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

Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 401 posts

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#281

Post by MauranKilom »

mullingitover wrote: post #84

> Abusive content is not acceptable on Reddit nor is engaging with it. This is such a fail for Reddit. If the content isn't allowed on the site, it's on Reddit to remove it. The existence of the content on the site implies Reddit's approval of the content, so engaging with that content is a wholly innocent act.

Please explain by what mechanism you would expect abusive content to be unengagable before being recognized (and treated) as such. Preferably one that does not involve Reddit having to travel back in time.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#282

Post by anticonformist »

majormajor wrote: post #195
cwhiz wrote: post #111

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…

So no site should be allowed to have moderation policies that include things like "no trolling," "no flaming," "no swearing," or anything like else like that for things that don't cross into "illegal" abusive speech? Without becoming a target for filling up with illegal shit to overwhelm the moderators and cause legal trouble for the owners? So HN is gone, too, then.

It's actually very insidious the way HN (and Reddit) control what we see though. There is almost no transparency, accountability, or oversight. Moderators make mistakes and we never even know it. We don't know what we don't know. The culture of silicon valley and hacker culture are being manipulated by a small number of employees at a proprietary investment firm. This is very far from ideal even if you do trust the intentions of the current employees.

I'd be in favor of a law that required uncensored free speech on all forums but that also allowed users to opt-in to moderation. Even if 99% of users opted in to moderation it would still leave an escape valve for totally uncensored free thought.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#283

Post by kps »

Scoundreller wrote: post #173
kps wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have forgotten to name the subreddit. Reddit stopped copying Lumen (Chilling Effects) around 5 years ago.

It’s http://old.reddit.com/r/canadianmoms (NSFW I guess, but not porn)

Thanks, you're right — can access from the US, can't from Canada, with no explanation.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#284

Post by rewoi »

root_axis wrote: post #264
rewoi wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

removed

> they should also disclose their bias This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels. > Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free. Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim? > But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving…

removed

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#285

Post by umvi »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #236
kache_ wrote: post #27

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…

>Reddit is dead and no one I know uses it anymore. It's not dead, and I say thankfully because it not being dead retains its state as a containment mechanism of what is easily the worst group of internet users in internet history. I fear for the day Reddit falls and its userbase spills out looking for another avenue to be comforted with groupthink, newspeak and feel goods for the Brands We Love.

Reddit is a collection of communities. I like several of them, and think they are generally good and uplifting, /r/pixelart for instance. Some communities have some pretty bad people in them, but it is impossible to create a social media site at scale without like-minded bad users creating and/or flocking to bad communities.

People are in different stages of life and seek solace in other people having similar experiences. Thus, the sexually frustrated congregate, the depressed congregate, drug enthusiasts (and abusers) congregate, disgruntled ex- congregate, you name it, and angry/sad/anxious people with a shared condition will congregate in search of validation/confidence.

But the opposite is also true - people with a shared hobby/passion/vision congregate as well and create some really fun and uplifting communities.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#286

Post by UhDev »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #240
UhDev wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make as many accounts as you want, no need to use an email address.

This actually changed in the last few years.

No it didn't, just click next when it asks for an email adddress.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#287

Post by cgiles »

JohnBooty wrote: post #263
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The missing component of your thought process is who, exactly, deems subreddits not worthy of existence. Many people view pornography as an extremely damaging problem and addiction, would you want all 18+ subreddits removes because somebody “can’t think of a single honest reason for them existing”?

Ten years ago I would have said, "No censorship. Turn on the firehose of information, and let me choose what's 'acceptable' and what's not." No more. That presumes some sort of equal playing field and a meritocracy of ideas. That's clearly not the case. The reality is that good-faith content takes more effort than bad-faith content. The 2016 US Election in particular showed us what happens when a platform takes a "ha…

> The 2016 US Election in particular showed us what happens when a platform takes a "hands off" approach - the platform is absolutely saturated with false, hateful information...

And yet, presumably you were able to employ critical thinking, see past all this, and vote the "right" way despite an alleged deluge of hateful misinformation, as were 48%, a majority, of your fellow voters.

Where is the evidence that the level of misinformation is any higher now than in the past, or that censorship (whether by public or private entities) is suddenly a desirable thing?

History has shown that we didn't need to censor and oppress Communist thought in the US during the Cold War because of its alleged threat, and even because Communist thought was being supported by foreign actors. In the upshot, communism discredited itself just fine, and in the meantime, our censorship made us intellectually and morally poorer. Why should things be any different with the new far right?

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#288

Post by root_axis »

rewoi wrote: post #284
root_axis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they should also disclose their bias This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels. > Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free. Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim? > But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving…

removed

So no rebuttal to anything I actually wrote? Are you sure you're not the troll, because I'm just trying to have a discussion and what you've replied with is bad-faith snark.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#289

Post by bradlys »

zozbot234 wrote: post #253
bradlys wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Far-left content' and 'hateful content' are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, really. I wouldn't characterize far left content as hateful. Usually it expresses an intolerance for intolerance or hypocritical actions. > It is amazing how people will redefine hating Trump supporters, men, white people Is there even a point to you speaking here? You're like an incel on a women's forum. You've transitioned in…

> I wouldn't characterize far left content as hateful. You're not familiar with, e.g. tankies, I take it?

The term has evolved over time. The people going by tankies now are likely not the same as decades ago. So, it's unclear what you think it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/hb0xep/wtf_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/hb0xep/wtf_...

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#290

Post by cheschire »

mikeyouse wrote: post #219
deft wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres no upvoting on 4chan and bumping a thread (or on reddit upvoting) does not kill and cannot kill anyone. The people making the threads end up killing people (very rarely) not the randoms that reply (or upvote). You don't even know what the account upvoted, and upvoting isn't hate speech (or calling for someone to be murdered). Do you have a bunch of unknown information on this or are you just defending reddit's…

"Slide to dystopian horror"? For banning a bunch of garbage subs and the people that upvote the garbage? Hyperbolic much?

Why should your (and their) definition of garbage be the only acceptable one?
Post reply on HN