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

301–310 of 401 posts

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

#301

Post by majormajor »

NOGDP wrote: post #248
majormajor wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they shouldn't expect to be able manipulate and control discussion and face no backlash from users. You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users. If there's a big user backlash, those users are already free to move to whatever site they want, or make their own. --- Re: your comment about trolling, etc, not being illegal: yes, exactly. So if a site wanted to enforce some sort…

> You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users I never said that. But it's probably a good idea to have some sort of oversight for a massive platform that censors and manipulates discussion of millions of people. You may think their policies are totally justified and correct (they aren't), but the specific opinions they choose to promote may change to something you are against. >…

Separate reply for the other side of this thread. I honestly don't know where you're getting it with your comments re: trolling.

Do you honestly believe that a discussion forum site that wanted a family friendly policy shouldn't be able to have any liability protections? That if someone started flooding them with child porn, say, at a rate they couldn't keep up with, they should have to shut down because they'd otherwise be liable for all that content due to their having a content moderation policy that forbid certain types of legal speech (say, swearing)?

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

#302

Post by ASinclair »

alacombe wrote: post #137
root_axis wrote: post #131

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?

I'm fine with that. They decide to take a political stance, they shall deal with the legal consequence of their actions.

What you're saying is that because they've decided to take a political stance the current law should be changed to impose new consequences on them. As the law stands today there are no consequences.

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

#303

Post by cthalupa »

Miner49er wrote: post #213
cthalupa wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pulled the fractions out of thin air, so I have no idea what they actually are. But you have to do something about people refusing to enforce site policy, even if it's only on a small portion of the content. For an extreme example (and to be clear I am not saying anything like this happened at CTH), if 99 posts out of 100 on subreddit fall within the rules, but that 1 post that doesn't is promoting killing everyone…

The thing with reddit's rules is they aren't applied in a consistent way. You can go to /r/justiceserved (which is basically a violence porn sub) and talk about violence all you want. Look at https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/comments/hdvsy2/dayli... as an example, look at the people there that are saying they think it's a good thing that a guy was shot (and killed) for attempted robbery. This was the top post o…

Yeah, Justice Served definitely looks like it needs to be looked at.

I think there's two separate issues here:

1) There's probably not enough manpower to be able to do this evenly and consistently across all of Reddit. They're not ever going to be able to do everything all at once. If efforts are ongoing, I don't think it's fair to penalize Reddit for not having taken care of everything that needed to be taken care of all at the same time. If we get to the point where Reddit says "ok we're done we've taken care of all the bad communities and are scaling back down the moderation team" and we see that it still is uneven, then I think we're at the point where it's a problem.

2) The mega subs are tough to deal with in general. Politics is absolutely massive, and from a practical standpoint as one of the core subreddits, is going to be handled differently than a non-core one. Reddit is ultimately a business, and even if from a moral absolutist standpoint it should be treated exactly the same as any other subreddit, realistically it's not going to be.

I do feel like CTH might have been targeted a bit specifically because so much of this has been focused on far-right subreddits, and there was some desire to "balance" it out.

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

#304

Post by yusyusyus »

luckylion wrote: post #190
yusyusyus wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What model makes sense and why should it be treated differently than other forums with moderation? I'm a big fan of the idea that internet providers, DNS registrars, etc. need to be neutral to content in the way common carriers are, but I'm not convinced yet that platforms should have similar obligations. It seems that the appropriate response to schismatic disagreement with the "SysOps of the BBS" is to build anothe…

At some point, that gets moved up a few levels though, if the BBS allows for groups that get moderated by other people, is the BBS still "the moderator" or is it those people that set up the group? And if you don't agree with their decisions, should you be able to launch a rival group on the BBS (it being a platform and all)?

I simply disagree that it moves up. We have had a clear delineation between what is "restrictive private property" and what is "open access private property". That separation is clearly delineated at the IP network + related necessities. This model has worked well, and I don't see how it is breaking now.

Someone else mentioned as well, but some very specific monopoly/necessity cases could change this delineation, however I could only see this being necessary with a much different environment than we have today (that is, situations without feasible common carrier alternatives, _maybe_ google search would be an example today).

I won't speak to your particular motives because I don't know you from anyone else, but I sometimes wonder if a core driver behind wanting to mess with section 230 is because people feel entitled to an audience at low/no cost to them, at the expense of platform owners, to blather on about whatever they please. To this end, I say "nope, you're not entitled... we have an open internet, drive your own damn traffic".

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

#305

Post by jjk166 »

Spivak wrote: post #161
MattGaiser wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous relative to Facebook and all the other social media sites. Sure, having user accounts is not completely anonymous, but it is good enough for 99% of people.

Not having a real name policy isn't the same as being anonymous. Back in the day my irc nick and my WoW username were far more well known than I, the human, will ever be.

You can make a new reddit account in 20 seconds if you don't want people to tie the comment you're about to make to your main account which is already a step removed from you. If you want Throwaway8675309 to develop a reputation, that's an option you have, not a requirement.

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

#306

Post by globular-toast »

conradfr wrote: post #138
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…

Not exactly the same thing but the other day I got banned from r/ADHD for a (moderate from my POV) comment about pronouns. The mod then gloated about banning dozens of people other this and that "LGBTQIA+ people run the subreddit", and that "the lack of discrimination (...) for being cis or being white or being straight or being a man overshadows any discrimination they would receive for their adhd" I don't think tha…

The moderation is the worst thing about reddit. Reddit mods are some of the most corrupt people I've encountered but there's no way of telling how much the accepted groupthink is being carefully shaped by the mods.

My model for moderation would be opt-in. I want to be able to see everything by default but be able to see what moderators have flagged as inappropriate. I could then grow to trust some or all of those moderators and just hide everything they flag by default. But I'd always be able to go and quickly evaluate whether I still trust those moderators to be doing the right thing and not just hiding things they disagree with.

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

#307

Post by xboxnolifes »

braythwayt wrote: post #178

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.

I feel like this is completely different. Reddit has subreddits and subreddit moderators who can moderate based on their own community guidelines. There is no need for global moderation.

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

#308

Post by iron0013 »

For those of you who aren’t familiar, the “watchredditdie” subreddit is a “safe space” for alt-right users to whine about not being able to brigade, astroturf, and otherwise manipulate reddit to their own political ends the way they did in the run-up to the 2016 election.

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

#310

Post by Shivetya »

torben-friis wrote: post #22

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…

What is going on at Reddit is that the cancel culture has found how to take down content they do not find acceptable and worse persecute those whose content they have taken down or disagree with.

So, using a combination of email blasts, instant messaging, and more, these groups focus down a site or individual. This can involve simple brigade type tactics against posted comments and stories, complete with abusing the site reporting process, to flag users and content they disagree with. Sometimes it requires pressuring those higher up with public shaming for permitting something they may not be aware of by use of the common innuendo of if they don't take action they agree with all the hateful, if any, aspects of the target.

When any social site becomes large enough to receive mentions on other sites and media it immediately becomes a target of groups seeking to control the message and attack those who do not wholly support that message. Even minor disagreements can be sufficient to attract ire.

the moral majority is an authoritarian regime and it will have a further damning effect than any feared religious right that people constantly brought up as an internet or social bogeyman.

the very fact they now state ideas they don't agree with as making them physically uncomfortable to the point they declare if violence should scare anyone. this is code for saying no limits are required to remove the threat.

1984 isn't government oppressing people, it is people oppressing people

* btw - only reddit you can be banned from reddits you never visited for activity on another sub (including just voting apparently)

Post reply on HN