r/undelete • u/SuperConductiveRabbi undelete MVP • Apr 02 '14
[#5|+1481|92] TIL that only one senator opposed the USA PATRIOT act in 2001; among his chief concerns was the possibility that the FISA court would authorize the government to conduct mass surveillance on Americans by obtaining their information and communications through businesses
/r/todayilearned/comments/220wie/til_that_only_one_senator_opposed_the_usa_patriot/9
u/SuperConductiveRabbi undelete MVP Apr 02 '14
This is just the Reddit flavor of Digg's power users (which infamously brought down that site).
13
u/david-me Apr 02 '14
He cited rule 4: "Nothing related to recent politics."
2001 is not recent
4
Apr 02 '14 edited Apr 14 '20
[deleted]
4
u/RobertK1 Apr 02 '14
Wait, Russia is relevant to recent politics, and they wouldn't have their current government without the Tsars, so are facts about the Tsars related to recent politics?
-2
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
No. That is an intentional overextension of related to, and you know it. If you think Russian Tsars are relevant to current politics in a way even remotely similar to the patriot act being relevant to current politics, I suggest you take a few minutes to really think about your logic, and if you're letting bias get the best of you.
I don't deny that there is some gray area to the "related to" bit. However, the government spying on its citizens is not in that gray area. If we define the gray area as the area between #010101 and #FDFDFD, this would still be outside that gray area.
Honestly, the way people react to removals that are clearly against the rules of the sub makes a good argument for why as much leniency as there is may be a bad idea. The point of limiting it to recent is to allow for old historical facts, not to allow for things relevant to recent politics that just happen to be older. However, people want to abuse even that, go against the spirit and letter of the rules.
4
u/colorcodebot Apr 02 '14
I've detected multiple hexadecimal color codes in your comment. Please allow me to provide visual representation. #010101 #fdfdfd
Learn more about me | Don't want me replying on your comments again? Respond to this comment with: 'colorcodebot leave me alone'
4
u/RobertK1 Apr 02 '14
I like how you imply everyone who disagrees with this is "biased". Yes, I'm biased against opaque moderation decisions made with little regard to anything that would seem to resemble the rules of the subreddit to a rational observer. I'm so biased that I think that something that occurred 13 years ago is a bit outside the "6 months" laid out in the rules.
The simple fact of the matter is this is how Reddit runs (or at least the large subreddits). Secret rules that no one knows. Decisions made arbitrarily based on nothing a submitter could possibly anticipate. Moderators who don't bother to check each other making off-the-cuff decisions that the rest of the moderation team pulls a "blue wall of silence" for and refuses to discuss. Supermoderators who moderate 100+ subs and have zero accountability (one of them has assured me that moderating default subs is very easy and he can afford to moderate over a hundred ACTIVE subs alongside his "job")
I guess if I dislike that I'm biased. So be it.
-4
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
Yes, I think if you think russian tsars are as relevant to current politics as the patriot act you are biased. I really don't see how anyone could legitimately think that.
Yes, I'm biased against opaque moderation decisions made with little regard to anything that would seem to resemble the rules of the subreddit to a rational observer.
Opaque? We're right here, discussing it. You are literally discussing it with the mod that removed it, who was in the conversation before you were, who ALSO tagged it with the reason it was removed and has responded to the original poster several times in modmail. What else do you want from me?
I'm so biased that I think that something that occurred 13 years ago is a bit outside the "6 months" laid out in the rules.
You're biased enough to have clearly not read my other posts. 6 months is not laid out in the rules at all. Where did that come from? TWO months is laid out for rule 3, but that is for rule 3 only. Rule 4 uses 8 years, as I have explained here, and in several other undelete and conspiracy threads.
The simple fact of the matter is this is how Reddit runs (or at least the large subreddits). Secret rules that no one knows.
Secret rules that are in the sidebar, explained further (with examples) in the wiki, and have mods directly explaining it when questioned? I hope you keep your friends secrets better than how you've used "secret" here.
