Live data from Hacker News

Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

gizmodo.com

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech.

No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore.

I find this comment to be ignorant and not constructive.

Edit: This user already had this debate in another thread and conceded, then brought it up here again.

Here are some comments from this user to show you what I mean: > It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump

> There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant

> You're not restricting thoughts or ideas you are simply not agreeing to promote it.

And finally, when he conceded it really is about free expression:

> Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago.

I don't appreciate the ad hominen attacks, and I'm not going to debate whether or not this is about free speech with this user.

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#92
I got banned from /r/The_Donald today.

There was an article complaining about the main stream media for criticizing Trump's saying that flag burners should have their citizenship revoked and be jailed, when Hillary Clinton said exactly the same thing in 2005, and citing the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which Clinton co-sponsored.

I'd never heard of that, so took a look at it. It did indeed make flag burning illegal (possible fine and jail time, no stripping of citizenship)--in two specific circumstances.

1. When the primary purpose and intent was to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, or

2. When the flag was stolen from the US or from US lands. E.g., if you stole the flag from a government building and burned it, that flag burning would be illegal. Bringing your own flag to burn, fine (unless the primary purpose and intent was to produce imminent violence).

I posted that information, and noted that this seemed to be written to try to stay within the bounds of allowed restriction on speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). I noted that this was not anywhere near "exactly" the same as what Trump said, which appeared to be just blatantly unconstitutional. That earned the ban.

I asked the moderator that banned me what rule I had violated, since it was not at all apparent to me. Here are their rules:

• Do not violate Sitewide Content Policy

• No Trolling/Concern Trolling

• No Racism/Anti-Semitism

• No Releasing Personal Information or Doxxing

• No Vote Manipulation, Brigading, or Asking for Votes

• No Dissenters/SJWs, this is a pro-Trump subreddit

• No Posts About Being Banned From or Linking To Other Subreddits

• Ban appeals, suggestions, concerns (including sticky choices) go to modmail

• No Posts About Trump Assassination Threats (Send screenshots + Archive.is link to the FBI).

• Please do not behave in a way outside of the subreddit that would reflect poorly on it.

The moderator's answer: "The President Elect's.". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, and cannot ask because he slapped a 72 hour ban on messaging the moderators on me.

I frankly don't know what to make of /r/The_Donald. I've occasionally seen substantive discussion of Trump's proposed policies on there, including criticism, that was up voted and the critics were not banned. But it also seems to be full of complete and utter idiocy. I can't tell if it was supposed to be a serious group that got taken over by the trolls and idiots, or if it was supposed to be a trolling joke group from the start, and the substantive discussion was just from people who had not figured that out yet.

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. "Free speech" as enshrined in the US Constitution is designed to prevent the government from making laws against free expression. Any interpretation applying "free speech protections" to private entities hosting other private entities on their private property is either ideological, or an intense misunderstanding of the law.

I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech; i.e. Google should not be permitted by law to filter and censor search results for speech, no matter how disagreeable it is to you or the Google CEOs. Edit: In other words, no matter whether I like or dislike the 4chan community, an entire community of various forums such as that…

As someone who tried to compete with Google in search, I'm all for Google being permitted to filter anything they like; it's only censorship when a government forces or encourages them to do it. I'm also all for Google having an editorial opinion.... I have my own, and if you like mine better than Google, so be it.

This is the way that free speech has always worked in the US; if you own a printing press, you can print what you like.

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech; i.e. Google should not be permitted by law to filter and censor search results for speech, no matter how disagreeable it is to you or the Google CEOs. Edit: In other words, no matter whether I like or dislike the 4chan community, an entire community of various forums such as that…

> I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech Do you think it should have been unlawful for Reddit to ban Coontown? What would you think to be an appropriate punishment for this proposed crime? A fine? Jail time?

Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#95
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arrant falsehood does tend to gravel people, I suppose. I'm not sure what anyone expects to gain by doubling down on the goodthink echo chamber that's just lost them an election. Emotional comfort, perhaps? I'm not without sympathy for the need - but that's a private matter. Governance in the US is public, and refusing to engage in the process merely cedes the field. Demonizing one's political opponents not only cede…

"One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem"[1] The rise of neonazism in the US is real. To claim otherwise, to imply that it is an "arrant falsehood," is to be purposefully ignorant. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE

Who the hell is Richard Spencer? I had never heard of him until a couple weeks ago. No one I know who claims the label "alt-right" had heard of him until a couple of weeks ago. No one anywhere had heard of him until the media dug him out from under his rock and started shooting arrows into the big bull's eye he helpfully painted on his idiot forehead for them. Were I conspiratorially minded, I'd imagine he might be a false-flag plant. But I'm old enough to know better.

