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

231–240 of 348 posts

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

#231

Post by gonmf »

gkya wrote: post #222
gonmf wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll let you on on a secret that you aren't thought in elementary school. Real human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Things like the right for your pursuit of happiness and freedom of thought and speech. All supposed rights that require other people's labor or permission (health, education, shelter) are bogus, they are just organizations moving goalposts. Real rights are not bestowed. Bogus rights are to not be…

Well I hope then that you end up in a society like what you describe, where there are no bogus rights. All the best.

I know I won't, it is too far away I would probably not be alive even it came to pass.

My point was that at least some people recognize that these rights are made up and want to be in a place where they may be offended, they may be riled up, and laugh, and be insulted, and be seriously challenged in their beliefs. We are the smartest known species in the world and yet most of us make such a darn effort not to upset our childhood-imprinted beliefs.

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

#232

Post by veddox »

gonmf wrote: post #218
gkya wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No right is limitless. I don't know about other countries but in elementary school where I am we're taught a person's freedom is limited by the freedoms of others , and freedom of speech is certainly limited by other people's human rights, including the right to human dignity. AFAIK the declaration of human rights include that right. There is no freedom without responsibility, and that's why people who aren't or can'…

I'll let you on on a secret that you aren't thought in elementary school. Real human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Things like the right for your pursuit of happiness and freedom of thought and speech. All supposed rights that require other people's labor or permission (health, education, shelter) are bogus, they are just organizations moving goalposts. Real rights are not bestowed. Bogus rights are to not be…

And just how are you going to pursue happiness or use your freedom of speech if you do not have the ability to defend yourself? A healthy body to stand your ground with? An education that enables you to express what you want to say?

You are not advocating human rights, you are advocating social Darwinism in its worst form.

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

#233

Post by gonmf »

veddox wrote: post #232
gonmf wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll let you on on a secret that you aren't thought in elementary school. Real human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Things like the right for your pursuit of happiness and freedom of thought and speech. All supposed rights that require other people's labor or permission (health, education, shelter) are bogus, they are just organizations moving goalposts. Real rights are not bestowed. Bogus rights are to not be…

And just how are you going to pursue happiness or use your freedom of speech if you do not have the ability to defend yourself? A healthy body to stand your ground with? An education that enables you to express what you want to say? You are not advocating human rights, you are advocating social Darwinism in its worst form.

I am not advocating. It's just what we have. Decreeing we have the right to health doesn't make diseases disappear.

I am advocating not calling this a discussion about human rights but about human wants.

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

#235

Post by veddox »

wildmusings wrote: post #186
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…

> 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 jurisdiction over anything but their own little niche of the Internet (which absolutely nobody is forcing you to visit if you don't want to) - so why are you upset when they ask you, with…

> unless they provide broadly similar guarantees that different points of view can be expressed.

Note, once again, that Imzy does allow this. They just ask you to remain polite while you do so. (Which appears to me to be a reasonable request.)

> No one is arguing for allowing death threats.

I didn't say anybody was. I am saying that they are being made anyway, and that that is one of the things we need to stop if we want a culture conducive to a civilized online discourse.

> When German police can arrest people for having the wrong opinion, something is badly wrong.

I agree, but you misunderstand the difference between free speech and free thought. German police cannot arrest you for holding the wrong opinion, they can arrest you for voicing that opinion in a way that wrongfully infringes on the honour and dignity of another person. (This is the basis for libel and slander laws.)

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

#236

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

overgard wrote: post #173
victorhooi wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

> What would you do in real-life? Would you make a mockery of them? Or would you simply ignore them? I guess it depends on the context right? I remember in college there used to be these religious fanatics that would loudly berate strangers in the plaza; whenever someone would walk up and try to "debate" them, it would just make things worse, but sometimes someone would just say something really funny and the mood of…

It all makes sense, however i don't like metaphors that compare people with opinions to pests (insects don't have opinions afaik), a metaphor like this is dehumanizing your opponents - it is a very bad metaphor.

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

#237

Post by veddox »

psyc wrote: post #211
veddox wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't disagree. But it suggests an extremely low opinion of the intelligence of the audience to point it out. There's no need to point out to a civilized adult, especially professional, educated adults prevalent on a site like this, that freedom doesn't include violating others. And it's a strawman, because nobody is ever arguing that freedom includes violating others. What's usually being argued is whether a speci…

I was not addressing the audience in general, but the user whose comment I was referring too, specifically this statement:

> anything less than absolute is something less than "free."

Now maybe I misunderstood the poster, but that does sound pretty much like what I was talking about... If you felt patronized, my apologies, but my remark was not aimed at you.

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

#238

Post by gonmf »

Kudos for Imzy but unfortunately (imo) these kind of initiatives are accompanied by attacks to websites that don't further restrict their users speech in a manner that is more savory for the media or politicians in question.

These discussions about free speech always remind me of an event of the movie Amistad, which I will surmise very briefly:

A number of people are sold into slavery, and in attempting to free themselves they kill their captors, being imprisoned and put to trial shortly after.

The movie raises some very interesting questions (and the story it is based on many more I bet), but what I find relevant here is that one person may say that homicide is the ultimate crime, and the next that freedom is, instead. One may argue that since the law of the land allowed for slavery, supported by the majority of the population, it then supplanted their right for freedom.

I think the moral of the event was that the slaves rights were inalienable. They were not to be given or taken away. Freedom of speech can also not be legislated upon, you can ban people but they will just move on to exercise it some other place or way. And freedom to insult or berate or "troll" is still speech, it conveys meaning, it cannot be stopped from human spirit no matter how much the majority deem it bad taste.

You can down vote now.

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

#239

Post by pessimizer »

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…

> 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 debate being had.

I don't think this a good citation for the point you're trying to make. The problem is the concept of "both viewpoints" rather than many viewpoints, and that they get extremely irrational people to debate against slightly irrational people, and the viewers think that's the entire range of discourse and they have to choose somewhere within that continuum to fall themselves. (Usually right smack in the middle based on the average person's trust in the "law of averages.")

The problem with Fox is a narrowing of opinions to a range acceptable by management, not any diversity of ideas.

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

#240

Post by cooper12 »

vivekd wrote: post #208
intortus wrote: post #114

Hate speech, bullying, none of that shit needs to be protected speech. It's not as delicate or complicated as people who generally aren't on the receiving end of it try to make it out to be.

You're right, in many cases, hate speech and bullying are obvious and can be easily spotted. But there are always grey areas and disagreements where eradicating hate speech and bullying can also end up getting rid of speech with valid political dimensions. One sort of obvious case where important speech was classified as harmful is facebook's recent spat with the prime minister of Norwary over them censoring the famo…

That was a historical photograph, not "hate speech or bullying". Also, how can you say "eradicating hate speech and bullying can also end up getting rid of speech with valid political dimensions" with a straight face?
Post reply on HN