Sideloader

Shhh...don't make the people think about, like, complicated stuff or accept the presence of ideas or opinions they may not agree with. Because that's what is happening. A person who floats a "controversial" opinion that goes against or challenges "accepted" (i.e. imposed) orthodoxy is considered barely more acceptable than a bitter asshole with issues who threatens to rape or kill his ex-girlfriend.

Simply asking how encouraging perpetual victimhood empowers women and ethnic minorities is more often than not met with incredulous outrage and accusations. There is no room for debate - one either is with them or against them. Nuance and honest debate are for privileged people dontcha know. Only POC, LGBTQ who buy into victim culture and "womyn" are allowed to express their opinions without interference. Check your privege buddy or GTFO!

I know it's not a popular position to take but I still think if the worst trolls were starved of oxygen they would crawl back under their bridge and die. An ignored troll is a defeated troll. Nasty people will always exist of course online and in the material world and thankfully even the meanest, nastiest button pushing trolls very rarely act on their threats to harm or kill the people they target.

A more important question is what drives so many people to attack non-white people and women online? Is it simply a reaction to a drop in status as traditionally oppressed groups assert themselves or is there more to this? We likely won't know anytime soon as the trend today is to dissect and discuss symptoms to the point of absurdity but talking about the causes or possible causes is almost taboo. E.g. Trump. Endless articles and opinion pieces bullshitting about how "evil" and "fascist" he is but serious discussions asking if, say, widespread economic disenfranchisement and the Democrats alienating the white working class in favor of identity politics has something to do with it.

The culture of outrage that identity politics has morphs into treats words as the fotemost evil in our world. "OMG Drumpf SAYS he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it and HE SAYS he will "ban" Muslims from entering the US!! He must be stopped!" Meanwhile Obama is deporting so many illegal immigrants he earned another nickname from it (Depoter in Chief) and firing Hellfire missiles on wedding parties and other funny acting Muslim civilians. Thousands have been killed or injured by "mistakes". But never mind about that because Trump. And don't ask if the economic lot of black people has improved during Obama's eight years in office or what he has done to stop the deaths of young black men at the hands of police. That would destroy the fantasy of America's first black president as a hip, progressive dude who really cares...and we can't have that.

Back to trolls "ruining" the Internet. Instead of cutting off their oxygen (the only proven way to kill trolls) Time gives them a massive infusion of the stuff and a hysterical headline to go with it. Of course possible root causes won't be explored and government surveillance, censorship etc. of the Internet in conjunction with business interests (the MPAA and RIAA to name two very prominent ones) that sends American LEA to foreign lands to violate the liberies of people suspected of...sharing links to pirated movies/music and running a cloud storage service that may have been used to store and share the aforementioned files.

It does sometimes feel like the world has gone over a cliff and the media, the establishment political parties and their wealthy owners/donors have glumped together into a mass of crazy that is stealth infecting people around the world.

You may find it hard to believe but the market "taking care of itself" is at the core of the neo-liberal ideology peddled by the powers that be from Obama, the Clintons, the EU, IMF, World Bank, ECB etc. They don't care if it destroys the planet or drives people into poverty. As long as it works for them, it's all good. Technology will fix it so no need to worry.

Well said. Letting corporations and financial institutions regulate themselves has been disastrous on so many levels. But so long as they are protected from the effects of climate change the SV libertarian "tech delusionists" will keep their heads buried firmly in the sand.

A "human-like" AI is only 20 years away! Or was that the singularity...or maybe it was cold fusion, I can never remember. Anyway, in 20 years all these things will still be only 20 years away.

Another vapid AI story...lovely. The "...more human" in the title is just clickbait that makes it seem like Google and co. are on the cusp of developing a human-like AI which, of course, is not the case at all. And romance novels are the finest example of "more human" literature that they could come up with? Right. Also, the "more" before human implies a human-like AI is desirable...the more "human" the better. Really...why is that? There is a limit to the "really cool shit" tech companies can pile on the market before it becomes repetitive and, well, boring. The internet of things being a case in point. Who wants to buy an internet capable toaster or can opener for its own sake? The whole "tech is a fount of limitless awesomeness that will save the world" thing has been way oversold.

I don't think this project will amount to much; it almost certainly will not become part of a widely used mass transit system. It was always a tech geek vanity project at best, even before the serious trouble started.