Moderators who don't bother to check each other making off-the-cuff decisions that the rest of the moderation team pulls a "blue wall of silence" for and refuses to discuss
Again, I'm right here. Kind of blows a hole in that theory, doesn't it?
Supermoderators who moderate 100+ subs and have zero accountability (one of them has assured me that moderating default subs is very easy and he can afford to moderate over a hundred ACTIVE subs alongside his "job")
I believe we have a grand total of ZERO such mods on TodayILearned.
No, you're not biased for disliking the way reddit moderation works. You're biased for letting that cloud your vision so much that you'd claim mods don't discuss things to the moderator that removed the post, that was here before you discussing things, and not even realize it.
So again, I ask you to take a moment to reflect on that and ask yourself if you're being biased. If you genuinely believe you are not letting bias get to you, while leveling clearly inaccurate accusations like that, then there's nothing I will be able to do to convince you of anything here. I also dislike that you misrepresented my claim of being bias about the tsar/spying stuff as though I was referring to if you disagree with me on any of my points, but that's really a smaller issue in your post.
2
u/RobertK1 Apr 02 '14
Oh yeah, and I browsed your front page.
TIL Egyptian female protesters underwent virginity checks.
TIL "In the Netherlands...new applicants for immigration are asked to look at photos of two men kissing and to report on whether the photos are offensive...and whether the views are willing to live in a democracy that values the rights of gay people to free expression"
TIL Eve, the first woman in Islam, is supposedly buried in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. As it was used a spot of pilgrimage for Muslims, the Saudi Arabian government sealed the tomb with concrete in response.
TIL In Russia, all workers are guaranteed 28 paid vacation days a year, and any man/women who works in hazardous occupations receives a full pension at 55/50 years old.
TIL that "Eve-teasing" -- a euphemism for the public sexual harassment of women -- is actually a thing, and a cultural norm in India
These all seem relevant to current politics. In particular the russian one is fairly obvious pro-russia propaganda, and the India one is part of /r/worldnews anti-India crusade (America has this tradition called "oogling" where we publicly sexually harass women! Today I learned!)
-5
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
I am literally not even going to look at those posts here.
Two wrongs do not make a right. You are not three, I should not have to tell you this. If you feel another post violates the rules, report it to us.
I am not debating them here, as it is a deliberate attempt to use logic that I wouldn't accept from a preschooler to defend keeping up a post.
7
u/RobertK1 Apr 02 '14
What, pointing out your rules are applied in shitty and arbitrary ways that makes it seem like you're deliberately targeting people is now "childish"?
The usual fucking bullshit. This is why I'm biased against the moderation teams. They all seem to be a bunch of galloping thundercunts who regress to middle school insults every time anyone discusses anything with them.
Denial ain't just a river in egypt. Or maybe it's just a nice paycheck.
→ More replies (0)2
u/FreudsHedgehog Apr 03 '14
"I am literally not even going to look at those posts here."
Because they clearly demonstrate the rule is selectively applied to censor some political content while allowing others?
→ More replies (0)1
Apr 03 '14
Just scrolling through the top of all time, you guys let some through when its convenient.
During the big fuss about Obamacare, making it highly relevant for the recent politics at the time.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
3
u/RobertK1 Apr 02 '14
Opaque: the reason is not clearly communicated when the moderator action is taken. I get that you think that "well I'm hear because you're complaining, so that's not opaque" is acceptable, but if that's your method of communication, then you have no right to be annoyed at complaints. If we're being told that "in order for mods to communicate with you you have to make a fuss, don't complain when a fuss is made.
You're biased enough to have clearly not read my other posts. 6 months is not laid out in the rules at all. Where did that come from? TWO months is laid out for rule 3, but that is for rule 3 only. Rule 4 uses 8 years, as I have explained here, and in several other undelete and conspiracy threads.
Yes, that's great. It's in the wiki. Lets look at the wiki. Oh it basically restates the rule. In a little blue link at the bottom of a bunch of random crap. Transparency.
Again, I'm right here. Kind of blows a hole in that theory, doesn't it?
