The OP asked a question. waterlesscloud answered it.
Not liking the answer doesn't give you an excuse to make a rage-post about it.
Reddit has become something of a social powerhouse, having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly
I would love to see some evidence of that. Reddit does regularly raise a decent amount of money for charity- that is true. They could raise cash for this guy's election fund, but even Reddit has limits of what it can achieve.
Not liking the answer doesn't give you an excuse to make a rage-post about it.
Doesn't this cover 90% of all discourse? It's not a rage post, it is an expression of my dissent. There is a difference -- just because you don't like my response to a statement doesn't give you an excuse to push indifference as a response, wait.. yes it does. It's still a crappy position tho.
I would love to see some evidence of that. Reddit does regularly raise a decent amount of money for charity- that is true. They could raise cash for this guy's election fund, but even Reddit has limits.
Reddit is regularly in the news over blowing up social issues (getting coverage on issues that were previously being ignored), pushing internet wide campaigns that result in corporations and politicians changing policy/stance, and yes raising money for charities. The fact is reddit is mentioned in the big news channels far more than most previous sites of a similar nature (with the possible exception of Digg at it's height). If regular media attention is not evidence of social power, I'm not sure what you are looking for.
When you suggested I don't express dissent over a statement that suggests keeping the status quo. The alternatives are do nothing or just don't care. This is pushing a position of indifference.
As for your second and third points, here is one example, in the economist -- a big, well respected news org, that is crediting reddit as a major driving force in the Paul Ryan's stance change on SOPA, after reddit chose to focus on him in their SOPA fights:
I wasn't suggesting that you don't express dissent. I was suggesting that you could tone it more constructively than sarcastically ranting.
The reason I'm asking (besides the burden of proof, naturally) is that I can't find any evidence on Google. Even the Economist article you link to says:
Whether or not for [Reddit's influence], Mr Ryan subsequently came down against the bill.
So it doesn't even confirm that Reddit was the reason. I'm not saying they weren't, but if they were then it's hardly evidence of "having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly".
Not liking the answer doesn't give you an excuse to make a rage-post about it.
Reddit has become something of a social powerhouse, having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly
I would love to see some evidence of that. Reddit does regularly raise a decent amount of money for charity- that is true. They could raise cash for this guy's election fund, but even Reddit has limits of what it can achieve.