I'm very confused as to how this is a reply to my comment when I didn't write the quoted comment and this does not appear to discuss my comment lol

I really think it is quite unfortunate how much grad/hex tainted communism. I'm not a communist, but I was open to good discussions about it, particularly because I know it's important to look at the flaws in your own systems.

Now? I'm scarred. I can't just assume a post js something posted by someone I could probably agree with after a discussion.

I assume something similar has happened to other users. It's unfortunately hard to grant someone the grace of assume they aren't a tankie when you know they're out there. I feel your pain and I'm sorry. I also don't know how any of us can change now.

Legit thank you.

I've wondered on the right way to do this in R.... Too many times.

That's not what I learned from Stay Stay, DPRK! You clearly haven't done your homework.

Thank you lol it was genuinely nice to listen to while I was reading through what I had to read

Your right - so I actually finally just spent a half hour to read through all related available material that I could find 100% took me longer to read through and reply to this stuff lol

It is simply not possible for me to read through all of this. Wish I could.

But it sounds like your harassing someone for taking positions that you feel are contradictory, when they are not. And your taking great pains to justify why it's ok to harass this person.

Spoiler, it's not justified. EDIT: Spent 30 minutes trying to read through everything linked in the post including: The original article The original hexbear post Jessica's linkedin Her Atlantic Council bio (an failed attempt to find) the original linked CIA document

Have some questions/comments/summary

1. In general, do people here feel as though the noted content moderation policy ("Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise, do not post content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals.") is wrong, unfair, or incorrectly implemented?
2. I can understand the plausibility that she was made a CEO of reddit by the CIA, but I'm curious if anyone opinions about her would actually change if it was somehow 'knew' that she was not - I ask because it feels (to me) as though the actions she took could have reasonably been taken by someone who wasn't a CIA plant, which to me should affect the thought process
3. I can 100% understand blocking posts on a job-related website that disparage your work, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. Like.... legit. Does anyone think it would be reasonable to keep disparaging posts on your linkedin bio? Just not the vibe.
4. I know some of you do really try to read all context for posts replying, but do all of you? Like, if I posted something here, and important context was basically a book.... would you really try to read it all before replying? Is that the standard y'all hold yourselves to?
5. Even assuming The Atlantic Council is a CIA firm, I still find it reasonably plausible that the CIA did not put her in the role - her roles for The Atlantic counsel feel like a natural fit for a content moderation team executive, and (per what I said in #2) it doesn't feel like she made any decisions that a CIA plant would have been much more likely to have made.

Thank you to those who have been kind in this process of me doing the research, and spending the effort to make this edit.

Thats.... A surprising good example lol

I don't hate y'all, but some of the posts here can be indigestable. Some posts simply assume everyone is on the same page with something - which is likely true, since you've been a community for a long time.

Maybe I'll come back and edit this with an example at some point.

I agree with you and also am disappointed with how the article abuses language. This is in no way shape or form something that should be called Gerymandering, and to do so confuses a word that really deserves to not be abused.

A lot of people seem to just be reacting to this without reading and understand. Granted, Forbs does not go sufficiently in depth to the findings to make this easy.

From what I've read on this, the underlying study here has valuable information that we can all use, understand, and digest.

Does your role require a lot of colaberation? You may need to ensure you have something better than email and phones to replace your ability to talk to someone who would have otherwise sat next to you.

Do you have a lot of junior employees? You will likely need to spend more effort on ensuring they get the quality training they need.

Like.... Sure. A CEO could easily read the title of this article and decide to just bring everyone back to the office without thinking critically. But that doesn't mean we should do the opposite we should be arming ourselves with this information so we can know how to counter our boss's arguments to ensure we can get what we want.

"My ROFLCopter goes soi soi soi soi soi soi soi soi soi..." - Microsoft Sam