Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t this a slippery slope argument?
It's the only argument that reliably gets trotted out whenever someone mentions curbing hate speech.
Because it's true.
Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
91–100 of 407 posts
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. That is a dangerous road. Today they might be taking down otherwise legal content with which advertisers do not want to be associated. Tomorrow they are being asked to remove content with which advertisers disagree. Suddenly my 1000-word rant on the evils of Microsoft's latest OS is being taken down. Rather than being a free space for discussion, red…
Isn’t this a slippery slope argument?
'Slippery slope' arguments are not inherently invalid.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#93Reddit is swarming with Russian bots and they still have a whole network of white supremecy and various hate subs, operating both out in the open and ‘quarantined’.
Is it really easier to believe that Russian bots are behind the lion's share of this content rather than other westerners?
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?
There are plenty of left-wing subreddits with equal measures of vitriol. Somehow they avoid earning the same opprobrium that the right-wing ones do. This apparent double standard creates the appearance of bias.
Feel free to provide examples of the double standard.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#95I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…
Is stupid to expect ad-driven media properties to be neutral. Just dumb.
Reddit is an ad-supported system. The moment you take advertising, you are now required to maintain editorial control. And that's fine. Advertisers have strict content guidelines, things like: no blood, no violence, no gore, no porn, etc..
Do you think a company like Calvin Klein is going to want to put their fashion ad next to an image of a dead kid? Yah that's not happening.
Instead of setting the expectation on corporations, we need the public to understand what their support of ad-driven media properties mean. And that it's fine.
Reddit isn't a public service. It's not a charity. It's an ad-driven media property, like a TV show or magazine. That's it.
And if conservatives can't accept advertising-based media, they need to find some other outlet to express their views.
Let me put it another way: Do you really think Calvin Klein is going to want to put ads next to images of dead kids? Is that your expectation? If not, how do you expect Reddit to become a profitable company?
Of course, Reddit & Twitter isn't going to state that they're an ad-driven media property, since they want to "appear" unbiased and neutral, but that's completely false. They are absolutely responsible to their advertisers as their core business plan.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#96I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…
Why should anyone remain politically neutral no matter what? What if the Nazi party came into power?
Impartiality can impart political bias if the facts happen to lean one way or the other, as they will from time to time.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#97Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye". See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s This kind of censorship is nice, until it turns into censorship of "things the company dislikes", versus "bad / illegal things." See recent vidcon for an example. Despite rules against harassment, a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee…
Except I don't think Vidcon is run by YouTube as much as it is run by VlogBrothers
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?
The larger point is that TPTB tend to ban groups that want communists thrown from helicopters, but are absolutely fine with groups that want fascists thrown from helicopters. There's a fundamental imbalance in how the standard is applied, and it's clearly ideological.
You are supposed to throw fascists from helicopters.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody can agree on what "politically neutral" means, it's not a useful criterion. Every subreddit listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti... could be argued to be political and protected under "political neutrality".
> Nobody can agree on what "politically neutral" means, it's not a useful criterion. It's pretty easy for a tech platform to be politically neutral. All you need are objective rules for how content "get to the top" and equal opportunity for whatever system is in place to be abused. That last one is the problem though. Regardless of which side is doing it, there's a sense of unfairness felt by the other side when they…
Reddit isn't a "tech platform". It's an advertising-based media property, like a magazine or TV show.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics wasn't always like that ... it's now a counter-balance to The_Donald. Hard to remain "neutral" when right next door there's not even an attempt.
Why would r/The_Donald be neutral? It's literally called "The_Donald". It's like expecting r/hillaryclinton to be neutral. r/politics is for all political discussion, but it's just a left-wing echo chamber where ideological conformity and cognitive dissonance are at their peak. This is coming from a 2x Obama voter and lifelong liberal btw.
r/politics is just a name - like the thousands of others on Reddit. The sub reddit is made up of and only exists because of the subscribers / mods wants/wishes. Just because it has a "generic" name, does not mean it needs to be "fair and balanced" /s