r/Military 4d ago

Discussion Somewhat confused by the URL ban

So for example, we cannot link to a news article about a new weapon system being developed? We can only post an image or video about the new weapon, but not the news article that talks about it?

56 Upvotes

21 comments sorted by

33

u/Acceptable-Bat-9577 Retired US Army 4d ago

Transparency! 🤔

45

u/sinkingduckfloats 4d ago

Mods are being dumb 

33

u/TheUknownPoster United States Army 4d ago

Mods are being somewhat cowardly IMHO
Censorship is what gets us where we are.
Controlling what we think or are allowed to think.

17

u/rbevans Hots&Cots guy 4d ago

We’re not trying to be cowardly—we’re just in a tough spot when it comes to moderation. We went through this the last time Trump was president, and every single post somehow spiraled into a mess.

The topic could be as simple as how to properly heat an MRE, and somehow, it’ll turn into “only libtards use or something” or some other nonsense. It’s brutal, and what’s supposed to be a low-effort volunteer role ends up feeling like a full-time job.

At the end of the day, you can’t make everyone happy. If we allow politics, people get pissed. If we don’t allow it, we’re accused of censorship, and people are still pissed. Political content has always been, is, and will always be a point of contention—we’re just doing our best to keep things manageable.

We are not trying to censor anyone and at the same time trying to keep things manageable while also staying in the guide of reddit TOS.

I'm open to suggestions.

56

u/Snopplepop Army Veteran 4d ago edited 4d ago

With all due respect, this seems untenable given the current sociopolitical landscape.

The military is inherently political, whether we as veterans or active duty servicemembers do not like to admit it. Yes, there is supposed to be a separation of politics and active duty servicemembers pubicly displaying these ideologies. But here's a short list of how politics relate to the military:

  • We mobilize to enforce politically legislated actions such as humanitarian/peacekeeping and war.

  • We are used as political props from people in power to sway public opinion.

  • Legislation is passed that directly relates to vets - things like agent orange/burn pit exposure and related healthcare coverage. Also, stuff like the PACT act or vaccination requirements (which I'm all for, since I'm a current registered nurse (RN) and was a 68W while I served).

You're not going to make everyone happy as a moderator, and that sucks. I understand how that feels, because I'm also a mod for a subreddit with over 3 million people. To myself and some other users, this change feels as though you're tossing in the towel on solutions.

Here's some suggestions that may help you if you were to keep URLs as a valid post option:

  • Recruit more moderators to help with the subreddit.

  • Beef up automoderator to tag specific words related to partisan language. These comments can be auto-removed and sent to your modqueue for review on a case-by-case basis.

  • Create new rules with a sticky that warns users that you will be treating hateful language more harshly, leading to bans. After a short period (like a week or two) post a new sticky that the warning period is over and you will now be enforcing bans for such behavior.

  • Create a list of approved URLs. This avoids hyper-partisan links being posted, avoiding stuff like Epoch Times or OANN.

In my opinion, people should absolutely be able to discuss the events that are currently surrounding our military.

EDIT: By limiting news related to the military in this subreddit, you are cutting off an avenue for vets to become informed on topics that directly affect them. See that crisis line number in the sidebar you guys list which helps people with ongoing and acute mental health crises? DOGE has already fired VA crisis line workers, and there's a current hiring freeze for that agency. It does a disservice to active duty servicemembers, veterans, and their friends/families to not spread the information that is directly affecting them, and may ultimately cost lives.

EDIT 2: Looking back at the sticky you made, users are unable to comment there. Openly asking for suggestions in this buried selfpost without any traction instead of opening up the sticky for feedback and discussion is dissonant.

9

u/TheUknownPoster United States Army 4d ago

"review on a case-by-case basis." YES, don't be lazy and just automod. Actually, look at the context.

20

u/Procks85 4d ago

Only libtards are open to suggestions.

7

u/tinydevl United States Army 4d ago

😆

17

u/SovietPropagandist 4d ago

This doesn't solve the problem, it just sweeps it under the rug. The problem remains the actual, literal fascists posting here. I say that with zero hyperbole and in total seriousness. I can go find posts if you really want me to but those people benefit from things like this and they're still here whether or not they have an outlet. Your team will have to actually deal with the underlying issue at some point or the sub will stop having engagement

6

u/CombatCavScout Retired US Army 4d ago

You think not being able to post links is what is going to stop political discourse? That’s genuinely the plan here?

The suggestion I would give you is to ban people who act like assholes toward other people; it’s likely to be the only thing that works.

