Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 348 posts

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#161

Post by victorhooi »

overgard wrote: post #140
veddox wrote: post #74

I am staggered by the amount of people here who object to Imzy's "Be Nice"-policy on the basis that it limits free speech. To me that seems to be a rather flawed argumentation: a) The First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, explicitly does so in a political context ("Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"). Imzy is not the US Congress, they don't have jurisdict…

Well, lets say you know someone who is a legit flat earther. You're not going to change their mind, because such a belief is unreasonable, but if you attempt to reason with them you elevate their social status and accidentally lend credence to them. This is the Fox News "fair and balanced" model -- if you give equal time to both viewpoints, even if one viewpoint is nuts, people will assume that there's a rational deb…

What would you do in real-life? Would you make a mockery of them? Or would you simply ignore them?

I find a lot of people (on both sides) will do things online behind the shield of anonymity they wouldn't otherwise in real life.

I find this behaviour cowardly.

Would you confront these people in real life, and mock them to their faces? I suspect a lot of people who do it online wouldn't in real life (if for no other reason than they'd get punched in the face).

I'm not saying we can't argue with people, or be direct - however, there are lines you don't cross (and I feel Reddit often crosses those lines). You can be upfront, and honest about your beliefs without being a jerk.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#162

Post by jasode »

makomk wrote: post #155
jasode wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For example, one could imagine a world where the social norm was that services embodied some more generalized idea of free speech, and people are reluctant to use services that don't do this because one day it's likely to be used against them. Ok, I'm having trouble parsing what you wrote. I also looked at your link to see how it relates. Tell me if I interpreted your hypothetical scenario correctly: Suppose we have…

Honestly, I was more thinking about the layer of abstraction above individual communities like OrganicMothers.com and AnythingGoesMothering.com - the one made up of shared services like Reddit and Facebook that are used to establish communities, since they're harder to avoid. But even at that level, speech-restrictive websites can certainly be worrying. For example, anti-vaccination ideas are likely to be popular wit…

>be a lot friendlier if they banned criticism of mothers' choices not to vaccinate their kids. Can you perhaps see how this might not be socially desirable?

Yes I do, but only because you cherry-picked an example that seems to be an obvious benefit.

I want to emphasize again that true free speech includes everything you don't like and all stupid opinions so you can't isolate good examples and ignore bad ones.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#163

Post by nkurz »

dang wrote: post #109
rch wrote: post #73

Curious why this was flagged.

Users flagged it. They don't tell us why, so we don't know why. It may have been the title, so we changed it to the subtitle.

It may have been the title, so we changed it to the subtitle.

Switching titles based on flags doesn't sound like a very efficient approach. Maybe you could add a text box or a pulldown for a private comment to the moderators when flagging? Requesting a reason for a flag doesn't seem like too much of a burden, and seems like it would make you much more productive when reviewing. And as a user, it would be nice to have a way to clearly flag "dupes", "broken links", "typo in title", etc. without worrying about being misinterpreted. Would also be nice to be able to suggest alternative titles or URL's in some easy "out of band" manner rather than in a comment or email.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#164

Post by DanBC »

rmc wrote: post #91
yummyfajitas wrote: post #28

I really like the attitude of the voat founders expressed in this article: Has the fatpeoplehate group been hard to deal with? This group posted an image of us and called us fat. Instead of removing the image and banning the entire group, we decided to change our lives... I wish this attitude were more common in the world.

That might work if someone is overweight. Now, what if someone posts a message saying "kill urself faggot"

> That might work if someone is overweight

We know it doesn't.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#165

Post by jasode »

davidivadavid wrote: post #160
jasode wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2) Not sure why that follows at all. Because marginalized or fringe opinions already have freedom of speech at the level of ICANN DNS (get a domain name) and the ISP (pay for internet connection and virtual server to host webpages). E.g., if you really really really want to write a webpage about the benefits of child sex, you can get a domain called ChildSexIsGood.com. Host your controversial content (text not pics)…

1) But free speech doesn't entitle you to an audience? Not sure why you're making that leap. It's free speech regardless of the existence of an audience. 2) Sure. And people read the fraction of the NYT they do want to read. And they pay for the part they don't want to read too, because it is happily packaged with the rest. There could also be other business models that involve other third parties than advertisers. W…

>Not sure why you're making that leap. It's free speech regardless of the existence of an audience.

