Live data from Hacker News

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

old.reddit.com

331–340 of 401 posts

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

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. And forcing all of your unwanted/toxic subreddits to Reddit clones only damns them from ever gaining traction. Take a look: https://voat.co/

These sites rely on network effect, which become prominent after a certain threshold of users join the site. If they reach critical mass, they will suck in the rest of the extreme-right, then the republicans then slowly everyone, because people like controversy and will seek to go where they can have it. Reddit is clearly a leftwing site now in ways that it wasnt when it started (when libertarian was the dominant eth…

T_d already split into an independent website four months ago.

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

#332
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?

The problem is that there's no reason to believe that this policy will be limited strictly to obvious garbage. Unpopular, but not garbage views will inevitably be hit too. Maybe that's worth taking out the garbage, but collateral damage is still a negative.

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

#333
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work. Someone will have to decide "is this site…

> Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work. There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific proposal. > Now let years, maybe even decades go by. Now let's say some site you like gets essentially taken out - since massive sites aren't going to be able to do manual moderation of everything - by a regulator who leans to the opposite side of the political sp…

> There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific proposal.

I was talking about the proposal from `cwhiz, in which the government would revoke protections under existing current law. I think there are holes in that suggestion that are miles wide, that will extend to pretty much any other proposal that depends on the government deciding if a site is over- or under-moderated.

Without a specific proposal to talk about, or specific opinions on "should a site have to relinquish editorial control or rule-setting ability to enjoy liability protections from stuff done by users" (I say "no"), I don't see much more interesting stuff to debate. Those are real, active questions and proposals being made; other hypotheticals could go on forever but are less relevant to now.

But if you aren't interested in those specific points, I don't know why you're participating in a thread that was specifically about the questions around that current law.

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

#334
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…

> I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

The entire point of 230 was to allow companies like Reddit to censor lawful content while still claiming protections. It was never designed at any point to create neutral platforms.

Lack of moderation was already a defense before 230 was created:

> CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers. [0]

Section 230 was not designed to foster neutral platforms, it was designed to allow platforms/communities to moderate as they saw fit without opening themselves up to legal liability. To re-phrase that in modern terms, section 230 is one of the strongest protections we have today for community's Right to Filter[1].

When people say that they like Section 230 but it's gone off the rails, what they really mean is that they think Section 230 was always a bad idea. Or perhaps more charitably that they haven't really researched how Section 230 works or what its history was.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

[1]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter

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

#335
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 le…

This conversation will definitely be easier to follow if you get up to speed first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

    Where is the evidence that the level of misinformation is any higher now than in the past,
See the above overview for a start.

    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
The simalarities to today's situation are easy to see, but they are dwarfed by the differences.

1. "Communists" had no way to create and disseminate information on such a massive scale, in a manner that is nearly indistinguishable from good-faith actors. There's no analog for that in the Cold War's "Red Scare".

2. During the Red Scare, the possibility of Russia infiltrating and influencing the US to any real degree was laughable. It's not laughable now. It demonstrably happened and is happening.

3. "Censorship" is when a person is not allowed to express their views. That is not what is being proposed here. This is about refusing to hand a megaphone to bad actors.

Reality does not conform to your ideals of an egalitarian marketplace of ideas. Content farms with modest funding and modest staffs can outproduce and out-influence millions of regular voices. Relying upon the populace to suddenly become savvy is not realistic. Either we need to turn this into a full-scale information war of competing content farms and state-scale misinformation campaigns, or platform providers need to combat things at that level.

    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.
Sure, yeah.

I also have an IQ in the 90-99th percentile range, a degree in computer science and have been immersed in online culture since before web browsers existed.

The vast majority of the human race does not have those sorts of advantages. Realize that the HN demographic is not representative of the entire human race.

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

#336
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, to make it clear - I don't think sites should lose 230 protections for having a moderation policy. I do think that the excessive manipulation and censorship of dissenting opinions on sites such as reddit is a bad thing however.

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

#337
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work. There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific proposal. > Now let years, maybe even decades go by. Now let's say some site you like gets essentially taken out - since massive sites aren't going to be able to do manual moderation of everything - by a regulator who leans to the opposite side of the political sp…

> There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific proposal. I was talking about the proposal from `cwhiz, in which the government would revoke protections under existing current law. I think there are holes in that suggestion that are miles wide, that will extend to pretty much any other proposal that depends on the government deciding if a site is over- or under-moderated.…

So, you're arguing with me about something I never even said, while ignoring my point about excessive censorship and manipulation of public opinion? 'Revoke 230' or 'keep 230' are not the only possibilities in this universe.

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

#338
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…

Agree. There's just nothing even remotely interesting or real being said on Reddit anymore. I'd honestly rather do anything else. I'd rather stare at a wall with my own thoughts than spend time on Reddit.

Here's an exercise - check out /r/unpopularopinion today. Full of perfectly boring normal opinions like "MTV should go back to showing music videos". All of the content just seems completely fake. There's not an unpopular opinion in sight.

Now go the Wayback Machine and take a look at that same sub from say, three to five years ago (which feels like a short time to me these days). Plenty of deeply unpopular, controversial, thought-provoking opinions. You don't have to like them, but they were real.

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

#339
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll also add that the excessive censorship and manipulation of opinion on massive sites such as reddit, facebook, youtube, etc. is somewhat disturbing. People tend to think that only governments can censor excessively, but the fact is most public discussion in the West now happens on a few massive private platforms, and these platforms have a lot of power over public opinion.

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

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Because they own the website and can do what they please with it? And "their" definition of garbage is banning things like "pics of dead girls" and "fat people hate". You're welcome to your own definition on whatever billion-user website you happen to administer.
Post reply on HN