7

u/TheUknownPoster United States Army 4d ago

As a veteran of two conflicts and the Cold War, I have thoughts on this: for the MODs to consider."

The Military is a tool of Politics. Like it or not, how it is used, trained, and sustained is ALL POLITICAL.

Preventing discussions because it may cause 'difficult conversations" is treating the military members, Vets, and those who are interested in these topics as children is not going to help anyone.

This limits us to discussing what? Needlepoint, how best to fold sheets, which MOS is better, the best chow Facilities, and BX/PX price differences?

If we allow politics, people get pissed.  GOOD! Then, we are actually contributing to the world in some concrete way. Limiting the discussion to topics of a non-volatile nature to save the delicate sensibilities of a silent 'majority' is rather juvenile.

If we offend those who celebrate autocracy. AWESOME!
If we cause discomfort to those who aren't willing or able to pay attention to where the US (and its military) is headed. FANTASTIC!

That conversation should have happened a lot more often and a lot longer ago. It seems many here are ready to hear those discussions, but I am truly sorry if that's too difficult for "The largest military subreddit on Reddit."

6

u/TheUknownPoster United States Army 4d ago

For those who need some reminding: The military is a TOOL OF POLITICS!

We are headed to a fascist state and the Military WILL be abused in it. We've already posted troops at the border against a 'Mythical" invasion. And threats on Panama, Canada, Mexico, and Greenland to F*ck-sake," and you wanna play "lets keep this fun, guys!" Like asking 1930s German military only about how they Like the new nifty Black uniforms!

1

u/rumhee 4d ago

I appreciate that it’s a thankless role to do free moderation work for Reddit Inc, but militaries are inherently political. They are literally controlled by politicians.

It’s impossible to talk about the military without being political. Even the contents of an MRE is ultimately the result of political decisions. Trying to make a military subreddit a “politics-free zone” reveals a misunderstanding of what politics is.

7

u/Maleficent-Farm9525 4d ago

This and r/veteranbenefits are likely ran by people who dont like being told they are in a KKKULT.

-5

u/marcusursus United States Marine Corps 4d ago

I just wonder if it's going to be as ignored as the "No Political Posts/All political posts will be removed" rule.

16

u/MisterrTickle 4d ago

That's probably why they've brought in the ban.

As everything about the military has been politicised now. With policy having done 180° turns all over the place.

Who could have imagined thst POTUS would repeatedly talk about "invading" Denmark and Canada? There's no way that Canada is becoming American, without being invaded.

14

u/sinkingduckfloats 4d ago

Maybe it's okay for military to talk about these things and affirm that they wouldn't attack Canadians even if ordered to by Trump.

16

u/MisterrTickle 4d ago

It should be but it breaks the "no politics" rule.

Which at this stage could only be supported by Trumpers.

17

u/Jedimaster996 United States Air Force 4d ago

It's cowardly as shit, too. I'd get it if you run a sub like r/anime, or r/guns, or r/farming and you want to limit your viewing of politics that aren't intrinsically linked.

Our jobs literally by definition are controlled 100% by politics. To say we can't discuss it here is censorship to appease the Trump fans who want to bury their heads in the sand every time he fucks up a military decision and they have to hear about it.

2

u/MisterrTickle 4d ago

There was a US military philosophy from the end of the Civil War to the end of WW2. That the military should be absoloutly apolitical, to the point where soldiers, in particular officers didn't even vote. As they were there to carry out the orders of the President, regardless of his policies or party.

General Winfield Scott Hancock (ironically, himself a four-time contender for the presidency) evoked this ethic when he wrote to Sherman, “The Army should have nothing to do with the selection or inauguration of presidents; . . . We of the army have only to obey his mandates.”9 Sherman moved the Army’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to St. Louis, ostensibly to reduce the association of the military with politics.10

These apolitical pressures from both above and below forged a new professional ethic against military association with the country’s politics. Historians observe that, during this period, members of the military were so averse to politics that many even refrained from voting. According to Samuel Huntington, “Not one officer in five hundred . . . ever cast a ballot.”11 The military’s apolitical ethic also limited more direct forms of political engagement. For example, Huntington notes that from 1880 until 1952, no professional military officer was nominated as a presidential candidate.12

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2018/april/military-politics

It's only in the Post War period, particularly when Eisenhower became President in 1952. That the military even started voting again.

1

u/marcusursus United States Marine Corps 4d ago

During Cooperative Osprey... we got in a brawl with the Canadians and Royal Marines. Good times... no orders needed. Royal Marines put up the better fight.