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

321–330 of 401 posts

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

#321

Post by NOGDP »

majormajor wrote: post #301
NOGDP wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 other…

Dude, I honestly don't think you understand what 'trolling' means. You already agreed that trolling is not illegal, why do you keep trying to use examples of illegal content to demonstrate why 'trolling' should be banned?

And what does child pornography have to do with swearing?

> Do you honestly believe that a discussion forum site that wanted a family friendly policy shouldn't be able to have any liability protections?

Again, I never said that.

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

#323

Post by root_axis »

Supermancho wrote: post #315
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…

> Subbredits are run by users. No, they are run day to day by users, but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners. Case in point, this article we are discussing. > Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right? The behavior of the site owners? Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently, although there…

> but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners

The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to.

> Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently

Well yes, that is how standards work, "different views" are treated differently based on how they stack up with respect to the standard. I understand that you're arguing that reddit applies the rules selectively, but reddit would argue that they apply them fairly, so how do you suggest this kind of conflict be resolved at scale? Who should decide if reddit is being fair or not?

> If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.

If you want to make an argument then make it, but condescending declarations of a monopoly on the informed position does not do your case any favors.

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

#324

Post by euroclear »

nend wrote: post #108

Is there any evidence this is real? The image specifies /r/reddit.com, which was discontinued about a decade ago. Obviously this practice is/would be awful. But it's really surprising and the image seems a little fishy.

/r/reddit.com is still used for admin communications; if you want to contact the site admins, you are encouraged to use the contact the moderators link on /r/reddit.com.

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

#325

Post by NOGDP »

trcollinson wrote: post #300
NOGDP wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Any site can have any rules they want. But they shouldn't expect to be able manipulate and control discussion and face no backlash from users. > Without becoming a target for filling up with illegal sh…

That's actually not the point of Section 230. The point is that if you remove Section 230 and then you accuse someone of trolling, flaming, or swearing, that could be considered libelous. If you would like to learn more, and see exactly what happened when Section 230 was not in effect, check out this case: Stratton Oakmont, Inc. and Daniel Porush, v. Prodigy Services Company, "John Doe", and "Mary Doe". Stratton Oakm…

What's not the point of section 230? I literally didn't say anything about section 230 or suggest that sites that moderate should have those protections revoked.

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

#326

Post by globular-toast »

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…

It's easy to see why that post was removed. The current reddit "truth" is that transsexuality is perfectly normal and even common. But the real truth is it's not common and it should be treated like any other mental illness. But what tends to happen is certain people like the idea of transsexuality so encourage mentally ill people to make permanent and devastating changes to their body, often leading to eventual suicide. Many of the comments in that thread were showing the real truth, so it had to be removed.

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

#327

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#328

Post by trcollinson »

NOGDP wrote: post #325
trcollinson wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually not the point of Section 230. The point is that if you remove Section 230 and then you accuse someone of trolling, flaming, or swearing, that could be considered libelous. If you would like to learn more, and see exactly what happened when Section 230 was not in effect, check out this case: Stratton Oakmont, Inc. and Daniel Porush, v. Prodigy Services Company, "John Doe", and "Mary Doe". Stratton Oakm…

What's not the point of section 230? I literally didn't say anything about section 230 or suggest that sites that moderate should have those protections revoked.

You are right, my apologies. You were responding to another person who was having a discussion about Section 230. I thought you were adding on to their thoughts about Section 230. If your point is entirely that users can backlash against a platform, then your point is correct.

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

#329

Post by majormajor »

NOGDP wrote: post #321
majormajor wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 other…

Dude, I honestly don't think you understand what 'trolling' means. You already agreed that trolling is not illegal, why do you keep trying to use examples of illegal content to demonstrate why 'trolling' should be banned? And what does child pornography have to do with swearing? > Do you honestly believe that a discussion forum site that wanted a family friendly policy shouldn't be able to have any liability protecti…

You keep bringing up trolling as a term in general, I tried to make it specific.

The pitch being made in this subthread was "I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act."

So you lose liability protection if you censor lawful content.

So if you want to ban swearing, you become liable for your user's content. Which makes you a WIDE OPEN target for bad actors who could post whatever illegal content they want faster than you could moderate it.

I'm trying to illustrate why I think `cwhiz took an absurd position, and am not using the term "trolling" in general now. I've given a specific example of "legal content some communities might want to prohibit" as well as "illegal content that bad actors could use to get the owner of that site in trouble in this proposed world."

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

#330

Post by bobdole12345 »

globular-toast wrote: post #306
conradfr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mod…

I think it's unfortunate that reddit chose the term moderator, because it implies an impartiality that you're not going to get from what is effectively the "owner" of a community.

These are just folks who either showed up early, or demonstrated they thought about the issue the same way as the person who started the reddit thought.

Post reply on HN