44 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
But that's like saying...
Watergate happens. Someone on a message board talks about Watergate and links to Reddit. A bunch of people follow the link from the message board to Reddit to a discussion of how fucked up Richard Nixon is. Then they all comment vote the same way on the post or comment BECAUSE EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT that Richard Nixon sucks.
How is that situation any different than what you're saying with the Zoe Quinn situation? People found out what happened, went to a conversation about it, and were in agreement.
How is that any different than someone making a post in the /r/RedSox subreddit about Boston winning the World Series, someone from another Red Sex message board posting the link, then people from that message board coming to Reddit to talk about the Sox winning the World Series and upvoting one another because they all happen to agree with the content?
That's where I don't understand your logic. You have a popular site that people will link to from other places. And not everyone will always disagree.
Or. How is what happened different from someone posting an AMA with Arnold onto a body building forum and people on the body building forum coming over to the AMA and upvoting things because each individual happens to agree with the content of the AMA?
If there are 100 users who are congregating on an another site while commenting and otherwise participating on reddit, that's one thing. If those 100 users then all follow the same link and vote the same way on the same post or comment, then they get flagged for vote brigading.
That is, as far as I can tell, not a good policy.
Comment by bb010g at 08/09/2014 at 06:25 UTC
9 upvotes, 0 direct replies
No comment from /u/sporkicide...