The people I know who claim "alt-right" are not. They're young and full of piss and vinegar. They're also largely quite intelligent and not less well supplied with humanity than anyone else their age. They were quite receptive to the idea that nothing in the world is simple, and that demonizing any group of people en masse is a cheap, lazy, stupid shortcut past a lot of hard thought and the careful application of empathy toward the acknowledgement that compromise and negotiation are necessary toward any modus vivendi that's satisfactory to everyone, or as nearly so as can be managed in the imperfect world we inhabit.

I've been at this for a year now, more or less. It's been slow, difficult, complex, and anything but heroic, as teaching always is. But I'd capitalized on a couple of early successes, favorably impressing some of those among this group who are themselves generally looked up to by most others, and I was having a real effect. I had them thinking, or starting to - critically analyzing the contradictions between the left's claims and its behavior, and distinguishing the desirability of a lot of progressive goals from the counterproductive ways in which the modern progressive movement operates. I had them getting toward ready to start using the brains and the hearts God gave them to work toward a genuinely better world - for everyone - rather than the mirage of the progressive millennium whose pursuit has brought us to the pretty pass whereat we stand.

Of course, that was before the whole godforsaken world started calling them Nazis, sight unseen. How the hell am I supposed to compete with that? They're good kids, but they're kids. If you think it's easy, over a purely textual medium, to outdo "fuck you, you're not my dad", then by all means I invite you to try. And if you want to write them off, fine. That's easy and it's comfortable and it feels good. I get that. I don't even blame you, although I'd like to, because that would be easy too. But I am going to tell you you're making a mistake.

Not that it matters, at this point. In the last few weeks, I've seen my influence go from considerable to just about none. They aren't listening to me any more, because there's nothing in the world as exciting as to fight against injustice - which is exactly how they see it, and considering the way I'm seeing them slandered I don't even think they're wrong. Certainly one bookish old homosexual who counsels analysis and empathy over rash action can't live up to that! So they're going to go their way, and you are going to go yours, and I guess I've wasted a year's worth of the hard work with which the actual left, for whom I hold no love, can't be bothered. Perhaps I should have done better, but for the life of me I can't see how. There's only so much shit you can expect people to eat, and the left long ago passed that mark with those whom it makes its enemies. Little wonder they're starting to sick it up now, and we all have to live with the mess.

(And I see the post's been flagged, which means even the time I've spent writing this comment was wasted, because no one will see it. So it goes. May God and history judge us all more kindly than we deserve.)

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#96
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech Do you think it should have been unlawful for Reddit to ban Coontown? What would you think to be an appropriate punishment for this proposed crime? A fine? Jail time?

Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).

Yea, I think there is a clear distinction. Google inhabits an arguably monopolistic or at least monopolistic-competitive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) space.

Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources.

There are many things we all rely on to compete and succeed. We need to drink water, and we need to be able to trust that the water is safe to drink. If a private company is in charge of water, they should be heavily regulated for that very reason. While you won't die without search engines, you obviously need to use them to reasonably compete for economic survival.

Google has a majority market share, while Bing and Yahoo trail behind, but they could all easily collaborated with or without government to censor, and it would have extreme consequences for the possibility of free expression, giving these corporations a lot of power. Do we want private corporations to have this much power over free expression?

They can also do this without announcing to you that they are currently filtering search results for political reasons (I would be most people don't realize they are already doing this).

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a look at their sub. I couldn't find any hate speech (though I ignored heavily downvoted comments). I'm also suspicious of "coded hate speech" since that concept grants license to attach racist connotations to just about any sentence. Is there a post on r/The_Donald that stands out to you as being hate speech?

I was curious. So I looked. This was the top non-stickied post I saw: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5fltt9/amy_schu... To save others the trouble, the title of the post is "Amy Schumer And Lena Dunham Are Finally Leaving The Country" and the image is of two orca whales being prepared for transport. The very non-coded message is that these two women are "as fat as whales" and furthermore that they deser…

Is it illegal to call people fat in this country now? Serious question. At first I was inclined to ridicule your position, but I have to wonder how far the 'hate crime' legislation has progressed.

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#98
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).

Yea, I think there is a clear distinction. Google inhabits an arguably monopolistic or at least monopolistic-competitive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition ) space. Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources. There are many things we all rely on to compet…

You're replying to kyledrake, correct?

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore.

I find this comment to be ignorant and not constructive. Edit: This user already had this debate in another thread and conceded, then brought it up here again. Here are some comments from this user to show you what I mean: > It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant > You'r…

I don't see what I conceded exactly? The post I responded to claimed that reddit was claiming to be about free speech when spez has openly stated on many occasions that it wasn't originally and isn't now and that it only became more open to it because they were lazing about policing. That has nothing to do with my other statements nor does it contradict any of them.

Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart

#100
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your having a website assumes common carrier and net neutrality protections.

I hear this argument a lot. From what I've seen, it's clear that ISPs are common carriers. I haven't seen informed legal opinion that this extends to websites. I'd be very interested in learning of some. Do you have any?

If ISPs are not bound to CC laws and refuse to carry traffic from your web server, you don't really have much of a website, do you?
Post reply on HN