Does it? I came away with the impression that they were trying to convey that there seems to be significant anecdotal evidence that Applebaum was a boundary pusher, could be inconsiderate of others and sometimes had a crude sense of humor but that the mix of paranoia, hedonistic excess and nasty power games within this part of the Berlin hacker community, and their habit of avoiding the police and other state institutions, make it very difficult to get beyond the "he said, she said" accusations being thrown around. Maybe he did all or some of the illegal things he is accused of doing and maybe he did none of them. And since nobody wants to go to the police and press charges the whole thing remains in limbo.

The only thing that's definitely true here is that the Applebaum et al. hacker "commune" has gone the way of so many hedonistic leftist/counterculture groups: down the drain.

> The article gives a real name in literally the second sentence.

Actually, the article literally does nothing of the sort. Check it for yourself. It mentions Applebaum's name in the first sentence and no names in the second.

It's news that "think tanks" aren't always as independent and impartial as they claim? Really? Before the Brookings "controversy" nobody at the New York Times suspected that these organizations, which are closely linked to the political parties, government departments and corporate interests, might not be as independent as they claim? Now that I find hard to believe. Or maybe they had a tiny inkling and this shocking example of DC lies and corruption pushed them over the edge and they finally produced an article about their dark suspicions.

Are we to believe the "newspaper of record" has just discovered the tip of the iceberg that will eventually lead them to conclude that the Beltway think tanks are, in part, propaganda mills for the Dems or GOP, or DoS or NATO and the government's corporate sponsors? What next in this brave new world, the NYT discovering it shilled hard for the Iraq invasion of 2003 and is shilling hard for Hillary Clinton in 2016? What other "blurred lines" will this fantastically brave and honorable newspaper pull into focus for the public?

I don't know what's weirder...the article itself or the fact that it's taken at face value by the target audience. Looking at the parts in isolation but never ever zooming out and considering the links and connections between them and the whole it reveals is a sign of these interesting times. Likewise, the earnest and perplexed "study" of various symptoms like, Trump, say, but never ever honestly considering what caused them to appear in the first place.

Is it simple ignorance that drives this insane game of charades or is it something else...like a deep fear of having to face an unbearable truth...a fear so deep that outright self-delusion is preferable to holding power to account. Accepting the consequences of what an honest evaluation of government and corporate power would reveal about where American society is heading...well, that is something the mass media is definitely NOT prepared to do.

Which raises the question of what role exactly is the media playing in all of this? The Times article partially answers that question. When a person or persons repress uncomfortable thoughts and feelings, these will find an indirect outlet, often without the denier being aware that this is happening.

It's not a secret that the United States has its eyes on Eurasia, the land mass reaching from the Russian border eastward to China. The U.S. has been hatching plans for total world dominance since the 1930s and controlling Eurasia is key if this goal is to be achieved. It's hubris on an epic scale.

The U.S. centric media makes noises about countries Russia, Iran, Syria and North Korea as if America is just minding its own business and these pesky troublemakers are constantly circling and provoking the peaceful USA. Nothing is further from the truth of course.

It's truly fascinating that the long term goals of U.S. foreign policy not hidden from the public or the media. Think tanks and former high ranking government officials regularly publish books and essays discussing America's place in the world but for the most part these are ignored by the mass media and government and military officials are quoted at length as if their words are self-evident truths that can always be taken at face value.

The State Department cables released by WikiLeaks were dismissed by most of the media as mildly embarrassing gossip of little value. Yes, the cables include gossip and snarky remarks but there is much more to them than only that. The cables show what government officials say to each other and this is often very very different from the official public line. For example, they clearly and unambiguously show how the U.S. has been provoking Syria and fomenting regime change there since at least 2005. The cynical, Machiavellian methods outlined in the cables provide quite a contrast to the "democracy" and "human rights" line we hear so often. In fact, the collapse of Syria in 2011 is exactly what Washington had been hoping would happen.

But where is the media? Surely there is a story or two here. It goes to show that even in an era of ubiquitous personal technology that quite literally makes the collected knowledge of the world accessible to almost every human being on earth, the truth is as distant from the masses as it ever was. As coverage of the Snowden affair and the debacle in Syria has shown, the mass media is quite comfortable acting as the empire's propaganda arm while telling us how it takes pride in maintaining high standards of journalistic integrity and serving the public by speaking truth to power. So, yes, we are being lied to constantly. Critical and independent thinking skills are more important than ever.

