DHS keeps trying and failing to unmask anonymous ICE critics online
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
This administration is really sensitive about ICE being shined in a bad light.
0: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/23/politics/fema-ice-storm-memes
When they run out of immigrants to deport, they aren't going to just sell all that crap on ebay. They're going to go looking for more targets.
You're using exactly the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric that the administration is using in order to justify their violence and inhumane treatment of immigrants. You might need to think about that.
Other than the quoted snippet, everything you said may be true. Still, don't dehumanize your opponents.
In fighting them, don't become them.
Second, anybody who is abducting 5 year olds is subhuman.
They data mine for you.
Heck even Google believes that I am a woman and is constantly showing me women hair and clothes products. And they are doing targeted data mining for ads business for decades.
Mobile phone? Passport Voting? Passport Buy weed? Passport Police stop? Passport
But that wouldn't let tech bros get paid billions I suppose.
Expect "The AI told me to do it" to be tried as a defense at Nuremburg 2.0
Seems divided along party lines unfortunately. Plenty of people are proudly saying this is exactly what they voted for.
In fact, all the data shows that the economy was the absolute top issue by a huge margin.
There's good reason to believe that not only would any Republican have gotten similar or better results, but that if it had been a Republican in power, that any Democrat would've gotten similar or better results.
Incumbents got smacked (far harder than Trump v Harris) in every election in the world in 2024, which is concordant with a long history of incumbents getting smacked during periods of high inflation.
Does. Not. Matter.
When you vote for T you know you are getting all of T.
> In fact, all the data shows that the economy was the absolute top issue by a huge margin.
Sure, and the poorly educated overwhelmingly chose to believe the lies they were told because they were attractive, and were taken advantage of. It doesn't matter. Lets say they were single issue voters on the economy, well, they still voted for T knowing all of what that entails.
That's totally irrelevant as to whether the current actions are actually popular.
Then there was no sense in you pointing out that a vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T, since pointing out the obvious and gets another answer pointing out the obvious in response.
> That's totally irrelevant as to whether the current actions are actually popular.
You've chosen to rely on a single poll that supports your contention that they aren't, when pretty much every single other source of info is contrary to that.
You want to put all your faith in a poll, that's on you. There isn't much for us to discuss so I'd appreciate it if you stopped replying to me, so we don't just go around in circles.
Just simple logic!
No, I am actually not relying on a single poll. Pretty much all polls, even those with a conservative bent, converge on my claim and dispute yours.
This can’t possibly be news to you, otherwise you’d be sharing evidence to the contrary.
Instead you’re just openly declaring your own inability/unwillingness to assess information quality, and being proud of it?
Strange interaction indeed!
I can think of a few motivations one would have to knowingly deceive themselves into believing the immigration enforcement actions are popular, and all of those motivations are bad. Even aside from the basic violation of intellectual honesty.
It's simple "logic", for sure.
> Instead you’re just openly declaring your own inability/unwillingness to assess information quality, and being proud of it?
That's your interpretation, which is far from reality. I think the big difference here is you put way more value on polls than is warranted. It's not like you've provided a ton of sources, either.
I likely won't be relying to you further, as I don't see the point. Cheers.
The average R voter can be dissatisfied with how it all turned out while the average reddit conservative R voter isn't.
There is no sane reason to think the subreddits nor Jubilee videos are actually representative, and certainly no reason to believe they are representative in contradiction to virtually every poll conducted in the past 12 months.
"Prior polls are wrong" is a lazy man's way out. Polls actually have been way less wrong than people commonly meme about, and again there's no sane reason to say "sources that attempt randomization were wrong so therefore sources that actively bias their samples are probably better."
> There is no sane reason to think the subreddits nor Jubilee videos are actually representative, and certainly no reason to believe they are representative in contradiction to virtually every poll conducted in the past 12 months.
It's not just those sources, it's basically every single source yo ucan fine with people giving an opinion. Every talk show (Fox/News Nation/ONE, etc), all the right aligned papers e.g. NY Post, WSJ, all the podcasters, all the influencers, and yes, whenever supporters are given a chance to speak, they overwhelming are pleased and support what is going on.
At some point, ignoring all that and favoring purely a few polls is wilful ignorance, and I have to question the motive of anyone doing so. At a guess, I'd guess it's someone that voted conservative but doesn't want to be lumped in with 'the bad ones'.
It's just total nonsense.
I'm fairly certain bias is playing a huge part in your motivation to do so, whether you are aware of it or not.
However, this is not guaranteed to always be the case - and regardless, the voices on r/conservative and r/asktrumpsupporters are not necessarily actual real people's voices, even if they usually say similar things as real people.
Yes, I recognize this has echoes of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but it's just an accurate description of the system.
