271–280 of 401 posts
Reddit has been compromised with actors who do not have free speech in their best interest. The other day there was an illuminating ask reddit post about transexuals who decided to transition back and their experiences. That post got promptly removed by moderators; even though there was no hateful content within it at all. They effectively silenced the transexual population due to an ever so slight conflict of ideolo…
So it goes when you take that chinese money.
I don't really get reddit's efforts to clean their site. They sometimes come up with measures like this, while routinely ignoring the development of horrible communities that they're aware of (since some users take any possible opportunity to mention them to the admins and are met with silence or half measures). They even came up with the concept of quarantined subreddits. I honestly can't think of a single honest re…
I think their main challenge is they have a cultural/temperamental resistance to making decisions on a case-by-case basis. Any time there is a problem it seems like they try to overgeneralize and come up with a sort of rule or heuristic that can apply in every case and situation. But since the "toxicity" of a community is usually more subtle than that they end up always being way too reactive.
I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to police lawful content that is fine but then they are no longer an open platform and they should forfeit their Section 230 protections. I dislike the ability for online platforms to have their cake of protection against lawsuits and also eat their cake of policing…
The whole point of Section 230 was so sites could do that. Before 230, there has been court rulings that said if you moderate the content you are liable for the content. 230 was enacted specifically to reverse that.
I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to police lawful content that is fine but then they are no longer an open platform and they should forfeit their Section 230 protections. I dislike the ability for online platforms to have their cake of protection against lawsuits and also eat their cake of policing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The post you are referring to was deleted by the user who made the post not the mods.... Not true. The post body says [removed]. If the user deleted it, it would say [deleted].
https://i.imgur.com/pkzrm25.png -- It literally says it was deleted by the user.
Even on HN there have been many anti-science nonsense stories on the front-page where the site would benefit from letting people indicate that they want anyone who enabled it to have no weighting in the curation of their own personal view. This may be a sort of filter bubble, but it's an anti-idiot filter bubble. I don't need to have my world clouded by the noise of conspiracy fanatics and idiots.
Every time we have a conversation about why Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit shouldn't be allowed to"censor" content, I ask what would become of Hacker News if it was not permitted to moderate spam or threads that do not follow the HN guidelines. I think it would quickly devolve into 4Chan. Almost all of the current community would decamp, and the trolls that infest other sites would take over.
"Devolve into"? This website is just the "sounds educated" arm of imageboard users. HN is entirely filled with right-wing to far-right sheltered techbros. Half the accounts here that are constantly complaining about "free speech" and "consequences to their actions" are really one bad day away from calling everyone they disagree with various slurs, and the other half are so insulated from any sort of actual injustice…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post you are referring to was deleted by the user who made the post not the mods.... And that doesn't even relate to this topic as what you're referring to is on a subreddit basis and is determined by a set of volunteer mods not reddit admins.
> The post you are referring to was deleted by the user who made the post not the mods.... Not true. The post body says [removed]. If the user deleted it, it would say [deleted].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without section 230 protection it would be impossible for the site to stay open, so in effect you're saying sites that moderate user content should be shut down. Does that seem like an accurate interpretation of your position?
Section 230 is another classic legalist versus legal realist versus "whatever absolves me" trap that people fall into on this forum. The legal realism prevails with this stupid law, it will always prevail. You can both moderate / review / editorialize content, including political content, while simultaneously enjoying Section 230 protections.
Reddit admin message: > Your account has been suspended from for breaking the rules. Your account has been suspended for 3 day(s). >> You recently upvoted a post or comment that was determined to be against our policies. Abusive content is not acceptable on Reddit nor is engaging with it. Please be thoughful about the content that you interact with. Interestingly nothing in the Reddit policies seems to mention voting…
That message is so stupid. What's there to learn from the punishment if you don't know what you did wrong?
If Reddit's goal is to encourage broader self-censorship of wrong-think, the message makes perfect sense. If Reddit informed a user that they broke Rule A, a rational user would learn a specific lesson. They would learn that they can avoid punishment by not interacting with content that breaks (or might break) Rule A.
By punishing without an explicit explanation, a rational user must conclude that, to avoid punishment, they cannot risk interacting with content that breaks (or might break) any of the rules on the website.