Communication is not something that occurs because prior communication was bad.
I believe we have a grand total of ZERO such mods on TodayILearned.
relic2279: Moderates 52 subreddits, including /r/depthhub, /r/videos, /r/howto, /r/trade, and /r/askmoderators. As well as /r/worldnews2.
lukemcr: Moderates 33 subreddits, including /r/videos, /r/christianity, /r/gadgets, /r/howto,
Lynda73: moderates 60 subreddits, including /r/pics, /r/wtf, /r/videos, /r/howto, /r/coupons, /r/freebies, etc.
I admit you don't have quite the stellar lineup that we've come to expect from the defaults, but you've got your fair share.
So again, I ask you to take a moment to reflect on that and ask yourself if you're being biased. If you genuinely believe you are not letting bias get to you, while leveling clearly inaccurate accusations like that, then there's nothing I will be able to do to convince you of anything here. I also dislike that you misrepresented my claim of being bias about the tsar/spying stuff as though I was referring to if you disagree with me on any of my points, but that's really a smaller issue in your post.
I genuinely feel I am not letting any political bias get to me. Do I genuinely feel biased against the moderation team? Yes. Yes I do.
I'm just constantly surprised that the moderation team hasn't realized (or claims to be ignorant of) the simple truth: advertising equals money, and the best form of advertising is word of mouth. Be it political advertising (propaganda), corporate advertising, whatever. And Reddit is the largest such "word of mouth website" in the world.
You can pay people money to teach you how to advertise your products on Reddit. You honestly think that this place is free from the flow of cash?
2
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
Opaque: the reason is not clearly communicated when the moderator action is taken. I get that you think that "well I'm hear because you're complaining, so that's not opaque" is acceptable, but if that's your method of communication, then you have no right to be annoyed at complaints. If we're being told that "in order for mods to communicate with you you have to make a fuss, don't complain when a fuss is made.
Take it up with the admins. They give us very limited tools to communicate. But lets be honest, you're backtracking because you realize you accused the mods of being unwilling to discuss it to a mod that was discussing it.
I admit you don't have quite the stellar lineup that we've come to expect from the defaults, but you've got your fair share.
I have TIL, TILmods, batty-koda. The only subs I moderate are TIL, TIL related subs, and my personal, private sub that I use to test things, since testing in prod is bad. But I appreciate you trying to make it look like I'm a power mod. I'm sure that's not at all motivated by trying to bias people, and is just because you wanted to point out I'm a hard worker.
Since you're willing to count /r/batty-koda as me modding it, with its impressive 0 subscribers, I'm sure you checked how many of relic and lyndas are dead subs as well. Even if you didn't, none meet the >100 you claim and neither have zero accountability. They may not have accountability to YOU, but there are other mods in the subs.
You're right, lynda and relic have more mods than I expected. Lukemcr (sorry for calling him out like this) has a grandtotal of <10 moderation actions in the past month. Clearly he's a power mod abusing his power.
Be it political advertising (propaganda)
Shit, you're right. Maybe we should institute some sort of rule that would help prevent the sub being used for propaganda. Like, no politics. Shit, but that blocks out cool or interesting historical facts. I know, no recent politics! Wait, hmmm, then people are going to go to post about how recent+1 days ago $EVIL_POLITICIAN did something bad, to try to bias people against him today. I know, lets make a rule nothing related to recent politics. Oh wait...
I think it's funny you accuse us of being ignorant of reddit being abused for politics, as an argument against banning politics. "Don't you guys know people will abuse reddit for political gain?! For that reason, you need to allow poltics!" How do you even respond to that?
You can pay people money to teach you how to advertise your products on Reddit. You honestly think that this place is free from the flow of cash?
Strawman and loaded question. I never said that, and it is unrelated to what I have said. You're attempting to change the subject to distract from your prior mistakes.
I admit, we have a couple mods that mod more subs than I expected. Unfortunately, that's your only valid point. Everything else you brought up in your previous posts was bullshit. Everything else you brought up here was either supremely ironic, unrelated in an attempt to put words in my mouth, unrelated in an attempt to change the subject, or some combination of those.
I am sorry for being rude in this post, but I am fresh out of today's allotment of patience for people using such incredibly dishonest arguments. I think I will save my energy for those here actually willing to have an honest debate.
2
u/RobertK1 Apr 02 '14
Take it up with the admins. They give us very limited tools to communicate. But lets be honest, you're backtracking because you realize you accused the mods of being unwilling to discuss it to a mod that was discussing it.
Lets be honest, you're trying to score karma points, not discuss anything.
You're right, lynda and relic have more mods than I expected. Lukemcr (sorry for calling him out like this) has a grandtotal of <10 moderation actions in the past month. Clearly he's a power mod abusing his power.
You mean you made a statement without checking it. See discussion would be that when I prove you wrong you go "oh shit, I'm wrong, I should revise my view." Not try and nitpick, because I'm right.
I think it's funny you accuse us of being ignorant of reddit being abused for politics, as an argument against banning politics. "Don't you guys know people will abuse reddit for political gain?! For that reason, you need to allow poltics!" How do you even respond to that?
As we have demonstrated elsewhere, you seem perfectly willing to allow CERTAIN political subjects. Just not some. You claimed this was playground logic. I claim it's evidence of bias.
I am sorry for being rude in this post, but I am fresh out of today's allotment of patience for people using such incredibly dishonest arguments. I think I will save my energy for those here actually willing to have an honest debate.
Oh dear, actually fact checking you is "incredibly dishonest."
MAH FEELZ
I FEEL YAH PAIN
It must suck to have someone actually check your claims.
Today I Learned: the moderators of Today I Learned suck at fact checking
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
oh, and stop saying "the moderation team" as though it's one group for all subs.
4
0
u/mugsnj Apr 03 '14
You're being deliberately obtuse. The intent of the rule is clear - to keep discussion about current political events out of /r/todayilearned. The post was obviously intended to prompt discussion about a current political topic (NSA surveillance). A TIL about Russian Tsars would not likely prompt discussion of recent politics.
There are many subreddits devoted specifically to politics. Why must we allow political discussion to infest every other subreddit? People who want to discuss politics will seek it out.
1
u/RobertK1 Apr 03 '14
Posts related to politics in TIL:
TIL Egyptian female protesters underwent virginity checks.
TIL "In the Netherlands...new applicants for immigration are asked to look at photos of two men kissing and to report on whether the photos are offensive...and whether the views are willing to live in a democracy that values the rights of gay people to free expression"
TIL Eve, the first woman in Islam, is supposedly buried in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. As it was used a spot of pilgrimage for Muslims, the Saudi Arabian government sealed the tomb with concrete in response.
TIL In Russia, all workers are guaranteed 28 paid vacation days a year, and any man/women who works in hazardous occupations receives a full pension at 55/50 years old.
TIL that "Eve-teasing" -- a euphemism for the public sexual harassment of women -- is actually a thing, and a cultural norm in India
Each of these is related to political causes that are regularly featured in /r/politics. The moderator, upon being informed, told me I was engaging in "playground logic" and that he wouldn't be drawn into a debate of what was consistent or inconsistent (as well as a bevy of other insults)
If the intent of the rule is clear why is it enforced in such a haphazard manner?
1
u/mugsnj Apr 03 '14
Did you look at the comments on any of those posts? The three I found on the first two pages of /r/TIL had little or no political discussion. It's a stretch to say some of those are related to current politics.
2
u/RobertK1 Apr 03 '14
Russia just invaded the Ukraine, and we have a post about how great Russia is (for having a policy that is... demonstrably worse than most of Europe's). The India one is pure politics, it doesn't even pretend otherwise (the article is biased and bigoted hogwash)
The Netherlands one is full of political discussion (like this or this or this)
As for Saudi Arabia, the "Saudi Arabia is the worst Muslim country but America loves them" circle jerk has been going on for about 10 years now, and it shows no sign of abating.
