

as long as it's the speech we allow you to say.

Re:Freedom of speech... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868661)

As long as it on your property or public property. If you start talking crap about the occupation of palestine at Starbucks, they tell you to get out.

Re:Freedom of speech... (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 7 months ago | (#44868895)

In America, you have freedom of speech... but it's the 18th-century definition of "speech", which is more accurately described by today's use of the word "expression", because you have the freedom to claim any idea you want, rather than being required to pretend you like whatever the government likes. Speaking of government, that's the only entity offering you that freedom. The government promises you free expression, but others are equally free to express displeasure at your expression, to the extent of their other rights. Businesses can refuse to serve you, newspapers can reject your letters to the editor, and other people can even burn you in effigy... because those are all protected speech/expression as well.

Of course, in the past 237 years, people have abused that freedom of expression to curtail others' rights. The Supreme Court has determined that the right to free expression is not as important as someone else's right to life, and it doesn't override rule of law, either. Speech that incites "imminent lawless action" is not protected, even from the government.

Americans have the freedom of expression. You can post your ideas on a billboard and display them (in a lawful manner), and you are completely safe from government prosecution and persecution for holding those views. You are not safe, however, from the consequences of pissing people off.

Re:Freedom of speech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869213)

The Supreme Court has determined that the right to free expression is not as important as someone else's right to life, and it doesn't override rule of law, either. Speech that incites "imminent lawless action" is not protected, even from the government.

They have no power to insert things into the constitution that weren't there before, which is exactly what they did.

That "fire in a crowded theater" case? Used to arrest war protestors.

Re:Freedom of speech... (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 7 months ago | (#44869615)

They have no power to insert things into the constitution that weren't there before...

...but the SCOTUS does have the power (and the duty) to interpret the law according to the circumstances at hand, reconciling the traditional written law with the current societal views. Ideally, the judicial branch is what determines whether something that is law is also right.

That "fire in a crowded theater" case? Used to arrest war [protesters].

Or, from the perspective of American citizens in 1919, the accused (Schenck [wikipedia.org] ) was weakening the American war effort, indirectly threatening the lives of every American. That infringes on their inherent and inalienable right to life, which as noted earlier, generally takes precedence over freedom of expression. The key detail in the ruling, of which "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" was an illustration, was that speech intended to create a "clear and present danger" should not be protected.

However, the SCOTUS was eventually swayed by later societal focus on the right of free expression. In 1969, another case reached the court (involving a man indirectly threatening the President [wikipedia.org] ), but the opinion had changed. The SCOTUS opined that even though the speech was advocating violence and literally even promoting treason, it was not directly inciting "imminent lawless action", so it should indeed be protected. That test remains the standard to this day, overriding the earlier "clear and present danger" concept.

Re:Freedom of speech... (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 7 months ago | (#44870349)

Actually, they are not supposed to reconcile anything "with the current societal views." That is what causes all the problems. When current societal views say that "freedom of the press" only means printing or speaking viewpoints approved by the government and the government says that believing in the FOSS ideals is no longer allowed are we still okay with SCOTUS reconciling "with current societal views" or would we prefer that SCOTUS focus solely on the original intent of the framers (or authors of more recent amendments)?

Your example actually shows where SCOTUS fell for the current societal views trap and a later court had to correct the course back to be more in alignment with the original intent. That is, we are free to express ideas that are not popular; even ideas that are against the government. So far, nobody has been able to show that the framers were advocates of lawlessness or outright lying so the current interpretation is that free speech was never intended to allow such speech.

Another good example to see why adherents to all sides of the political spectrum should want the original interpretation model is the privacy of email and other cloud-storage. Why should personal communications via email or text message be viewed differently than snail mail. The court views Fedex and UPS the same as USPS, so why not email and text messages? I've seen it argued that because cloud-stored documents are in the hands of a third-party that the 4th amendment no longer applies to them. Really? The 4th amendment applies to my safe deposit box at the bank and to my storage unit I might rent and my property in them is being held by a third party. Are the things I type and store in the cloud any less my personal effects than the things I type on paper and store in that safe deposit box? No. But because "original intent" was getting in the way of the liberal agenda for so many years, society through it out as a concept and treats the phrase about the same way that the word Voldemort is treated in the Harry Potter universe.

