> No. Reddit's user base is extremely liberal and hostile to conservative candidates and values as evident by the echo-chamber that is /r/politics, which fails to meaningfully support pro-conservative news. There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1], only libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative. The paradigm or technology platform dramatically favors a very specific demographic, and is ultimately a disservice to democracy by disproportionately favoring that demographic's POV. If you fall into that demographic, I imagine it would be very difficult to resist the potential power play to further your own views.
I'll address it here as I did in my other post...
1) If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the positive news about Rand Paul.
2) > There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1]
> [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/
That doesn't demonstrate the bias you claim as it is based on overall score including time in the ranking algorithm. You can see it by the order its displayed on the page. Result #4? 2794 which is greater than results #2 & #3.
The correct link would be:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month
:/
Like, I get you are trying at this point but its really hard to be nice to someone who seems only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit his world view. I even had to correct the link you offered because the link you presented this time still doesn't match the statement you made.
Do you even understand the problem I have with you is:
1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant.
2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations?
> EDIT #2: As a final point, being global in nature, Reddit will always encourage an english-speaking non-US-centric world-oriented political-view. This is precisely, as a nation, what we don't want, to provide a global avenue for anti-US political subversion masquerading as populace rhetoric.
Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
The right to exercise political speech is a fundamental right both for Americans and everyone else in the world under the Constitution. The fact you would go against that makes you:
1) Un-American.
2) Not-A-Conservative. Protecting constitutional rights is a fundamental conservative belief. If you are opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right, such as the freedom of speech, you are a horrible American.
3) You are precisely why the Constitution exists. To protect the rest of us from people who think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about political views is a bad thing. You do realize that is a large part of why we revolted against the British in the first place, right? An inability to influence politics legally via speech and parliamentary representation?
EDIT: Sean
I get rate limited in these threads and can't reply. Anyway, I read the "as a nation" bit as policy advocacy. Maybe that wasn't his intent but that seems to have been his way of phrasing that intent previously.