To clarify, I'm arguing the way others argue so if doesn't seem logical to you, I totally agree!

When you tell people who are censored on places like Facebook to just go make their own website, they'll respond with the analogy: "freedom to shout opinions in my own living room where nobody else can hear it is NOT FREE SPEECH!"

Using that logic, that's why they insist putting the "public space" label on Facebook/reddit/twitter. It's not good enough that DNS+ISP is the "public space". Instead, it must be somebody else's website that already has an audience of millions.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#166

Post by marchenko »

mabbo wrote: post #44

The only internet community that I've ever seen achieve a set of rules that are followed by the community has been somethingawful.com. And while there's lots of criticism you can lay on them, they've maintained a culture and community for nearly two decades. They did this by making accounts to comment cost money, a one-time $10 fee. If you troll, you get banned and you need to pay $10 again to get your account back.…

Metafilter has a similar model, and the community there is fairly orderly and respectful. I have however detected a reduction in ideological diversity over time.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#167

Post by gtaylor »

matt4077 wrote: post #143
aaron695 wrote: post #18

I guess most of the world could live in safe spaces like this? But for the creators and doers it's horrific. We move forward by being challenged. That includes everything. (until AI has the ability to filter out things that challenge but don't move us forward)

Have you actually /been/ to reddit in the last year? The idea that anything of value is created by this raging mob of hateful teenagers with too much free time is laughable. FFS, they've just spent a month riling each other up about a Clinton/Podesta pedophile ring operating out of an italian restaurant. That may be "challenging" for some of them (because letters etc.), but it's not the stuff the next breakthrough in…

Can you further define "they"? Reddit has hundreds of thousands of communities in it. It seems like you are generalizing the actions of a tiny subset to the whole user base.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#168

Post by veddox »

psyc wrote: post #119
veddox wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an extremely loose definition of freedom. Ever heard the dictum "One man's freedom ends where another's begins"? Or, as somebody once put it: "My freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins." Liberty for all is only attainable when all restrict their individual liberty to accommodate others. If that isn't the foundation of your society, "homo homini lupus" is what you get.

> "My freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins." Ever heard it? How could we ever escape it? I've been reading this smug, patronizing sentence on the Internet for 20 years. I've come to believe that this formulation is so important to the people who say it, because they know they're exceptionally punchable.

Hm, you have honestly intrigued me. How is that a "smug, patronizing sentence"? Could you imagine any society worth living in that is not based on this rule?

To me, respecting another person's freedom is the only way to ever get anywhere close to a society that offers "liberty and justice for all". Can you offer an alternative approach?

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#169

Post by morganvachon »

veddox wrote: post #74

I am staggered by the amount of people here who object to Imzy's "Be Nice"-policy on the basis that it limits free speech. To me that seems to be a rather flawed argumentation: a) The First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, explicitly does so in a political context ("Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"). Imzy is not the US Congress, they don't have jurisdict…

I can't upvote you enough. I've always likened Internet forums to having guests in my home. If I, as a forum owner, invite you into my home, you are expected to abide by the house rules. If my house rules allow you to destroy the furniture, insult my other guests, and generally raise hell, I won't yell at you for it. But if my rules forbid such activity, I'm well within my rights to kick your ass out. Free speech has nothing to do with it; you chose to enter my realm, and in my realm I am the king.

The only way freedom of speech enters into it, is if it's a government run forum. Last I checked, Reddit, Voat, Imzy, and others are not government sites, and there is no free speech violation if the forum owners decide to bounce a misbehaving person.

Re: Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

#170

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #123
glenra wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump didn't actually "mock a disabled person", at least not for their disability. Trump does do sort of a stammering spastic schtick in speeches to poke fun at people who have had to retrench after a misstatement. But: (1) Trump does that same impression for anyone who has had to correct a misstatement about Trump. (2) The time Trump was accused of doing it to mock a disabled person, his impression was the exact opp…

Greeeat! The guy who is now spokesperson worldwide for all of us here in the USA, does a spastic schtick all the time and doesn't have a clue why that would be amazingly insulting and demeaning.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN