r/conspiracy: [/r/Conspiracy user discussion/proposal to the mods] Should some direct MSM links (and anti theorist sites like snopes) have direct links disabledfrom this sub, and only allow them through archive.is or similar. Please see my explanation why:

[/r/Conspiracy user discussion/proposal to the mods] Should some direct MSM links (and anti theorist sites like snopes) have direct links disabledfrom this sub, and only allow them through archive.is or similar. Please see my explanation why:

6 2017-08-19 by JUSTIN_HERGINA

Sites like FOX, NBC, snopes, etc do more than make $$$$$ from ad revenue when you link to these sites, they collect DATA on what you are looking at, comment on, what you disregard etc.

It's all used to help them make more money/manipulate you & your decision making, what stories to push to influence YOU.

It's time to stop HELPING The Powers That Be (TPTB) and start helping the good guys who NEED revenue like Corbett report & other small media outlets.

It is as simple as asking the moderators to Ban DIRECT LINKS to such outlets, starting with the biggest & most influential.

This is a thread will help find a workable method of vetting links that WON'T be allowed direct links to /r/conspiracy.

TL;DR ask the mods to make it compulsory that some links have to go through Archive.is so they don't make money/data mine us.

Edit: downvoted to 54%.

I don't care if you don't upvote, but downvoting only buries the discussion.

45 comments

1 dickrichards997 2017-08-19

banning is not a good solution imo

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

It is not banning. It is making them go through archive.

You still see their content but they don't profit at all from it.

1 dickrichards997 2017-08-19

it says ask mods to ban direct links

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Yes. I thought you meant an outright ban as that's all that was said.

1 macronius 2017-08-19

Reddit does this too, it's a mirror within a mirror within a mirror...

1 borch3jackdaws 2017-08-19

I would want all direct links banned or none. There's too much room for bias if only certain publications are banned.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

That only hurts the small guy.

I want to hurt the big guy.

1 borch3jackdaws 2017-08-19

How much will our one subreddit hurt the big guy though?

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

400,000+ subscribers?

Over a month? Quite a bit I'd imagine.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

Very little, but keep thinking that. Compare to r/politics and they'll see little, if any, revenue drop.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

So your solution is to keep supporting them?

Any effort is better than none, no?

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

With how few links are posted here from them, I don't think it matters. It also means people consuming less news sources in general.

Whether you agree or disagree, find them to be government mouthpieces or not, don't you want to know what your "enemy" is thinking?

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

You obviously never read the post text. I'm not explaining g myself over again for you if you can't even bother reading my post.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

More work to post links = less links being posted in general = less news being consumed.

Not rocket science. Humans are naturally lazy and take the easiset possible path, especially with activities like Reddit.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Humans are naturally lazy and take the easiset possible path, especially with activities like Reddit.

I'm not here to baby you, if you are too lazy to go over a tiny speed hump then you deserve what you are getting.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

Well I'm sure this idea wont be implemented anyway, so no real loss in you not holding my hand.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Judging by your responses, you never intended to have a meaningful discussion about this.

so no real loss in you not holding my hand.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

It's a stifling of discussion and censorship in a form. Something nobody here should want

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Censorship implies that you can't access the content. That is completely wrong.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

A form of censorship. Nuance.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

A firm of laziness. Nuance.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

And who determines what is the driveway and the gutter in this situation? If that was not meant to be an analogy, it is a damn good one.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

You put more effort into not doing extra work that its making you do extra work by protesting about doing a bit of extra work.

You do realize that don't you?

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

Oh I'm just having fun, no work here

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Yeah I know. You are just a pos wasting people's time.

1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-19

r/apathy r/nihilism

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

r/realism

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

/r/delusional

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

r/beastieboys

1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-19

1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-08-19

Considering that those outlets are a part of the problem, I wouldn't mind this, tbh.

1 TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-08-19

All links should be archived only

1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-19

why would you want to hurt small publications?

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

That hurts the little guys too though, unfortunately.

1 Tecumsehs_Revenge 2017-08-19

Free my my clicks!

+1 for all links

1 ignorethislunatic 2017-08-19

Op can archive, sites like yournewswire, neonnettle, and whatdoesitmean are complete trash but still allowed.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

They should be generally banned IMO. They are shit clickbait and I'm not sure why they are still allowed on here.

1 ArchonFall4All 2017-08-19

I like the idea in principle, but I can also see a lot of hurdles in implementing something like this. Maybe it would be better to encourage archived links with a bot, similar to how NP links are encouraged but not required.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Same as what is being done for CNN links. It's pretty easy to add to this existing structure for what is being done for CNN.

1 ArchonFall4All 2017-08-19

I know it's easy from a technical standpoint. I was more referring to the dozens or hundreds of sites that would need to be identified apart from the major MSM outlets. Many sites are in a sort of gray area, which could make it difficult to reach a consensus. Regardless, I still think it's a good idea overall

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

I appreciate the support & discussion on this post, but it appears that the majority of mods/users are happy to be the boiling frog.

1 ArchonFall4All 2017-08-19

After looking at the negative responses from some of the usual suspects in this thread, it made me realize that your idea does more than just deny revenue to MSM outlets. It would also hamper the accounts that spam these links all over Reddit. If some people are actually paid to do this, then it would negatively impact their productivity, and bots would similarly be at a disadvantage. For the rest of us, it would only be a minor inconvenience, much like contest mode.

I think we need to be more creative in thinking of ways to maintain the integrity of this sub, and something like your idea could certainly do that. Hopefully your suggestion will be given a little more consideration

1 NOT_SoonerChad 2017-08-19

No thanks.

1 NoYamShazam 2017-08-19

OP I think this is the worst idea I have ever seen posted here.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Thanks for the empty comment.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

That only hurts the small guy.

I want to hurt the big guy.

1 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2017-08-19

Same as what is being done for CNN links. It's pretty easy to add to this existing structure for what is being done for CNN.

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

It's a stifling of discussion and censorship in a form. Something nobody here should want

1 Tall_Trombone_Guy 2017-08-19

A form of censorship. Nuance.