641–650 of 970 posts
From Reddit: https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc... > Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families. > While the rule on ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Find an instance of a threat of violence, regardless of context Doesn't the fact that finding instances of violent rhetoric among alt-right posters, regardless of context , sorta make the case that maybe this is an endemic problem and not a purely political suppression? There are a lot of really hateful people among that group, in ways that just aren't true for other politically aligned communities. I mean, the Dir…
Compared to what? BLM is a terrorist hate group. It get's the full support of big tech.
I remember how was Reddit 10 years ago... It was a very open and permissive place. Only very bad things were prohibited at that time (pedophilia, rape, murder, etc.). It is now ran by people/corporations with a political agenda.
Yep, r/videos is so locked down you don't get anything relevant other than some old cat video repost.
I avoided the place ever since then. That was about 4 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you wouldn’t, that’s the whole point of upvotes and downvotes. The community gets to decide what’s popular. Not moderators.
I agree that it doesn't necessarily always devolve into hate speech but, anecdotally, every community I've seen without heavy moderation eventually devolves into low effort meme posts, and sometimes hateful content. For example, r/gaming vs r/games. The pattern repeats itself all over reddit.
“Hate speech” is a buzzword that doesn’t mean anything. What is hate speech? No one knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nazi is pretty well defined, as are incel, redpill, boogaloo bois, etc. If you are part of one of those clubs and decide to exercise your right to free speech (which is your right), suffering the consequences should be expected. Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. People react to speech. That's natural.
Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: >Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. >exercise your right to free speech (which is your right) Orwell wasn't describing an ideal or inevitable way of thinking, but the result of brainwashing. Now. When people say that free speech only applies to government restrictions, th…
This is a false assessment. The fundamental government-blind right to speech does not include a right to group inclusion. There's nothing contradictory about you having the right to speak while other people also have the right to sanction you for spreading hateful (or in this case sophistrous) bullshit. After all, social sanctions are also a form of speech.
This comes up in all kinds of ways. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against violence while also allowing self defense or group defense. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against stealing while also allowing recovery of stolen property or government redistribution of wealth as a requirement for participation in the benefits of society. And it's not contradictory to have moral rules in favor of speech and against hate while also allowing the community to punch a nazi in the face for being a nazi.
Worth taking note that in today's climate, you really cannot win when you are in a position to moderate important things that a lot of people use. There is constantly tremendous pressure on you to perform opposing actions, and even making no decision at all will cause you significant mental stress and harassment, regardles of what the issue is. You have to pick who you want to cave to, and to what extent, and no matt…
> could have more federated and decentralized platforms I would absolutely not going to a platform with no moderation. The quality of the content will be abysmal. Honestly, r/D or something like that should just go to host its own website/forum, it shouldn't be Reddit's problem to begin with. Their presence brings toxic attention/traffic that is hard to monetize anyway
Granted I haven't been there in years but the content on the chans isn't much worse than Reddit once you've been there long enough that your brain stops registering the "nig" prefix and "fag" postfix they slap on every other word. Any place that is open to cross-polination from internet riff-raff from other niches is going to devolve toward a very low lowest common denominator (which is why HN is mostly unscathed).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did that subreddit do besides hating on trans people? I never saw anything but countless posts targeting hate against trans people.
People see what catches their attention. Some people would go there and read articles about gay women being attacked for choosing whom they took on as sexual partners. (I found it quite surprising and extremely rapey that anyone would consider it appropriate to be critical of anyone for choosing their consenting sexual partners however they like-- but it happens sometimes.) Or read about people being displaced from s…
Trans stuff was certainly not the only thing they talked about, but it was the most common, and trans posts tended to have the most discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then the site exploded, and it had to learn how to handle things like actual nazis calling for the deaths of jewish people. I'm not sure I see where the joke is - this was inevitable.
I spent years on that subreddit and never once saw somebody that identified as a Nazi calling for the deaths of Jewish people. I bet you can't find any such examples. Your viewpoints of the world are based on hearsay and propaganda, not facts and logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quick note: Anti christian sentiment is very much not a left wing stance. Quite the contrary, I’m more like to find crap like that in libertarian circles. The left wing are often the ones jumping in to defend religious tolerance. About the dead cops and dead fascists... sure I’ll admit to that. However that is very much not the same. Fascism is an ideology that is a direct threat to a large number of people’s livel…
> Quite the contrary, I’m more like to find crap like that in libertarian circles. Libertarians with philosophical disagreements with Christians are perfectly entitled to them. "Libertarians" who murder Christians are, by definition, not actually libertarians. See also non-aggression principle etc. Also of note, libertarians are not "left" or "right" -- see that political compass thing they're always using -- because…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The_Donald involved a lot of spreading their message / fake news sites / spamming across other subs and etc. Yea, I gotta say, having to previously deal with r/The_Donald brigades on another large subreddit was incredibly annoying and depressing. Can't speak to spreading fake news, but massive influxes of r/The_Donald users spamming truly vile stuff in an ostensibly non-political sub really sucked (as a moderator,…
Gotta respect the iron fist of /r/askhistorians. Probably the best sub on reddit.
We can barely keep a lid on the vitriol and toxicity, and some of the more blatantly false/scammy advice. r/askhistorians is a whole 'nother level.
Sometimes I honestly wish hackernews was run more like r/askhistorians. Too many people here on hn talk a lot of shit on stuff they don't really know much about beyond a cursory understanding (I'm probably guilty myself).