Re:Freedom of speech... (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#44869217)

well said

it is unfortunate so many people out there think freedom means "i can do whatever the hell i want without consequence" like an immature child

and don't understand what freedom really is: something that goes hand in hand with responsibility, as any true adult understands

please note:

where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom

if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is

Re:Freedom of speech... (1, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 7 months ago | (#44869473)

it is unfortunate so many people out there think freedom means "i can do whatever the hell i want without consequence" like an immature child

Just what DO you think freedom means? Do you think freedom means "I can do whatever the hell I want, right up until the point the state decides what I'm doing is irresponsible and sends goons to beat the shit out of me, throw me in a cage, and/or kill me?" Because that's an awfully funny definition of "freedom"; it's rather similar to "despotism".

where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom

if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is

The usual way that statement works is "the large print giveth, the small print taketh away". For example, "citizens have the right to free speech / citizens have the responsibility not to speak in a way Authority doesn't like".

Re:Freedom of speech... (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#44869719)

more like "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose"

i can't play my music at 3 am, i impinge on my neighbor's right to sleep

i can't speed 120 mph on the highway, i impinge on other driver's right to live

i can't smoke in the office, i impinge on my fellow worker's right to breathe

and when the boss/ police/ landlord comes by and complains, there will be some, like yourself, who in their immaturity, will see it as the state taking away their rights, when the only person infringing on other people's rights is you

Re:Freedom of speech... (4, Interesting)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 7 months ago | (#44870369)

I like the definition I heard a Black man on TV use once a few years ago.

"Freedom does not mean doing what you can get away with, doing what you please. It means, instead, having the opportunity to do what you ought to do--for family and for community and for humanity as a whole."

Re:Freedom of speech... (0)

Trentula (1684992) | about 7 months ago | (#44869431)

You are not safe, however, from the consequences of pissing people off.

Like advocating for the freedom of slaves...

Re:Freedom of speech... (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 7 months ago | (#44870361)

While you may not be physically safe you are legally and philosophically safe. That is why the US allows many modes of self-defense. People may be upset by your words but that does not give them the "right" to harm you over it.

Re:Freedom of speech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869813)

Dude, seriously...

If I WAS safe from the consequences of pissing people off then what would be the point of having free speech to begin with?

Re:Freedom of speech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869273)

I must have missed when Reddit and all other businesses had to adhere to the US Constitution, the Ten Commandments, and the Code of Hammurabi. Oh, wait, that's because I don't live in some kind of deluded libertarian bubble where everyone needs to bend to the whims of uninformed idiots.

Re:Freedom of speech... (0)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 7 months ago | (#44870407)

Oh, the beauty of silence... or fools (idiots) not remaining silent.

Pot, meet kettle.

A libertarian would whole-heartedly agree that the US Constitution absolutely does not require a business to accommodate anyone's needs or desires. For instance, libertarians are absolutely against such things as the EEOC penalizing employers for not hiring based on race or political viewpoints and such. Libertarians view the constitution as allowing people to assemble with other like-minded people and this inherently means that they can choose to not associate with not-like-minded people.

Re:Freedom of speech... (2)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about 7 months ago | (#44869665)

Reddit has terms of service and rules that you adhere to when posting or otherwise participating in the community. They don't have an obligation to accommodate those rules to your liking.

That doesn't destroy your freedom of speech. You're free to email or use some other service which allows you to communicate that information. You can try Slashdot, if you want.

Re:Freedom of speech... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#44870737)

This has been reddit's policy for a while. It's fairly open and free, but there are explicit limits. Reddit doesn't claim to be a totally free and pen forum.

I'm ready to go (4, Funny)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#44868397)

Just tell me who to beat senseless with mob justice and I'm there

Re:I'm ready to go (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868491)

We've discovered his Slashdot user ID number is 225700, we'll have his address for you shortly. Lock and load.

Re:I'm ready to go (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 7 months ago | (#44868657)

Yeah, look at that. He can't even spell "Alan" correctly - obviously a sleeper.

