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

Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 313 posts

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#51

Post by sebmellen »

dan-robertson wrote: post #45
sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

I don’t want to disagree with you but note that those articles are 15 years apart. I think public opinion inside and outside of tech on “free speech” has changed quite a bit over that time. For example I feel like there used to be more of a libertarian bent in tech then as opposed to now. Is this perhaps an unfair comparison to make considering the general change in opinion over that time?

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE

Freedom of speech is not a small issue. It lies at the core of our civilization, and is unambiguously one of the few things that made "the West" prosper. Aaron makes a very cogent and clear argument for free speech, and its enduring importance.

To arbitrate rights based on public opinion is idiotic and dangerous. This is why we have a constitution.

Of course, Reddit has the right to do this, as a private company, but that's not an argument for doing it.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#52

Post by 1k8FJ »

sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

From the aaronsw.com link: "By laying freedom of speech’s provision on top of our reasonable ability to do so, I suggest that freedom of speech could be taken away if providing it became unreasonable. But I think this is the right choice: if people really, seriously started getting hurt because of freedom of speech, it seems right for people to take the privilege away. But, to be honest, I can’t even imagine how that might be possible."

IMHO, this "safety" argument makes up a large part of the argument made by many proponents of modern authoritarianism. This makes me think that Aaron may have supported many of the modern restrictions on free speech, but I certainly don't speak for him. IMHO, many people (particularly in the West) not only "imagine" that it "might" be possible, but actively believe that it is a reality that is already happening. IMHO it is irrelevant whether people get "seriously hurt" because it is a ridiculous metric to optimise for. People get "really, seriously hurt" on a daily basis by: access to sugar, access to alcohol, access to tobacco, the right to bear arms, vehicles.

Edit: s/speach/speech/

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#53

Post by anticristi »

xevrem wrote: post #50
sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

honestly, i would say the banning of thedonald is clearly a response to The Paradox of Tolerance rather than not supporting free-speech. you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you want free speech to survive.

TIL: "The Paradox of Tolerance"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#54

Post by sebmellen »

agumonkey wrote: post #41
sebmellen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're asking this question, you don't understand the principles of freedom of speech. Read the Aaron Swartz essay linked above, and while you're at it, watch this, from Noam Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE .

I think your opinion is extremely myopic and biased, I don't care much of shutting down subreddits to be honest, especially if you get extremists ready to act all up and angry together. They're still very free to speak have no worry. Also if reddit didn't stop that, they'd be flagged as pro-racist. There was a need for a decision to be made, nothing else.

Well, I hope we can agree to disagree.

I strongly and vehemently disagree with your characterization. I think suppression of speech is something that must be pushed back against or it will be tacitly accepted.

Social media is the new public square, and Reddit tried to pretend it is a "platform", while it makes large-scale editorial decisions. /r/chapotraphouse was an extremely far-left, anti-racist subreddit banned in this latest spree. This was not about racism, it was about censorship.

I am a free speech absolutist, just like Aaron (stated as such in the linked article), and just like Noam Chomsky. This absolutism is a liberal viewpoint, and lies at the core of Western democratic civilization.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#55

Post by raverbashing »

sebmellen wrote: post #15
agumonkey wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sub being shut has nothing to do with restricting free speech, isn't it ?

Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech. If you want to argue Reddit has a right to do that, sure. But that's not the argument.

> Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech

In the same way as "anti-maskers" take wearing one as being choked by the neck and are feigning fainting, taking the trash out of your platform, be it T_D or CTH does not make it "restricting free speech"

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#56

Post by dogma1138 »

hdjdbtbgwjsn wrote: post #40
dogma1138 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you’re willing to pay for it you can’t have social media that isn’t a real estate for ads or at least some sort of commercial interest. Arguably even HN despite being technically a pro-bono side project serves the commercial interest of YC (and possibly others) if it didn’t and especially if it would have a negative impact on them it wouldn’t be around. And HN is a very niche social media (if you can even call…

HN is a very strictly policed safe space.

HN is heavily moderated with strict posting rules, as far as "safe space"... Eh as long as you maintain a level of respectful discourse I never found that you can't comment on social or political issues due to fear of Dang or any other mod (I'm not sure how many are there) interfering in the discussion.

The community itself is another issue but even that isn't as clear cut as it seems if you look at any of the more political topics that are being posted.

In general HN isn't the place you go to discuss politics, social issues or current events some posts are allowed when it's in the public's interest or they are relevant to the wider tech industry but that's about it.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#57

Post by ceilingcorner »

xevrem wrote: post #50
sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

honestly, i would say the banning of thedonald is clearly a response to The Paradox of Tolerance rather than not supporting free-speech. you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you want free speech to survive.

The Paradox of Tolerance refers to the intolerant using violence to physically make it impossible for the tolerant to exist.

Unclear to me how banning a subreddit is remotely related.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#58

Post by voldacar »

xevrem wrote: post #50
sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

honestly, i would say the banning of thedonald is clearly a response to The Paradox of Tolerance rather than not supporting free-speech. you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you want free speech to survive.

Thedonald existed on reddit for quite some time and during that period, free speech survived relatively intact. Since the banning of thedonald along with hundreds of other subs, free speech has suffered, not improved, inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Also, "the paradox of tolerance" can be trotted out to justify just about any banning or censoring of someone you don't like

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#59

Post by [deleted] »

mdonahoe wrote: post #44
sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

HN isn’t exactly a bastion of free speech either

[deleted]

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#60

Post by valvar »

xevrem wrote: post #50
sebmellen wrote: post #4

Reddit is very clearly not in favour of free speech: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/reddit-bans-thedonald-and-... . Aaron Swartz was very clearly in favour of free speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan . I think the reasons for this are self-evident.

honestly, i would say the banning of thedonald is clearly a response to The Paradox of Tolerance rather than not supporting free-speech. you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you want free speech to survive.

No, the utterly ridiculous "paradox of tolerance" is just a bad cope for people who truly do not believe in free speech. "Free speech" which only applies to your predefined set of approved speech is not free speech, but a monstrous parody of it. The purpose of free speech is to enable dissent, not to affirm the status quo.
Post reply on HN