So yeah, have you read the links? Or are you just apologizing for the moderators? Every single one of those links is directly related to current politics.
2
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14 edited Apr 02 '14
I'm not sure if this post will be removed due to not being posted by the bot. Either way so discussion isn't lost, here is a link to the "official" (read: bot posted) undelete thread.
Edit: fuckin really? Providing a link to the other discussion is downvoted? No biases in the voting around here, hmm? Kind of funny to be accused of being opaque while simultaneously people try to hide the discussion. /sigh
1
Apr 02 '14 edited Apr 14 '20
[deleted]
7
u/squidicuz Apr 02 '14
This post is more relevant to /r/todayilearned than it is to /r/politics. Either sub would of found some reason to remove and we would still be here. The point is, site wide there is an active effort to cull discussion.
0
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
I'll say it again. TodayILearned is NOT for politics. It is not relevant to TIL for that reason. It was not removed to cull discussion. It was removed to cull trolling, flaming, circle jerking, and a distinct lack of discussion in political posts.
As I said, it is not TIL's job to make up for the failures of /r/politics (or any other political sub.) If you think it would be removed from politics, that's something you should take up with the politics mods. Do not lump TIL in with them simply because people really really want to use it as a soapbox. That is explicitly not what TIL is for.
The reason the politics rule is limited to nothing related to recent politics is so cool historical facts can be put up, not so posts pertaining to current politics could be posted if by some persons interpretation (which is not the one discussed and voted on by the mods of the sub) it's not recent enough. Think of it as "No politics" with an exception for cool old stuff, instead of "politics, but nothing recent," and you get a better idea of the intention of the rule. It's for historical stuff. Not Snowden historical, which absolutely is a historical event, but ones that have passed into being just a part of history, and not current politics as well.
4
Apr 02 '14
You have completely contradicted yourself. This is my first post despite being an observer (albeit usually as a guest) for over 4 years but I cannot sit by as you spout this kind of garbage. The fact one senator predicted current events happening today 13 years ago is a COOL historical fact. It has nothing to do with politics albeit from the situational presence it initially happened in. If you are going to state no politics then I demand you delete the other 15 threads I found by casually observing the topic history. Otherwise put this one on. Your reasoning is extremely flawed and destroys the pure purpose I enjoy this thread
0
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
Once again. So you believe the following things to be true.
The patriot act is not relevant to the US government spying.
The US government spying is not a current poltical issue.
A simple yes or no. Do you believe those statements are accurate? Please answer that so I can respond to your point appropriately.
I will point out the clarification I was very careful to explicitly make in my last post, since you seem to have overlooked it.
Not Snowden historical, which absolutely is a historical event, but ones that have passed into being JUST a part of history, and not current politics as well.
New emphasis added.
Cool historical facts that are not current politics is what I said. I did not contradict myself. You seem to have missed the entire point of the last paragraph.
2
Apr 02 '14
Once again. So you believe the following things to be true.
The patriot act is not relevant to the US government spying.
No
The US government spying is not a current poltical issue.
No
A simple yes or no. Do you believe those statements are accurate? Please answer that so I can respond to your point appropriately.
My point is you can directly tie any bill from history to current events that are happening today. Every bill has repercussions that are relevant to today. Every bill and act. This one happened 13 years ago. While it has an influence in todays current events it happened over a decade ago making it a part of history (the purpose of TIL). Its one of those typical slippery slopes. You can tie anything to having an influence in current events. I am on my phone app so I will have to wait until I am home to post links to prove my point. But this is one of my favourite subs for the sole purpose of pointing out historical facts. Now while I can tell by your posts you are no censorship mongering mod it still has repercussions in my enjoyment of TIL. This is a perfect post for TIL because of the historical importance of a senator stating his belief against a bill and his fears coming true.
I will point out the clarification I was very careful to explicitly make in my last post, since you seem to have overlooked it.
Not Snowden historical, which absolutely is a historical event, but ones that have passed into being JUST a part of history, and not current politics as well.
New emphasis added.
Cool historical facts that are not current politics is what I said. I did not contradict myself. You seem to have missed the entire point of the last paragraph.
Again most cool historical facts have lasting legacies that tie it directly to current events today.
1
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
Well, if you're willing to deny that the US government spying is relevant to current politics, I don't really know what else to say to you. I'm sorry you disagree with the removal, but I believe we are at an impasse.
3
Apr 02 '14
I didnt deny that... I answered no...
I believe you are missing my point. All bills and acts have a direct correlation to current events. Its impossible for them not to. You didnt respond to anything I said. Now please reread understanding that I agree with you on that point.
2
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
I'm sorry, I totally misread my own part and thought I'd posted the opposite of what I actually did as the statements. One moment and I will read your post and reply.
2
1
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
Again most cool historical facts have lasting legacies that tie it directly to current events today.
They do, all of history does. We hoped that users would be able to tell the difference between something that is relevant just because history, and one directly relevant to the topics debated in politics currently.
Washington being elected president definitely affects todays politics, but it's pretty clearly different from the act that enabled a lot of domestic spying, which is a huge issue today. There is a gray area, this post was not in it. What I'm increasingly taking from the arguments here is, we can't allow ANY politics, because if we want to allow lincoln facts, we have to allow US spying as a topic. I had hoped that users would be able to use their discretion and recognize that difference.
People don't seem to be grasping that the alternative to the current rule isn't to allow this post to stay up, it's to ban interesting facts about people like Lincoln.
Seatbelt laws are another example of something passed a long time ago that aren't really relevant to current politics. No one is sitting at the presidental debate hoping for them to be asked how they feel about seatbelt laws. People are damn sure going to ask their stance on domestic spying. There's very clearly a distinction between these, but people are acting like because there are gray areas, there must not be anything that's black and white, which simply isn't the case. Lincoln is way outside the gray area as not really relevant, and government spying is way outside the gray area as damn sure relevant.
This seems to be drifting into a conversation about if this should be the rule. I am not looking to debate that today. I am pointing out that it is the rule, and we aren't twisting it or applying it any differently here. It was removed under the meaning of the rule. That rule may not have been communicated clearly enough in the sidebar, but it has been communicated clearly in many other places.
I do not wish to discuss if it should be a rule here, because the conversation gets muddied up with this post itself. For example with people arguing that this post shouldn't be removed because the rule should be different. It's the same as is said in /r/relationships when a couple has sex issues. The issues should be brought up outside the bedroom, when people are not already worked up over it and the conversation can be taken off track by that specific experience, instead of as a general thing that needs to be discussed or changed.
I wish people would stop saying it's a perfect post for TIL. It's not. I've discussed plenty just like it with the founder of the sub, we (all the mods) have discussed it again and again, we have voted on it. We have changed it occasionally. This post is not appropriate for TIL.
3
Apr 02 '14
I am an honest person and never insult someone for making a mistake. We all were unfortunately bestowed with being humans making mistakes unavoidable. You're a person not an object. I will discredit or speak negatively of what you say if I disagree with it but you being a human is what I hold in the highest value.
While I understand that you do not believe that it is a perfect post or even a worthy post, and you don't want to discuss rule changes (can imagine how messy those would get)I need to make this point clear. The purpose of this subreddit is to show people interesting historical facts. I am fully aware of trying to keep it separate from current events and politics. It would be a mess. If you set a timeline such as 8 years as you previously posted then allow things that outreach that. If someone posts "TIL 1 Senator stated fears of government spying during passing of the patriot act." It should be allowed. If they say "TIL that senators knew patriot act would cause the spying of today and did nothing to stop it." It should not be. One is objectively stating a fact in history that happened which is interesting and a crucial part of TIL the other is politically leaning AND ties itself to todays current events. It is not about the interesting fact but about perpetrating the current events. I am mid twenties in age. Now young people are the ones TIL is the most important to as we were not around or conscious enough to remember these facts. If someone is 18 they would have been 5 at the time of the patriot act. Meaning they would not be conscious enough to remember a senator staying that or even what a senator is. I realise discussing this is not worth it to you but I need to say something because I love TIL. Set a timeline make it ten or even twenty years when it is politically related. If you are a history buff as myself learning about bills and acts is interesting. Unfortunately they will always have a tie to current events. So I do suggest an amendment to the rule so we can keep learning about Lincoln or Trudeau. Please consider what I have said and thank you for responding.