I'm pretty skeptical of that, honestly. I think if we apply Occam, it's just that there are enough people that do feel like that. Look at some of the Jubilee 'Surrounded' videos to see that such people are not in short supply.
There's not much financial motive in building up or buying accounts just for them to say they agree with what's going on - it doesn't help anyone in power right now. Anecdotal, but the users I check the profile history off seem legitimate posting across several different subs also.
They are propaganda from vested interests.
It's not indicative of how people feel in general. It's a very specific, coaxed and managed image.
I am not lying when I say the front page of the Conservative subreddit is run by less than 10 accounts. You can go there now and see that most of the submissions on the front page of the subreddit is split between the same 3-4 users at any given time.
A lot of conservatives in this discussion suddenly seem embarrassed by the side they chose and really want to distance themselves from it.
Enough bots for sure. Who's got the bot farms? See them in action:
After following that sub fairly closely in the days after big scandals on the GOP side since Jan 6th, I can personally vouch for r/conservative being incredibly controlled and propagandized.
Not only do the mods delete many even slightly critical comments by their own flaired conservative users pretty quickly, almost any thread about a scandal or gaffe that's not filled with one-sided commentary is also deleted after a few days. The last big example I remember was the tariff stuff over the last year - there were always at least three or more posts about any new announcement, and the ones with the most negative comments were gone after a few days.
I can't show you archived data since those tools stopped working due to AI scraping, but I implore you to at least follow a few negative threads and to take regular snapshots. I've never seen any other internet community that's modded so strictly without admitting to it.
Here's a post I've found recording some of this for the recent ICE murder: https://www.reddit.com/comments/1qlzhb3
And here someone analyzed the patterns of their major posters - showing that a few accounts make up most new posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1p1vx9n/oc...
I'm not claiming it's super reliable or super representative, but I do think it is representative as one point, and despite all the issues around the sub, that representation matches most other sources. Except a few polls, which I don't think count for much these days.
Nah. If that were the case, it wouldn't match conservative opinions from so many other sources.
Let me ask you something. You said you're 'from the GOP side above'. Can you rule out confirmation bias here, that you don't want to be affiliated with support of what is going on, so you're focusing on evidence that you think shows that your 'side' doesn't support it?
> Yes, I can rule out confirmation bias.
How?
I don't understand how that leads you to understand that I am affiliated with them?
>> Yes, I can rule out confirmation bias.
> How?
First please explain how confirmation bias on my side would influence the amount of deleted comments and threads in that subreddit.
It somehow seems that you really want that subreddit to be representative of the average conservative. And if anyone disagrees, you throw out accusations to see what sticks. Why?
It doesn't, I misremembered your wording as something that did. That is what my apology was for.
> the amount of deleted comments and threads in that subreddit.
See, I just don't think this is as significant as you do - there are still plenty of dissenting opinions on there.
> It somehow seems that you really want that subreddit to be representative of the average conservative. And if anyone disagrees, you throw out accusations to see what sticks. Why?
It's not about just that sub, look at the asktrumpsupporters sub also, look at every other media source where people can give opinions, paid or guest. I'm arguing more that MAGA folk are still generally in support. I think the conservative sub shows that, but even without it I think that point stands.
But you don't know what kind of dissenting opinions they're deleting, because you're not looking at it! How do you know they don't just leave the "accepted" dissent, and delete anything that goes beyond that? This would completely change whether the subreddit is representative, and you would have no idea. And again: that is exactly what I've seen.
Dissent isn't a binary thing. The content matters far more than its mere presence.
> It's not about just that sub, look at the asktrumpsupporters sub also
That's also not a good yardstick. Not only do those mods explicitly state that they delete comments by Trump supporters that show strong dissent, multiple long-time TS there have eventually admitted to playing a role, trying to make conservatives look as bad as possible.
> I'm arguing more that MAGA folk are still generally in support
Sure, I'm not doubting that. They're hopeless cult followers. All I'm saying is: that subreddit is incredibly propagandized and should not be taken as representative of anything.
Well, this is where our experiences differ, because I've been observing that sub for years, and I've seen the threads and comments that get deleted, and I don't think it changes much in the way you do.
If they only deleted comments from comments on the left, I think the sub would still be representative, maybe less so, but still so.
> Not only do those mods explicitly state that they delete comments by Trump supporters that show strong dissent, multiple long-time TS there have eventually admitted to playing a role, trying to make conservatives look as bad as possible.
Do you think any subs are representative? Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots? What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs?
If they stopped deleting comments by conservatives, it would be less representative than it is now when they're also broadly deleting dissent from conservatives? How does this make sense?
Let me ask you again: Do you think any subs are representative of conservatives? Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots? What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs? Where is the conservative home on the internet where everyone is against what is happening?
That does not relate to the question I asked. You said that the sub would be less representative if they stopped deleting conservative dissent. How would it be less representative?
