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

Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 407 posts

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#331

Post by tscs37 »

pwinnski wrote: post #329
tscs37 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you can't take it down? What if they end up on Tor? And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate. It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.

Refusing to provide a free platform for them to publish their thoughts is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to, or even similar to, the "extermination" committed by Nazis, and desired by their modern adherents.

The way it was phrased, it definitely was. And especially as a german I am not comfortable with some of the solutions proposed in this entire thread.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#332

Post by supercanuck »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #313
52-6F-62 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is impartial in that you won't be removed for discussion in good faith, though you may be disagreed right to the bottom. Spiteful trolling usually gets down-voted to hell as well (thankfully). A little too often I see hyperbolic vitriol and shitposting persist, and though I don't mind the odd gag, it's not warranted. It clogs the thread as much as anything else. That subreddit is impartial in itself. It's cons…

>you won't be removed for discussion in good faith, >though you may be disagreed right to the bottom. Is there a difference? Both actions basically say "this speech is not worthy of consideration around here". The difference between making it still available to serve as a warning or removing it entirely is not meaningful IMO.

Downvoting says your opinion is unpopular. Banning means your opinion is unwelcome.

There is a difference. You are being obtuse.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#333

Post by creaghpatr »

anon1385 wrote: post #216
nilkn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from coming into power. And if the Nazi party did come into power, you would not expect there to be impartiality in any major discussion forums in the nation. Example: A lot of folks are flabbergasted at /r/The_Donald, but I've always contended that that subreddit exists and developed into its current culture prec…

I'm not at all convinced that this actually works. It's a nice liberal idea and it would be great if it worked but the evidence doesn't look good. The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. It backfired massively. I think the biggest problem is that it only works when the other side is willing to play by the rules of the game. If the opposition…

So you are in favor of fascism as long as it takes your side and smothers the 'awful views' and 'blatant liars' of the opposition, as defined by you, I assume.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#334

Post by fhood »

stale2002 wrote: post #288
fhood wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. Second, society has always been self censoring, but the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored, and as a result has managed to avoid turning into a ce…

I don't see the words "first amendment" anywhere in his post, so I have no idea why you are bringing up a completely irrelevant topic. He was talking about censorship done by powerful organizations. Literally nothing to do with the constitution of the USA.

> Social media firms are thus following in the path of other media firms and are (like The NY Times) putting ad revenue ahead of the first amendment. This isn’t unexpected, these firms are the “tories” of our day.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#335

Post by s73ver_ »

nilkn wrote: post #242
anon1385 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not at all convinced that this actually works. It's a nice liberal idea and it would be great if it worked but the evidence doesn't look good. The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. It backfired massively. I think the biggest problem is that it only works when the other side is willing to play by the rules of the game. If the opposition…

> The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. Isn't this just an example of the same phenomenon I was describing? Sure, they gave him airtime, but it was virtually never positive. There was a tremendous lack of impartiality in the media's coverage of the two candidates. This led to the idea of "fake news" and ended up boosting his supporters even…

Trump did very few positive things, so I don't think it's really a fault of "impartiality" if the coverage of him isn't that positive.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#336

Post by flunhat »

pwinnski wrote: post #329
tscs37 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you can't take it down? What if they end up on Tor? And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate. It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.

Refusing to provide a free platform for them to publish their thoughts is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to, or even similar to, the "extermination" committed by Nazis, and desired by their modern adherents.

Save your energy - they just think that reddit banning a pro-racism community or a internet infra company refusing to serve a neo-nazi website basically means that we live in an authoritarian society.

Never mind that the slippery slope argument is a known logical fallacy, never mind that these companies are private entities and can do what they like, never mind that if Nazis ever gain power they will literally, physically exterminate people they don't like, never mind that people are still free to express their own views on public platforms, never mind all of that. Ugh.

The only consolation is that these communities are being censored, taken offline, and driven onto platforms where they cannot reach nearly as many people as before, and that this will continue to happen, no matter what HN libertarians say. And that the tech community is not nearly a-ok with hosting racist speech as HN would make you believe. We are moving forward, and what you're seeing is a last-ditch reaction to pro-racism, neo-nazi communities being marginalized.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#337

Post by s73ver_ »

gadders wrote: post #198
lostlogin wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Milos case there is soliciting views of neo nazis and video examples of defending child rapists. Quite apart from not wanting your company associated with that content there is probably a legal need to distance ones self to avoid litigation in some countries.

He made a joke about his own experiences as a young gay man on the Joe Rogan podcast. He has continually distanced himself from the Alt-Right and neo-Nazis. He has also recently married his fiance, who is a person of colour.

"He has continually distanced himself from the Alt-Right and neo-Nazis"

When?

"He has also recently married his fiance, who is a person of colour."

And? Because a man marries a woman, they can't be misogynist?

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#338

Post by s73ver_ »

stale2002 wrote: post #328
s73ver_ wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's a very uncharitable description of their view.

My point is that he has not recognized the dangers of his viewpoint. It is dangerous to believe "oh, I don't care what an oppressive government does in order to stop Nazis" because a whole lot of people are being called Nazis these days. The same exact thing happened during the red scare. It was not JUST the revolutionary communists who were literally trying to overthrow the government that got oppressed. A whole lot…

No, I don't believe so. They're not people that "the police just said were Nazis". They're people who self-identify as white nationalists and Nazis.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#340

Post by nilkn »

s73ver_ wrote: post #335
nilkn wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US media thought they were doing everybody a favour by giving Trump loads of airtime to expose his awful views. Isn't this just an example of the same phenomenon I was describing? Sure, they gave him airtime, but it was virtually never positive. There was a tremendous lack of impartiality in the media's coverage of the two candidates. This led to the idea of "fake news" and ended up boosting his supporters even…

Trump did very few positive things, so I don't think it's really a fault of "impartiality" if the coverage of him isn't that positive.

I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making. If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that. No editorializing should be necessary. There shouldn't be any need for him to receive 2-3x as much coverage as Clinton. There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate.

What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?

Post reply on HN