I have now spent the requisite half hour reading through related materials, and I'm gonna edit my post

Your right - so I actually finally just spent a half hour to read through all related available material that I could find 100% took me longer to read through and reply to this stuff lol

Wow it sure is easy to prove someone is a dumbass when you put words in their mouth, isn't it. Sure is easy to post something like that when the vast majority of the community agrees with you. Almost like it gives you... Authority to just kinda be mean.

Why am I replying. At this point it's caused me as much stress and time as it would have to actually give the post the time it may have deserved to research.

So, the bare post is 1500 words, not counting any links. Do you really read posts at 300 words per minute? To me, that's skimming, which I try to not do. Can't imagine trying to read something that quickly that I wanted to properly digest.

Frankly? That's one of the more fair replies I've gotten lol. You already know you probably disagree with me, and your using my same reasoning lol

Wait, are we literally seeing different things cus of different instances? I see 1500 words (did a copy paste check). Screenshot is too large for me to post.

But to be clear, I'd also need to read all linked articles. This is not a quick task, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Have you ever read something that you disagree with where you feel the need to do supplemental research in order to form a accurate opinion because you feel like the source is biased?

Gotcha thank ya, the phrasing I got to did not sound like that to me in the post As in, she reposted it herself on her LinkedIn?

Get where your coming from here, and I generally agree.

It felt like it would have taken me several hours to get to that place though.

God why am I even relying here I don't have time to get 7 more replies for a comment that boiled down to 'sorry I couldn't finish but I don't think I agree'

Really just don't want to, since I got a third a the way in. Realized I was only a third in Realized I didn't really agree so far Remembered some of the ideological differences between myself and some posts here Decided it would be too much effort to go through the rest for too little benefit.

It is simply not possible for me to read through all of this. Wish I could.

But it sounds like your harassing someone for taking positions that you feel are contradictory, when they are not. And your taking great pains to justify why it's ok to harass this person.

Spoiler, it's not justified. EDIT: Spent 30 minutes trying to read through everything linked in the post including: The original article The original hexbear post Jessica's linkedin Her Atlantic Council bio (an failed attempt to find) the original linked CIA document

Have some questions/comments/summary

1. In general, do people here feel as though the noted content moderation policy ("Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise, do not post content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals.") is wrong, unfair, or incorrectly implemented?
2. I can understand the plausibility that she was made a CEO of reddit by the CIA, but I'm curious if anyone opinions about her would actually change if it was somehow 'knew' that she was not - I ask because it feels (to me) as though the actions she took could have reasonably been taken by someone who wasn't a CIA plant, which to me should affect the thought process
3. I can 100% understand blocking posts on a job-related website that disparage your work, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. Like.... legit. Does anyone think it would be reasonable to keep disparaging posts on your linkedin bio? Just not the vibe.
4. I know some of you do really try to read all context for posts replying, but do all of you? Like, if I posted something here, and important context was basically a book.... would you really try to read it all before replying? Is that the standard y'all hold yourselves to?
5. Even assuming The Atlantic Council is a CIA firm, I still find it reasonably plausible that the CIA did not put her in the role - her roles for The Atlantic counsel feel like a natural fit for a content moderation team executive, and (per what I said in #2) it doesn't feel like she made any decisions that a CIA plant would have been much more likely to have made.

Thank you to those who have been kind in this process of me doing the research, and spending the effort to make this edit.

I use Firefox, but the above #2 is why I almost switch back. Since using Firefox, my password manager is becoming a mess on mobile because my phone uses Google manager and my browser uses Firefox. That by itself is almost worth paying for YouTube premium for me.