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

241–250 of 348 posts

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

#241

Post by paulmd »

veddox wrote: post #149
matt4077 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a large part the difference is what comedians call "punching up" vs. "punching down" – Making fun of born-again christians is a bit more legitimate because they're 40% of the (US) population and have an insane amount of power compared to the hardcore atheists insulting them. It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority. It's also a bit more…

> It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority. Hm, interesting that you choose the example going that way. Not to deny that Muslims face discrimination in the West, but have you had a look at what life is like for Christians in Muslim countries?

All you're pointing out here is that Muslims are capable of punching down when they're in power too. This is (a) not particularly insightful, and (b) irrelevant to his US-based examples of punching up vs punching down.

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

#242

Post by cooper12 »

gonmf wrote: post #228
danols wrote: post #176

Am I limiting free speech if I kick out some racist, hate spewing bully from my house because I don't want to listen to their nonsense? No. It is just common sense and how the 'real' world works. Why should the online world be any different? If there are a few destructive people affecting the experience of the majority lets just kick them out and not deal with them anymore. Problem solved. They don't have the right t…

I take it you agree with kicking out the minority on websites that prefer racist, hate spewing bullies then? I take it you wouldn't suggest they be forcefully closed down or anything? As long as the majority is happy, you wouldn't oppose a state to kick out their minorities right? Consensus rule is the right way to go right? All of these questions are meant in a sarcastic tone.

Quite a false equivalence you built up there friendo. :)

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

#243

Post by offa »

Retra wrote: post #137
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'…

Elementary school is not the place to learn about the subtleties of human cultural conflict.

I must have been doing something wrong then... Elementary school was exactly where the subtleties of human conflict first appeared to me. IMO, it's as good of a place as any to have some of your first (and due to that, perhaps the most important) encounters with what it means to exist within a society.

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

#244

Post by pessimizer »

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…

There's no such things as "real rights." Rights are granted to people by the entities willing to defend those people in the exercise of those rights. There's no "real" right to a pursuit of happiness, there's no "real" right to freedom of thought, and there's no "real" right to freedom of speech.

> Real rights are to defend yourself, stand your ground and use your body how you want.

A right that you grant to yourself is called an "ability."

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

#245

Post by gonmf »

cooper12 wrote: post #242
gonmf wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you agree with kicking out the minority on websites that prefer racist, hate spewing bullies then? I take it you wouldn't suggest they be forcefully closed down or anything? As long as the majority is happy, you wouldn't oppose a state to kick out their minorities right? Consensus rule is the right way to go right? All of these questions are meant in a sarcastic tone.

Quite a false equivalence you built up there friendo. :)

Where is the false equivalence? You talk about common sense and majority knows best. What am I missing, are there some specific things upon which the majority cannot decide upon?

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

#246

Post by wyager »

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…

> Why does free speech mean that we get to insult and demean each other

This doesn't pertain to Imzy as all, but asking this question seriously is a very strong indicator that you're completely missing the point of absolute legal free speech protection.

"Oh, you're saying bad things about the current government? That's pretty insulting and demeaning towards all these nice politicians and government employees! To the jail with you!"

Does it really seem reasonable to you that that saying something "insulting" should be met with force at the hands of the government? That's as anti-liberal as any Sharia law-based Islamic nation that kills people for blashpheming Mohammad.

I agree that it is within any website's authority to determine precisely what its users are allowed to say. I just disagree with your weakening of the concept of free speech. Germany does not have a tradition of free speech in any meaningful sense, so their law is not a great example.

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

#247

Post by gonmf »

pessimizer wrote: post #244
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…

There's no such things as "real rights." Rights are granted to people by the entities willing to defend those people in the exercise of those rights. There's no "real" right to a pursuit of happiness, there's no "real" right to freedom of thought, and there's no "real" right to freedom of speech. > Real rights are to defend yourself, stand your ground and use your body how you want. A right that you grant to yourself…

That is false, or maybe just semantics. Imagine an enslaved man. I believe he has the right to attempt to free himself from slavery. By your definition he doesn't because those around him haven't granted him that right. In my definition he may or may not have the ability to actually free himself or attempt to.

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

#248

Post by wyager »

gdulli wrote: post #158
jdavis703 wrote: post #26

I signed up on their website, went through the onboarding flow and joined a couple of communities. Without them knowing anything about my political leanings they suggested a bunch of anti-Trump communities. I guess they're not trying to solve the "filter bubble" issue, but rather becoming the Reddit for liberals? I mean it's their business for them to run as they like, but I hope somebody can take us past the Breitba…

In 2008 and 2012 respectively, neither the McCain nor Romney campaigns were associated with rampant fraud, demagoguery, and indecency. I didn't vote for either of them, but I didn't believe that they were terrible. The Trump campaign earned a certain image not because it was the Republican ticket but because of its unique properties. There's a price to be paid for that, period. Such as, a lot of communities won't wan…

> rampant fraud

To be clear, you are accusing the Republican campaign of this?

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

#249

Post by zhemao »

PurgingPanda wrote: post #17

I'd say censorship is a bigger issue than trolls. Creating safe spaces to protect you from other views isn't going to make them go away.

Well, it's a good thing that Imzy is not that. Have a look at their community policy.

https://www.imzy.com/community-policy

Most of those things are also ostensibly prohibited on Reddit. It's just that Reddit's admins don't care to enforce those rules until there's significant controversy.

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

#250

Post by Joeboy »

veddox wrote: post #235
wildmusings wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.)

It's an extremely reasonable request, but its enforcement is unlikely to be even-handed. In general people are very likely to allow their personal biases to influence the application of the politeness rule.

It's fairly easy to think of examples where "different points of view" may be perceived as personal attacks. Eg. I've seen a few commenters here suggesting that reddit is a terrible place inhabited by terrible people. I don't think it should be forbidden for people to express that opinion, even though it's not really possible to do so without risking offence.

Post reply on HN