Hacker News Reader

Comment by SippinLean | Hacker News Reader

The question was "Which rules have they broken?" and they have clearly broken many.

Spez's response "yeah but they took some of them down after they got caught" doesn't change that.

I think his point is that the mods of the sub have done their best to enforce the rules, despite missing a handful of very lowly upvoted comments here and there.

Thus "they" (the people who run the sub) have not broken any rules, just some bad actors which presumably would have been dealt with if their posts got more attention.

If random users making bad posts that almost no one notices in highly active subs constitutes a total subreddit ban, then all subs would end up banned.

T_d and similar regularly sees posts that break the rules, at rates higher than other subs, that are highly upvoted, it's not just a few low-scoring bad apples. Reddit won't ban them because they want the traffic. "Well they took some down after they got caught" is a sorry excuse.

Perhaps so but the post of examples linked by GP has the vast majority of offending posts upvoted <= 5. Only 9 were >= 10 and just 3 >= 20. Really? This is a sub where popular posts and comments get hundreds and thousands of upvotes. Could they not have compiled a better list? It must be easy if the place is as bad as we're all told.

But I agree, reddit just wants the traffic, and r/the_donald does deliver on that for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com