Re:I'm ready to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868783)

Be careful, from his post history it appears that he prefers laying on a couch over sitting in a chair, while watching 3d porn on a 50" TV.

Re:I'm ready to go (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#44869235)

Be careful, from his post history it appears that he prefers laying on a couch over sitting in a chair, while watching 3d porn on a 50" TV.

That doesn't narrow it down much among Slashdot readers.

Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868403)

...went really well for Reddit. They probably banned it just for the potential deluge of bad publicity.

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#44868455)

Went really well for the NSA too.
Another one they missed. No doubt it will be time to beg congress for more money to redouble their effort.
I'm sure we will all feel safer then. /s

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868531)

Not arguing with you; the leaders and government of this country have at least as bad of a record, with far more collateral damage. The NSA should be disbanded and Clapper fired.

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868579)

Went really well for the NSA too. Another one they missed. No doubt it will be time to beg congress for more money to redouble their effort. I'm sure we will all feel safer then. /s

As a Belgian I say: let them spend it on a Star Trek Enterprize shaped building with a Jurassic Park around it.

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 7 months ago | (#44868739)

They were... probably spying on the wrong internets at the time...

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869541)

Reddit is kind of a paradox. When I get too tired to read, I'll browse its vast treasure trove of posted images. Nearly all the content posted is not genuine, but is promoted as genuine. Its nearly all low resolution, and its almost always quite easy to spot the pixel inconsistencies if you know what to look for and where. Most of the commentary is either intended as jokes, or are sincere comments from those duped by the poster's deception. I like to think that there is this world out there of good natured people that sincerely want to help, but mostly its this but also this being manipulated purposelessly for entertainment.

Reddit you say ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868483)

Is it this site perpetually overloaded because it runs on a pooper scooper in the clouds ?

The subreddit was mostly a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868487)

When I checked it, all the Redditors were pointing out how bad Reddit fucked things up last time around and most of the posts in the subreddit were just jokes or trolling comments.

For example, the thread called "First security cam stills are out" linked to this:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/183ob861iy0ckjpg/ku-bigpic.jpg [gawkerassets.com]

Re:The subreddit was mostly a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870915)

You might have flagged that as potentially NSFW.

Re:The subreddit was mostly a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870935)

I work on a pig farm, so no.

Hiding the truth! (3, Funny)

Sarusa (104047) | about 7 months ago | (#44868493)

And right after they'd managed to finger Lee Harvey Oswald.

Coincidence? Follow the money, sheeple!

Re:Hiding the truth! (0)

tbonefrog (739501) | about 7 months ago | (#44868931)

Right on. The whole thing was a plot to keep Obama off the TV talking about the crooks who stole all the money five years ago and have just gotten stronger.
Obama was on TV but only a few minutes and not on the evening news (unless I missed it) And the two pictures of the suspect were of two completely different people. And the second shooter was relegated to the grassy knoll.

All this to control a news cycle. Scared yet?

One thing we know for sure (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868543)

It can't possibly be a terrorist attack since we are constantly told on Slashdot that there are no terrorists, and deviation from that view is punished.

Brilliant (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 7 months ago | (#44868545)

As I recall and TFS states these Sherlocks managed to wrongly identify at least one person in the Boston bombings and correctly identify none, so good riddance to any further efforts in that direction.

Re:Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869093)

Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.

Missed the sarcasm (3, Insightful)

Camael (1048726) | about 7 months ago | (#44869743)

Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.

And you know that:

1. Some posters will miss the /sarcasm tag, take it seriously and post personal information of real life people.
2. Some posters will take the opportunity to post personal information of their ex's, their enemies, their bosses...
3. Some media company will miss the /sarcasm tag and flog stories about how Reddit is screwing the lives of innocent people. Again.

Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.

Re:Missed the sarcasm (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 7 months ago | (#44869847)

Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.

You mean, after the epic clusterfuck that was the boston bomber coverage on Reddit destroying the lives of a handful of people, yes... then they did the right thing. Of course, those people still hiding under the covers in their house with PTSD and social anxiety from being unable to walk in public without being accused of being "the bomber that got away" are still waiting for their apologies... so you know, "right thing" is a bit subjective.