"In the future, he said, the “real value creation will come from stitching together photos as a fabric, extracting information and then providing that cumulative information as a totally different package.”

What? Obfuscating language that is supposed to sound "profound" or "smart" just sounds like bullshit, which is exactly what it is.

The future of photography as predicted in this article sounds depressing as hell. How much further can our society be dumbed down and turned into a superficial shell of itself? That said, there is no guarantee that the future of photography will unfold as predicted here.

But a society that values only money and denies ever growing numbers of people a stable future and the fair chance to earn a decent livelihood is a society that is on the road to revolution. The rise of a demagogue like Trump is a warning shot across the bow. There is more at stake here than photography. Laugh, roll your eyes or downvote but people who predict unpopular, fantastic sounding societal change are often laughed at...until they are proven right.

I have a friend who I've known since first grade. He would never just "obey orders"...he would always try to find out why he was being asked to do something and if the request seemed illegitimate he would refuse, sometimes in creative ways, to honor it. He was diagnosed with ADHD and labeled a "problem child".

As we grew older and his ethics and moral compass developed he would supply arguments to back up his actions - he would not rebel for rebellion's sake but because he truly believed his actions were reasonable and justified. In high school these took the form of successfully defying the school's no-hats-allowed policy and under the auspices of a Frank Zappa loving art teacher forming The Anarchist's Club (the tongue-in-cheek logo was a medieval spiked club weapon emblazoned with a circle-A symbol).

The Anarchist's Club biggest action was a boycott of a mandatory pep rally for the school's basketball team (we offered to study in the library instead) which earned its 13 or so members a suspension with readmission after a written apology and meeting with our parents. After three days only me, my friend and one other student remained defiant. (Our parents were supportive of our "cause".) We were readmitted after my friend and I went to the town's newspaper and told them our story and a subsequent meeting with the school board which, to our surprise, agreed the offer to study in lieu of attending the rally was reasonable and overruled the principal's authority.

After high school we both moved to the west coast to attend college and drifted apart. In the "real world", despite much rhetorical talk of freedom and liberty from all corners, obedience and conformity to an often rigid status quo are expected if one wants to be accepted by, and benefit from, mainstream society. There are exceptions, like entrepreneurship to some extent, and limited room to negotiate but generally defying the authority of supervisors, managers, professors, the law of the land and any number of "superior" people and institutions is met with the crack of a whip rather than an offer of dialog and compromise.

Most of us suppress our anti-authoritarian instincts and fall in line with the established order. The more we have to lose, the more we opt for security and predictability over principles and conscience. My friend says he cannot do this. Talking a decade after high school he says he was born without the "conformity gene" and that he can't will himself to do something he feels is unjust or infringes unreasonably on his liberty. He can't, for example, obey a micro-managing boss if his method of working is more productive than the bosses way. If the boss is truly concerned about productivity and the company's bottom line he or she will not force employees to do things one way and one way only. Every person has methods that work for them, but may not work for others, and a boss who does not respect this is, according to my friend, an ego-tripping asshole or a mindless drone in thrall to "management theory".

My friend argues that his anti-authoritarian nature has cost him many jobs and opportunities and has made climbing the middle-class career ladder all but impossible. He makes money by buying and selling things on Craigslist and E-bay, freelance graphic design jobs and the marijuana reselling industry. He claims to have no interest in a stable career, home ownership and a family. More than that, he says his disposition makes it impossible for him to submit to arbitrary authority and to shelve his reservations for the sake of a career. If I had just met him I might be tempted to call bullshit and think he's rationalizing his failure after the fact but I've known this guy almost my entire life and his behavior has been consistent since first grade.

He has been diagnosed with adult ADHD, an anxiety disorder, depression and other mood disorders. (The DSM even provides a handy "unspecified disorder" category.) One anecdotal tale proves nothing and there is a possible chicken/egg problem here but based on my friend's and, to a lesser extent, my own and other people's experiences I am convinced there are good reasons for the APA or similar group to do an in-depth, independent study investigating the links between mental illness diagnoses and anti-authoritarian personality traits. Given what is at stake, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

One aspect of OS X I've always appreciated is the absence of bundled bloatware and obtrusive advertising. Sure, you can disable the ads and uninstall any unwanted software Microsoft is aggressively pushing on you, but how many people actually do this?