My point was it might show more variation, but would still overwhelmingly match the view on other social media platforms and published works from media sources that align. The only crack has been with Alex Pretti having a gun because of 2A fanaticism, there was no significant dissent regarding the murder of Renee Good, for example.
Now, a third time, let me ask you again: Do you think any subs are representative of conservatives? Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots? What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs? Where is the conservative home on the internet where everyone is against what is happening?
Exactly, do you not see the logical contradiction? As we both agree, they currently delete comments from both "the left" and dissenting conservatives. The only change in your proposed scenario is that they stop deleting comments from dissenting conservatives. How can the sub be less representative in that scenario?
> Now, a third time, let me ask you again: Do you think any subs are representative of conservatives?
I have no idea! I haven't spent any time looking at other conservative subs than the two you mentioned. How should I know?
> Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots?
No?
> What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs?
No?
> Where is the conservative home on the internet where everyone is against what is happening?
I have no idea, why are you asking me like I should know?
-----
I get the very strong impression that you think I'm trying to make some bigger argument about the opinions present in the current conservative movement in the US. I am not. All I'm saying is: the community you're pointing at is objectively not representative of the opinions of its users because it's heavily moderated and propagandized.
By arguing that it still is representative, you're legitimizing this propaganda. Instead of accusing people who present counterarguments of being aligned with the conservative movement (I am very much not, and you can check my comment history to see that I've been arguing against them for years), maybe take a step back and consider the effect of what you're doing?
Because there would be more messages that deviate from the average viewpoint as reflected across other social media and media platforms. There is no contradiction.
> I haven't spent any time looking at other conservative subs than the two you mentioned. How should I know?
They by what metric can you say the conservative sub isn't representative? You're just assuming it because they delete some dissenting comments?
> > Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots?
> No
So then you would agree the people doing so to some extent are representative of the conservative point of view?
> the community you're pointing at is objectively not representative of the opinions of its users because it's heavily moderated and propagandized.
I don't think that equates to not being representative though! If, despite that, general sentiment in the sub still matches conservative viewpoints outside of it, in general/on average, then surely it still is?
No, not because they delete "some dissenting comments", but because they delete large amounts of dissenting comments from their long-time users, as well as threads that don't perform as they want, which I know because I've watched it happen time and time again!
"Maybe the propagandists are just always censoring as to be accurately reflecting the opinions of the masses" is a logical contortion that I simply can't fathom. We have to call out these things when we see them, because - again - you're otherwise legitimizing their propaganda. But you don't seem to understand that, so I won't help you help them any further.
I think you're exaggerating the extent to which they delete comments from longtime users, it's easily less than 10%. Even if we generously adopt your view, however, that still doesn't prove your point or even come close to doing so. You're missing a point in your argument and don't seem to realize you're making an unwarranted leap. That you don't seem to understand that is a problem, and I agree there is no point in trying to discuss this further with you.
Easy: Probably not. You definitely don't have any rational reason to assume any sub is actually representative of any group.
While I understand you do not wish to have any contrary contributions made to your thinking, I am making a productive contribution for the many readers here who may be grappling with this issue themselves.
Of course you are welcome to converse on a non-forum format if you wish to have private conversations and to have total control over who may respond to you.
I personally have a vested interest in a society that's more rather than less capable of understanding reality, and using appropriate tools to do so, so I'll continue to contribute toward that end.
That's not the case at all, in fact, I love that, a critical analysis is necessary to establishing truth.
You're not doing that though. You've resorted to insults more than once, and you just tow the line to defend conservatives, it's impossible to have a productive discussion with you because your bias/motive is pushing everything, not a desire for truth.
Keep spreading your nonsense/disinformation I guess, since I can't stop it, and I'll just do my best to ignore it. I would however recommend some self-reflection, as petty little obsessions like this are far from healthy.
My comment history (and voting history) would conclusively show the exact opposite.
If you think that gives you a read on the overall attitude, then unfortunately there's nothing I can say to help you.
It is literally mathematically nonsensical to look at the numerator, put no effort into knowing the denominator, and then claim to have a sense for the ratio between them. It's shocking to see someone explicitly claim they can do this lmao.
Like I said, you're free to ignore all the datapoints that disagree with you and focus on the one that doesn't, if that makes you feel better.
I don't think there's much for us to discuss, and instead of going back and forth ad nauseum I'd just really appreciate it if you stopped replying to me altogether.
But from what I have read with 'data' you mean your general impression from subreddits? Or do you have more robust data? I can imagine a few affects that lead to the subreddit(s) evolve independent of the average opinion of R voters. It happens all the time with subreddits.
But then again, maybe you got more information about it?
If public support among conservatives were at 15% or 85%, you'd see nearly identical output from the information sources they mention.