Re:Brilliant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869101)

Leave it to the incompetent professionals of our militarized police state.

The government is concerned about gun violence but wants to bomb the fuck out of Syria and Iran. Go figure.

At least, the justice is not as swift any more (0)

mi (197448) | about 7 months ago | (#44868575)

Having been on the receiving end of one such "investigation" [antiwar.com] , I can say, I'm glad, the justice is not as swift these days.

But you can't ban this — not without abolishing the First Amendment...

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#44868753)

Give them time. Soon it will join the 4th in applying only to you in your home... with the door closed... and the curtains drawn... in your basement.. by yourself... sometimes.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more (4, Informative)

tocsy (2489832) | about 7 months ago | (#44868755)

Sure they can. Reddit can allow/disallow whatever they want - the First Amendment covers rights of free speech against the government only.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more (5, Informative)

DRJlaw (946416) | about 7 months ago | (#44868813)

But you can't ban this â" not without abolishing the First Amendment...

For values of "you" which equal the Federal government, a State government, a municipality, or some other government actor.

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

Fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Held to bring the States within the umbrella of the first amendment in Gitlow v. New York.

However, Reddit is not a government actor. More to the point, Reddit has absolute editorial discretion under the Communications Decency Act -- so that even case law concerning speech in company towns and shopping centers cannot be used by analogy to create any obligation for the site to permit it.

Reddit could ban it, your local paper could ban it, and your ad-supported or paid email service could ban it. They simply don't have the power to throw you in jail or confiscate your money if you violate the ban.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 7 months ago | (#44870433)

Well, the part about "you" meaning the government was created by liberals trying to prove that "the people" really means state governments or everyone collectively as a group but not any individual person.

I really wish they would stop doing that and admit that "the people" means every single one of us individually.

Oh I see... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868825)

Tumblr gets a front page story, so Reddit has to have one too.

Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44868833)

http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/ [vigilantcitizen.com]

Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: [...]

Re:Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#44869115)

http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/ [vigilantcitizen.com]

Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: [...]

Do not touch your dial.

We control the horizontal.
We control the vertical.

And you, dear AC, should control you alcohol and other drug intake. Hope you start feeling better soon.

How is this any different? (1)

libtek (902569) | about 7 months ago | (#44869017)

"Police are now looking for shooters car in and around Navy Yard. Its described as Black Nissan with Texas tag BJH-7396.

Paul Wagner
Fox5Wagner

via Twitter about 1h ago"

Re:How is this any different? (2)

jonnythan (79727) | about 7 months ago | (#44869197)

The difference is they are the police. That is their job, they are professionals, they have training, and they are accountable.

Reddit users? None of those apply.

Re:How is this any different? (1)

libtek (902569) | about 7 months ago | (#44869245)

That was via Twitter... A social media site.

FOX News, nor Twitter apply either... They are obviously making an open release to the public, for any pertinent information. Or did I misunderstand the Make and Model plus Licence Plate registration info? They are just telling us that THEY are looking, right?

Re:How is this any different? (1)

jonnythan (79727) | about 7 months ago | (#44869367)

The police issued the statement to the press that they were looking for a black Nissan with that license plate. Fox News, a media outlet, published the statement. People with information on this Nissan should contact the police, not Reddit.

Re:How is this any different? (1)

libtek (902569) | about 7 months ago | (#44869543)

Reddit is not people. I gotcha.

You could have said that first.

Seems kind of silly to me that *any* method of public dissemination, which could share the EXACT SAME INFORMATION, would be censored. I wish them luck.

Re:How is this any different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869717)

The difference is they are the police... and they are accountable.

Sir, you should quit your day job and become a stand-up comedian, this one line alone will have people howling with laughter for at least an hour.

doesn't fit the stereotype and sound bites (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 months ago | (#44869097)

preliminary research indicate the shooter was registered Democrat, Obama supporter, muslim and gay. Obama's teleprompter is going to drill a hole in the ground with the spin job.