Most of my parent's friends that I've helped to resolve OS issues don't even try to find out how to switch off or delete Windows annoyances. Their machines are bogged down with junk that they don't want or need and some suffer silently while others complain loudly, but very few from either camp take the initiative and learn how the OS works.

I don't know what percentage of the Windows owning public is unable or unwilling to wrest control of their OS from default setting tyranny, but anecdotal evidence suggests it's a not insignificant number.

"This is a personal, non-sponsored post by a member of BuzzFeed's ad content team."

Um, so it's an ad for SnapChat that SnapChat didn't pay for...or not an ad by a guy on the "ad content team"? If it's the latter why mention it at all (or simply say "this is not an advertisement"). The convoluted language makes me think it is an ad. Anyway...

Yes, tweens are very prolific social media users...they're practically born with the skills in their blood. Ten-year olds are skilfully filming, producing and editing videos, and uploading them to YouTube, that leave people in their 30s and up speechless.

The generations that came of age before about 1998 to 2000ish, when the Internet and digital technology started becoming ubiquitous and taught in schools, are still somewhat baffled by even basic technology. Example...during a dinner in 2014 that included my sister and her boyfriend (who are both in their mid-30s) he notices the customized icon arrangement and screen flip effects on my phone (iPhone, jailbroken) and asks if he can do that on his phone. I ask him if he'd bought an iPhone (I remembered him having a Windows phone) and he says no, pulls out his Lumia and starts fiddling with it. After a moment he asks "so what do I have to do to get that effect?" and I say "that's a Windows phone, isn't it?"..."I think so, but I can jailbreak it, right?"..."jailbreaking is an iPhone thing, I don't think there's a Windows phone equivalent..."oh, it won't work if it's Windows?"..."um, no, you need an iPhone but if you have an Android device you can root it and install customs ROMs which is sort of like jailbreaking"...."cool so I can install Android on this phone (Lumia), right?"... facepalm

Later that evening my sister (who is much more tech savvy than her boyfriend and an advanced social media user) notices that my headphones are cordless. "I never noticed those headphones before, I hate tangled cords etc. "..."yeah Bluetooth is pretty handy"..."is it included with your plan?"..."is what included?"..."the Bluetooth service"..."it's built into the device and...wait, you thought there was an extra charge for using Bluetooth?" "no, um, I was just wondering" facepalm

They are both educated, fairly worldly, middle-class. She has a Masters (arts) and worked at a law firm and he was finishing his PhD (arts). Oh, and they were both surprised to learn they can listen to mp3s on their Windows and Android devices.

I've met other "older" people who are absolutely clueless about basic features and options on their computers and devices (e.g. getting rid of the annoying bloatware that comes pre-installed on off-the-shelf Windows machines, blocking browser ads, connecting and configuring peripherals) but their level of ignorance really surprised me.

I've since noticed a sharp contrast in tech literacy between people who graduated or left high school before the Internet exploded and those who were introduced to it in school. For so-called digital natives like the author's sister, and my 14 year-old cousin, the line between what used to be called real life and social media has dissolved and fully integrating social media into their day-to-day lives comes almost naturally. It's not a new thing...it just is and they use it at an intuitive level...and expect new platforms to emerge and features to continually evolve.

Interesting times for the human animal...

Is the media afraid of Facebook? I have read criticism of Mark Zuckerberg's track record of underhanded and deceptive tactics, e.g. his recent "donation" to "charity", selling Free Basics in India as a gateway to the "free and open Internet", but generally I have not noticed media hostility towards FB or Mr. Zuckerberg. Even the stories about his company's more questionable moves usually include both sides of the story.

Wikipedia will always be in flux. I don't use it much for looking up science based stuff but I do check it to see what's being said about the conflict in Syria, the Israel/Palestine conflict and other contentious geopolitical topics. Edit warring and vandalism/inserting bias are the norm for these pages. (I do edit entries when I have the time.) Arguably there is no "right" answer that can settle arguments about political topicsand no matter what is written somebody will come along and claim bias and change the wording or delete sections they find objectionable. Pages about less publicized event (e.g Russian-Georgian war of 2008, the Mahar Arar affair) are blatantly slanted to one side or another and stay that way for months or even years.

