John937

Not quite, but would’ve.

His general refused an order from another general to fire on Russians, believing it would start ww3.

Blunt claims he would’ve refused the order too as a captain in the British army, if it hadn’t already been refused higher up in the chain of command

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/singer-james-blunt-prevent-world-war-iii/

It’s sometimes hard to separate those feelings

Maybe a 3 button setup

• Agreed and acceptable content
• Disagree and acceptable content
• Bad content

Default Rankings are based on minimum bad-content/maximum agreed count
And controversial ranking is based on minimum bad-content/maximum good-content count (agree+disagree)

This way even comments that people disagree with can be exposed so long as it’s still good content

Brigadiers who blindly vote everything bad content to maliciously influence rankings can be identified and removed for manipulation, while people who vehemently disgree with an idea can still have that outlet without influencing the community/magazine haphazardly

Backups sure, but notice I said “going forward”

On the internet, something from two days ago can be stale data

They can have as many pristine backups as they want, but the people buying that data want the fresh data, and now, at least on pics/videos/interestingasfuck/etc they don’t have that, they have John Oliver and porn (and sometimes both!)

That is less valuable than the authentic data from before this fiasco

This is the best way to harm reddit. More than a decade of carefully organized human sorted and ranked data by topic on. Destroy that data, it’s ranking, it’s sorting - you destroy the value going forward