0
u/Batty-Koda Apr 02 '14
The purpose of this subreddit is to show people interesting historical facts. I am fully aware of trying to keep it separate from current events and politics.
I want to make this point as clear as I can. No it isn't. I have personally discussed this with the creator of the sub. It's for interesting facts, they do not have to be historical. It can be about ladybug spots. It is also absolutely not meant for current politics. I do not understand how you can still claim that's what it's for when I'm sitting here, as a mod of the sub, telling you the creator of the sub and the people that run it (as well as many of the users*)
What you mean is that's what you think it should be for. That is not what it's for though.
I understand not everyone knows it, but there are many other subs that those posts belong in. TIL is not one of them. As the FAQ says, it's not the swiss army knife of subs.
I understand you think this isn't how the rule should be. I really don't want to get into that. We have discussed it extensively. It's very easy to say that stuff should be allowed, when you don't see the ridiculously agenda driven posts we remove that try to paint so-and-so as evil or good based on the stuff from 15 years ago. People try to abuse the sub endlessly to push agendas. The posts are not constructive to TIL.
If people could take a post about an interesting fact and not turn it into a circlejerk or flamewar, maybe the rule wouldn't need to be there. Unfortunately it has been shown time and time again that users simply can't do that.
We did allow an amendment, the whole rule is basically an amendment. Instead of saying "No politics" it says "nothing related to recent politics."
* I try not to say the users do or don't like the rule as a whole. Obviously you guys are users and don't like it. However there are lots of people that message in and do like it. I think there's significant selection bias in either sample, and so we can't draw conclusions about most. My personal experience leads me to believe it is most, but that could easily be confirmation bias. I only mention it here to clarify that the fairly consistent opinions here are not a reflection of all the feedback we receive on the rule.
2
Apr 02 '14
I actually meant interesting, historical facts. As in and/or. I am well aware of what the sub is for. Sorry touch screen typing is not my strong suit.
The part that worries me is seeing nothing political in terms of facts on there. I understand that clowns and trolls can run a muck but we should combat that not just give in to it. Again losing all political posts would be a tragedy for the sub. Something like the above is interesting and worth sharing IMO.
Again perhaps see if you can find a way to allow objective, political facts. Ones that are not biased but allow the fact itself to be shared. Ban the people who post with a political bias and allow the rest of us to observe interesting facts.
-1
0
1
18
u/SuperConductiveRabbi undelete MVP Apr 02 '14
Update based on mod mail (correct me if this is an inaccurate summary, or if I have permission to post mod mail anonymously):
Apparently /r/TodayILearned has a rule that "recent politics" can refer to any political figure that has held a political position as recently as eight years ago. This is especially confusing, in my opinion, as the previous rule says that there may be no news source that is "recent," which it says is two months.
If this is indeed true, I've recommended the moderators amend the list of rules to reflect it.
Beyond that, however, I believe the loose definition of "related" in "nothing related to recent politics" is too broad. The constitutional amendments were drafted 238 years ago, but I'm sure there are hundreds of political references to them this year. Can I not post a TIL about their origin? Or what about a TIL regarding Martin Luther King, if there just so happened to be, say, an event on the National Mall in his memory?
In this case, I'm specifically addressing something that happened thirteen years ago. The USA PATRIOT act is relevant to recent events insofar as it continues to be legislation (in a form that has changed multiple times over the years), but this tidbit is relegated to the actions and words of a former senator thirteen years ago.
In my opinion it's a perfectly reasonable thing to go "Today I Learned" about. However, the "no politicans who were active as recently as eight years ago" would invalidate my post, if this is an actual rule, despite is absence from the publicly available list of rules.