The science articles I have read are sometimes overly technical or needlessly verbose but others know more about that than I do so I can't provide examples. If every person who posts a long rant or complaint on an entry's Talk page took the time to edit(in good faith)the parts they think need improvement the public would benefit by having access to better quality information. As it stands people put a lot of energy in pointing out, often valid, flaws but very few actually do anything about it.

Wikipedia is only as good or as accurate as its editors make it and humans, being the strange creatures we are, have a difficult time agreeing on even relatively basic things so it will always be a work in progress. That it exists is a positive thing overall and to really get a sense of how accurate an entry about a topic you know little about is reading the Talk page is a must. And if you do know have knowledge that you think is missing from an entry or think you can improve the wording...be bold and go for it!

Fallacious nonsense like this: "[Tax revenue is]squandered on bureaucracy and inefficient solutions to problems other tax dollars went to creating"

...is today's version of "down with the capitalist dogs; long live the proletariat and glorious socialism!" of eras past.

Global capitalism taken to its extreme is an ideology that promotes a massive transfer of power to private individuals and the dismantling of the state. Libertarianism, in other words. Unfortunately, utopian ideologies have a nasty habit of becoming tyrannical dystopias when put into real-world practice.

Extreme capitalist ideology paints government as cartoonishly hopeless and inefficient, maybe even evil, run by inept bunglers that steal our money and waste it on paperclips and perks for bureaucrats. The solution, they say, is let private for-profit business take over and watch efficiency skyrocket and costs plummet. Sounds wonderful...except it's a hopelessly naive utopian fantasy (or, depending on your outlook, a scam to transfer even more power and wealth to the world's billionaires).

My own view is that unfettered capitalism taken to its logical conclusion will result in a feudal society...or violent revolution.

Who are the ostensibly secular rebels? Every rebel group seems to have propaganda videos on YouTube except the 'secular' ones. Call me sceptical. The only secular group we know of for sure is the Syrian National Army but Assad is their leader and he has been labeled Official Bad Guy Who Must Go. (Just prior to the war HRC said she considers the Assads "close friends".) Hmmm.... Former US pal Sadaam (secular despot) and the secular despot Gadaffi had "to go" too and look what that did.

At any rate, the 'secular' fighters are now more often called 'moderate' rebels. Hell, Al Queda (fighting in Syria as the Al-Nusra Front) is moderate compared to Daesh. Since 2012 they and other 'moderate' Islamist groups received funding and weapons from the US, UK, France, Israel, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia. Many of the arms ended up in Daesh's hands anyway. One doesn't hear a lot about the, at one point much lauded, Free Syrian Army except that many in their ranks have defected to Daesh.

The stuff I mentioned above is as close to factual as it gets in this chaotic war. The information comes from so-called reliable media sources with supporting documents provided. This doesn't guarantee absolute truth of course.

It's interesting how almost every person has strong opinions about the clusterfuck unfolding in Syria/Iraq and the role Daesh plays in it, but very few of those people actually have enough trustworthy information to make an informed opinion. The fog of war and the spread of disinformation, and just plain old misinformation, is as relevant here as in any other war.

It doesn't help that Senator McCain advocated supplying Daesh with weapons to shoot down Russian fighter aircraft and even had his picture taken posing with Daesh. The US and its allies and lackeys have a rich history supporting and arming extremely vile regimes and insurgent groups when it serves their interests.

The West provided the fertile soil from which Daesh sprouted and now the chickens have come to roost. Big time.

The advertising model is, among other things, transforming the once vibrant internet media landscape into a cesspool of floundering and money losing companies chasing clicks and eyeballs in a desperate race to the bottom. Interesting and unique content is jettisoned for the most banal, formulaic click-baiting bullshit imaginable. The sooner the ad supported internet dies, the better.

I have no problem paying for access to quality content and am more than wiling to pay for more of it. But if my only is option consists of being inundated with annoying and intrusive ads at every turn, I will block them at every turn and feel not a pang of guilt and regret.

