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

381–390 of 407 posts

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

#381

Post by Danihan »

tscs37 wrote: post #367
Danihan wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective. Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away. Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.

The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

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

#382

Post by dragonwriter »

emodendroket wrote: post #380
dragonwriter wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not being familiar with /r/atheism, I wasn't sure if you actually meant what you said and we're drawing an invalid conclusion based on the popular portrayal of libertarians (at least in the US) as anti-bear, or if you meant specifically right-libertarians. Had I been familiar with /r/atheism, I might have been able to guess which of those was correct.

For future reference, when people say "libertarian" without further clarification, at least in American politics, they almost always mean right-libertarian.

IME, the split is much closer than you suggest between people meaning right-libertarian and not realizing there are more and meaning libertarian more generally, but perhaps associating that with opposition to the left (exluding the use of “Libertarian”—capital “L” in writing, at least when not sloppy—to mean “member of the Libertarian Party", which itself leans right—but not exclusively, I've met left-libertarians who are in the LP.)

But thanks for your “help”.

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

#383

Post by j_s »

adekok wrote: post #369
j_s wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28#5f56 I think this observation summarizes even this thread: > do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people I was looking for any attempt at a neutral-ish video of the incident but came up empty.

The video taken by the "harassers" at vidcon seems pretty clear. Were they forbidden from attending vidcon because of their alleged history of harassment of the panelists? No . Do they get kicked out of vidcon for violating the rules? No . Does the panelist violate the rules by calling them out and insulting them publicly? Yes . So... let's say Sargon and his ilk are terrible people. Shall we destroy the rule of law…

I tried to avoid gigantic quotes from the Vidcon Medium post I linked previously, but I'm assuming you read this:

Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things:

1. He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

2. He apologized to her for not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

> If we're not going to follow the rule of law, then why pretend to have rules?

Rules are an imperfect tool. People behaving badly while carefully staying within the limit of the rules often run afoul of the intentions of the rule makers; it boils down to trusting those responsible for rule interpretation and enforcement.

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

#384

Post by tdb7893 »

alexanderstears wrote: post #107
tdb7893 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard because people will always be mad when their stuff gets taken down and it's hard to tell where the line is. A good example on reddit is that r/the_Donald is often very racist, islamophobic, and misogynistic (and it's not a small portion, often the top comment on a post will be something that is islamophobic) but they don't see themselves as that way. I don't think they should ban that sub but even being imp…

Can you define "Islamophobia"? It's a serious question, I don't disagree that there's some prejudice against Islam on the western right. However, a lot of the top posts are ultimately factual claims. Sweden has a rise in grenade attacks and sexual assaults, British police looked the other way when Muslim Men formed a pedophilia group, most terrorism is motivated by Islam, and there are Islamists whose purported goal…

I don't think facts themselves are ever really the issue. My opinion is that in how they cherry-pick facts and events to highlight there is an implicit generalization about a group, and I object to that generalization, not the facts themselves. People on the subreddit will often give specific facts or events which by themselves are true but with how they are presented will imply that most Muslims are violent and it's the underlying implication that I would object to. I just went to the subreddit and it was pretty easy to find an article where I think the comments crossed into the territory of 'islamophobic' https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7djxqv/three_as.... I just

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

#385

Post by sintaxi »

tscs37 wrote: post #342
flunhat wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 , phys…

>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. No, I think it's unhealthy and may lead to such a society, not that we live in such. Do not confuse a fear of a possible future with an irrational fear of a present that isn't. >Never mind that the slippery slope argument is a known logi…

people who think slippery-slope is a fallacy have never fed a wild animal food.

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

#386

Post by sintaxi »

adekok wrote: post #281
ribosometronome wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the organizers did nothing. The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years to come and monopolize the front seats of that panel. You would think someone so concerned about the harassment of a key figure supporting the GamerGate movement would actually report the situation in its entirety. It's almost as all of this might not be a…

> The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years I've looked... is there any proof of this? - phone calls from those people to Anita - emails... - twitter messages - facebook messages... If there are, I'll be happy to label them harassers. But until then... I have this weird idea that the rule of law is more important than feelings The…

It wouldn't at all surprise me if Sarkeesian sends herself anonymized harassment. Its a valuable currency for the advancement of her career.

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

#387

Post by sintaxi »

zimpenfish wrote: post #360
tambienben wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your brazen support of censorship is troubling.

If my earnest support for silencing Nazis, the alt-right, PUAs, MRAs, climate change deniers, woo peddlers et al troubles you, perhaps you need to start examining your own beliefs and figure out why you don't want them silenced.

Censorship doesn't work. We must beat poor ideas with good ones. What happens if they are the ones who end up with the power to silence?

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

#388

Post by Danihan »

ABCLAW wrote: post #353
Danihan wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective. Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away. Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.

The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

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

#389

Post by abiox »

dingo_bat wrote: post #319
abiox wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a reddit sub so i don't have any expectation, but fwiw, "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

> "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective". I think it absolutely does.

as i see it:

"unbiased" is, if hearing is given to a position, it is either not represented with favor or disfavor, or any expressions of favor and disfavor are combined in such quantity that there is no obvious position with respect to (un)favor.

"objective" is, if hearing is given to a position, it is discussed in terms of empirical data that persists regardless of subjective views or interpretations.

"balance" coverage is giving hearing to all positions, no matter how idiotic or inane. "balance" is giving nazis and jews equal airtime to argue their views on whether the holocaust is a good idea. "balance" is rapists and rape victims debating the merits of rape.

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

#390

Post by enord »

wolco wrote: post #275
enord wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some…

Being intolerant of ideas makes you intolerant even if you classify those ideas as good or bad. Being intolerant isn't always a bad thing either. Everything is not black or white. Move the pieces around and the minority become the majority in different contexts.

I don't have time to socratically convince you of it, so i'll just spell it out: you can't tolerate intolerance of groups, persons or behaviors (that don't infringe on other people's liberty) in a _democracy_ because it will undermine the legitimacy and thus participation of said group or person within the democracy itself.

I realize that "intolerance of intolerance" is paradoxical in nature, but common sense and a little charity in interpretation goes a long way.

Post reply on HN