31–40 of 413 posts
> Migration was common, both to similar subreddits (i.e. overtly racist ones) and tangentially related ones (r/The_Donald). Tangentially-related? I'm pretty sure this crosses the line of being tangentially-related to racism. https://i.redd.it/ua1ukmoi8ls21.jpg
An emergent ethical concern keeps bugging me in these situations. Of course, private companies reserve the right to refuse business and services to whomever they want. In a healthy society this is no problem. But if we slide towards a dystopian future where Big Tech is basically an oligarchy governing important chunks of society without due process and the democratic checks and balances we would expect from a governi…
I do agree, though, that Google and others wield a lot of power by being able to permaban a whole account/person for an alleged incident on just one of their platforms. Where "banned on YouTube" means, for example, that your Android phone no longer works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that's still a win. Discord and Telegram are more difficult to track because they are less public and visible. The move has therefore managed to reduce the exposure that non-active participants have to toxic behaviour, and the normalization of said behaviour as something acceptable/tolerated.
The size and conviction of 'toxic' groups is growing, not diminishing. Marginalising them and pushing them to less-visible communication channels is only harmful from every angle except staving off short-term moral outrage of social justice types. When various less-desirable groups existed on reddit, it was easy to monitor and gauge their size and their beliefs. It was possible to engage with them on some levels. Now…
Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…
> A substantial amount of people went from reddit to voat because at the time voat was new, had signups open, and advertised itself on free speech. Luckily, we're collectively beginning to grow past the naïve belief that free speech is a virtue in itself, an ends, and understand it properly as a means, a tool, which we're all obliged to use ethically and responsibly to make our society better.
Still, I do agree with banning most of those subreddits in defense of people who might get distressed and deeply offended.
It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…
What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, and go out of their way, to go to other sites?
Sunlight isn't always the best disinfectant. Sometimes the disease requires treating things at a lower level, stopping the roots of the trauma, and not only treating the symptoms. De-platforming is an important and necessary component of fighting hate online.
> Migration was common, both to similar subreddits (i.e. overtly racist ones) and tangentially related ones (r/The_Donald). Tangentially-related? I'm pretty sure this crosses the line of being tangentially-related to racism. https://i.redd.it/ua1ukmoi8ls21.jpg
It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…
I think expecting the behavior to disappear is an unrealistic goal. Marginalizing it certainly makes it less appealing because it's clear it's not widely socially acceptable.
> Except that, these people are now relegated to an echo chamber far from public discourse where they will only reinforce their views without challenge. An echo chamber that is now suddenly more appealing, because it's forbidden.
Again, this has always existed in society and always will. The less chance of people being exposed to it via a big public outlet, the less chance new people will be intrigued.
The aim isn't to end extremism, it's to make it clear it's not acceptable via the platform.
It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…
Yes, that’s a good thing IMHO.
It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…