It's a bit rich for organizations that promote self-interest and free markets to harangue their customers with lectures on the immorality of ad blocking. I am acting out of self-interest when I choose to block ads and the market should have gotten the hint by now that the public (i.e., customers or potential customers) put with ads as a necessary evil - at the best of times. This is not the best of times: internet ads are intrusive, hog resources, are served by dodgy outfits, present security risks, are an eyesore, and often flog stuff that I will never ever buy. Therefore, I block ads q

Come on , is this pitiful whining about the evils of ad blocking really coming from the same is w tech industry that touts adaptability, innovation and the willingness to try new things as core strengths? The market has spoken and it has said loudly and clearly "ads suck, dude!" Therefor, I actively and with not even a pang of guilt, block ads. On both by mobile devices and big computer I use open source host file tweaks rather than a "commercial" plugins (Adblock, AdBlock Plus). Way less bloat, more robust and no backroom deals selling whitelist space to advertisers.

Jaron Lanier has been widely criticized, even ridiculed, for his, admittedly convoluted, micropayment system concepts but at least he's thinking about the possibilities. Because the ad serving model is doomed to a slow death by ever diminishing returns. Now is the time to innovate.

Last word goes to Lanier and his succinct take on the, heh, bad taste left by an ad driven world: “Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth.”

Perhaps because it's incredibly vague to the point of being meaningless?

What, for example, does "sclerotic" mean in this context? What things are left "undone"? There is more money in doing what "new things"? More money for whom?

For these guys rational thinking has become a kind of solipsist secular religion and, like with all religions, its adherents are seriously delusional.

It seems they busted Williams based on the bogus stories provided by the DHS guy and the deputy sheriff used to set him up. Both "admitted" they broke the law and Williams, knowing this, continued to help them. Had he turned them away could this have turned out differently I wonder?

Personally, I think polygraphs whether used as lie detectors or "personality tests" should be illegal and have no place in a modern society except perhaps in a museum.

Facebook isn't a benevolent society dedicated to introducing people to the greater Internet, it's a publicly traded company interested in maximizing returns for its shareholders. Unsurprisingly, keeping users within the FB ecosystem is the company's main goal, hence the internet.org expansion. This is a worrying development given how many people around the world use FB regularly but the company is not going to promote something that doesn't increase its bottom line.

Mark Zuckerberg gives lip service to the idea of net neutrality and says he supports unrestricted access to the free and open Internet, then turns around and does the opposite. The EFF and other organizations have taken the company to task for this devious bait and switch move. I have no idea whether this has had any effect but given FB's track record I suspect not.

The best thing you can do is ditch Facebook and explain to others why they might want to consider doing the same. Personally, I get very little value out of the platform and although I do have a FB account I login only three or four times a year.

Feedly does what GoogleReader used to do and it's based on the GoogleReader API. Unlike GoogleReader there is a subscription based premium membership available in addition to the basic ad supported service. I was an avid GR user and Feedly (basic) has served me very well after it was shuttered. (I am not affiliated in any way with Feedly. Have tried many RSS readers and Feedly IMO is the best of the bunch.)

I don't doubt this happens, but is it really a "huge social concern" and does it "often gotten a Dad in more hassle than its worth"? Your anecdotal evidence says yes, mine says no.

Extreme logic alert...you say "as a father, I can't think of anything worse than some social entity claiming that my affection for my children has a nefarious intent." You can think of _nothing_ worse? Really? Where do you live I want to move there.

* emphasis mine

Anyone using SJW (or cuckservative) in a non-ironic way is doing serious damage to their credibility. IMO

I love this and show it to everyone I know. They've updated the graphics since I last saw it so I get to show everyone all over again.

Almost everybody is surprised when they learn how close to earth the ISS' orbit actually is. They look at me funny, well, some do, the barbarians, when I point out that it is in LOW-Earth Orbit after all and the pictures and video of Earth shot from the ISS vs. photos of Earth from the moon show that the station orbits very close to Earth indeed. Some people have no sense of awe and wonder... :/

It's interesting to me how many reddit free speech defenders say stuff like "Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech."

While I agree that pointless, hateful etc. speech deserves protection one word I almost never see in the reddit free speech wars is *dissent. As in "free speech is meant to protect speech that opposes or challenges orthodox opinion and conventional wisdom."

It's almost like the most vocal part of reddit gets off on being offensive for its own sake and is more concerned about the right to call fat people names rather than defending free speech generally. It does seems like they are flying the free speech flag purely out of narrow self-interest.

How many of them actually give a crap about free speech outside of their "community"? How many of them regularly downvote opinions they don't agree with, I wonder?

The documentary film Citizenfour is a good place to start. Or, you know, half the Internet (YouTube especially) ;)