Leave it to the professionals (0)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | about 7 months ago | (#44869135)

The NSA most likely has more than enough information to secretly try and convict this person. Notice to arm chair vigilantes, the government is already more than likely to have all these peoples internet search histories, all their acquaintances and all their phone calls. And that presumes that normal everyday monitoring hadn't already flagged them for extra scrutinity!

Rest assured citizen, you are in good hands! Just don't band together informally, remember, that's what the terrerists do!

Good for reddit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869141)

Im a reddit member and the way they all acted during the boston bombing was disgraceful. They were all jumping on bandwagons, calling out people, making false accusations and pretending like they were FBI agents hunting down criminals when in reality they were all pretentious douches that wanted to feel tough and special.

Id seen pictures posted of people, claims made and in the end they were all wrong. I just hope they didn't damage anyone's reputation with that pitiful excuse for amateur hour.

I hope they all suffer from sexual dysfunction for the rest of their lives.

The hivemind is not suited for crime detection (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 7 months ago | (#44869461)

Social media is great for a lot of things such as getting different points of view on a news topic. Social media is not good for witch hunts. Anyone who's used reddit knows how easily the hivemind is swayed to hate or love someone. All it takes is a cleverly worded article romanticizing about how great or how awful someone is. People who know the formula can almost flip a switch to the entire community.

Witch hunts are bad enough when it is just a corporation behaving badly. Thread people talk about passing out pitch forks and so forth and so on. There definitely is a witch hunt mentality sometimes on reddit. And normally it is mostly harmless. Dumb, but harmless. Social media is good for a lot of things, but crime solving is not one of these things.

Real media is threatened by social media. So anything that is bad in social media, real media will highlight hard. They'll try everything they can to discourage people from using social media and outright close it down if they can. So it is better that social media witch hunts get shut down prematurely, before someone determines themselves to be a vigilante or otherwise act dumb out in public.

To conclude social media should be used for it strengths such as bringing attention to intelligent conversations, humor, and different points of view. This is refreshing compared to main stream media which every channel is corrupted by political agendas so there is no such thing as different points of view that are correct. Social media has weaknesses, and maybe we should really act to make sure these weaknesses don't go out of control.

Re:The hivemind is not suited for crime detection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44869597)

I'd go so far as to say one of the most entertaining parts about the site is learning to manipulate the general opinion on a topic. I think one can learn a lot about how groups of people think, and learn some caution about jumping to conclusions, by trying it. In theory at least I think it's made me a lot less prone to come down for or against anything given how easy everyone, including myself, can be manipulated. It's one thing to know it intellectually, another to really see it in action on a fairy easily replicated way.

Re:The hivemind is not suited for crime detection (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870565)

I'd go so far as to say one of the most entertaining parts about the site is learning to manipulate the general opinion on a topic. I think one can learn a lot about how groups of people think, and learn some caution about jumping to conclusions, by trying it. In theory at least I think it's made me a lot less prone to come down for or against anything given how easy everyone, including myself, can be manipulated. It's one thing to know it intellectually, another to really see it in action on a fairy easily replicated way.

Funny, that's what I use /. for...

Re:The hivemind is not suited for crime detection (2)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 7 months ago | (#44870447)

I'd say that social media is tailor made for witch hunts as the whole point of witch hunts is to incorrectly convict and execute somebody.

This isn't even news (1)

Old Wolf (56093) | about 7 months ago | (#44870101)

All that happens on such a subreddit is wild speculation. Last time they did it, innocent people wrongly identified got harrassed IRL. They're not detectives. Just send any real tips direct to the FBI.

Re:This isn't even news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870557)

No, all that happened on that subreddit was NOT "wild speculation". It was a satirical subreddit set up to mock how bad Reddit fucked up the Boston bombing "manhunt".

Preference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44870515)

I would say it's better with a thousand innocent people being checked out by law enforcement than one guilty going free because nobody shared their knowledge.

In particular in situations like this where terror is a possible angle all resources must be utilized in order to maximize the chance for getting the guilty ones and minimizing the time before that happens. Terrorists have no rights, not as citizens, not as human beings - and should be treated accordingly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...