NO! The point is that anyone that said their NAME was getting banned, even if it was just in passing like the original incident where just AN ARTICLE with them mentioned in it got the poster banned. Why are you making declarative statements when you don't actually know anything about this?
People said her name all the time. That's my point. Everyone was up in arms about people being banned, and protested by doing the exact same thing people were banned for but not getting banned.
That's because the rules were reversed. According to Reddit, the rule that automatically would action anything that mentioned her name was in place from 9/3 until (at least) 22/3, and was then reversed.
So the whole thing was blown way out of proportion and the protest itself was after-the-fact and didn't effect any of Reddit's decision making?
Except people started talking about it so much Reddit couldn't take out everyone doing it without having to ban a lot of people. That's the point of what was going on. Too many people "Stood up" for them to be able to take all of them down quietly and see no repercussions.
Social media as a whole is basically a talking Chernobyl septic tank.
It's gonna be hard to understand things when you try to strip all context from them and act as if just looking at it as basic information stripped actions like 'hired somebody she probably shouldn't have'. You don't seem to be coming at this form an angle of trying to see why people would want her gone, you're coming at it with an adversarial angle where you remove reasons people would take issue from the equation when stating the situation
You are correct. 70-90% of the reason I didn't vote for Howie Hawkins in 2020 despite threatening to.
It would be really cool if mass shootings etc. stopped too....