Jubilee videos would be full of the most goofball extremist people they could find, r/conservative would have enough people in the 15% to deter or actively suppress those who weren't (especially if the few moderators happened to be), the Fox News comment section would be packed to the gills with people in support, and Newsmax would be calling anyone not in the 15% a commie/RINO.
It's a totally absurd way to try to understand reality. The fact they suggest sampling from r/asktrumpsupporters (or r/peoplewhosupportClaimX) to understand how many conservatives support X is indicative of a fairly profound cognitive failure.
Note: This is not to suggest support among conservatives is actually in the 15% range. It's not. It's probably closer to 80% and with independents (and obviously Dems) overwhelmingly negative on the approach.
From before the Pretti murder, which flipped several conservatives I know personally, 23% of Republicans are saying ICE has gone too far:
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
Furthermore, there's a lot of people who I think voted R who are now embarrassed and trying to defend the party and paint the people who support what is going on as a minority view, when it isn't.
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-eri...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/pix11news/posts/a-union-says-an-nyp...
> Seems divided along party lines unfortunately.
Is there a partisan split? Very much. Is ICE deeply unpopular? Also very much.
Net support (% support minus % oppose) for abolishing ICE is at +5 overall; +61 with Democrats, +12 with independents, and -54 with Republicans.
Net approval of ICE is at -22 overall; -81 with Democrats, -39 with independents, and +60 with Republicans.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53939-more-americ...
Overall approval of Trump's immigration policy is floating around 50% +/- 5%. That means 1 out of every 2 Americans support it. That seems quite high to me.
Its a lot more useful as a single number to look at than either “support” or “oppose”, because those don't tell you how much of the excluded amount is on the other side versus undecided.
> Overall approval of Trump's immigration policy is floating around 50% +/- 5%
Overall immigration policy is a different and broader question, but, no, its not.
39% support, with 53% opposed; support hasn't been at or above 45% (the floor of your claimed 50% ± 5%) since the beginning of last summer.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-immigration-approval...
Ipsos just ran a poll saying 66% of Americans support deporting immigrations in the country illegally. That's 7 out of every 10.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-americans-support-depor...
But what's happening now is that Trump pulled a bait and switch -- when he said "deport criminals" the crime he had in mind was that of being an undocumented immigrant, whereas everyone else had in their head when he said criminal he meant "murders, rapist, gangbanger, drug dealers". Not "people going through the asylum process and my roofer".
For a lot of people, they just want to see immigrants come in the "right way", but for the Trump administration they don't want to see any immigrants who are not white.
So when people say they support Trump's immigration policies, you have to really dissect what they mean by that. Which policies? The ones he campaigned on, the ones they wish he campaigned on and are ascribing to him regardless, or the ones actually being implemented?
Just firing a gun on a street will open an investigation on any other cop in the country
Now killing someone gets a pass?
We are a banana republic now with the government executing protestors
Eventually it will be a dozen protestors shot at once, they already know they will get a pass based on policy, why stop at just one?
Racists, fundamentalist christians, xenophobes, anyone happy with the way they think ICE is 'cleaning up' the country, which involves dealing with 'enemies'.
> Did they not watch the same videos we all did?
They did, and continue to insist on an interpretation not supported at all. It's like literally pointing at green grass and insisting it's red.
ICE OFFICER Jonathan Ross: After seeing all the media bs about a domestic terrorist getting go fund me. I feel that the officer that was 1000 percent justified in the shooting deserves to have a go fund me. Funds will go to help him.https://www.newsweek.com/woman-who-has-raised-800k-online-ch...
Anyone who isn't a white Christian male is a second class citizen.
I'm talking about if you work at McDonalds and online you post "Man I hate McD's" you get fired within 5 minutes because everyone, everywhere has already been doxxed and notification systems are attached at the employment level. Even if your online name was "reactordev". At scale meant- everyone, always.
Yeah, most civilians don't understand operational security at the functional level.
Though... most people doing these thing probably want to be caught because they just aren't quite right in the head and want people to tell them that what they did is 'justified' for whatever reason.
I mean I thought we already make federal employees and vehicles public knowledge. The national guard currently deployed in Minneapolis are unmasked as far as I know to compare. I'm not understanding why DHS federal employees are exempt from this standard.
Because the aim of ICE is to terrorize local communities that either have a lot of immigrants/non-white people in general or that vote heavily Democrat like Minneapolis.
And terror doesn't work when you can reliably identify the terrorists and hold them accountable, or do the same to the terrorists as they dish out on their victims.
They don't magically gain more privacy protection in public over what your average person has just because they clock out after a hard day of work by virtue of being a government employee.
They are constantly and consistently reminded that people have the right to record in public and they chose to ignore that as there are no consequences if they violate the law. Or that people have a right to peacefully assemble. Or freedom of the press...
I'm merely assuming that the license plates being listed are ones they use for their official work, since the rest of their info is being tied to what's available for any other public work.