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

141–150 of 313 posts

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

#141

Post by andrepd »

sebmellen wrote: post #108
cies wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Do you think movies of child abuse are "free speech", or recruitment/instruction videos tot terrorist organizations, or inciting violence and hate? What about Assange, he published some stuff, could that be free speech? Or violations of copyright? To me free speech is like free markets. The word does not adequately cover the implementation as boundaries do apply. There are little to non truly free markets (…

The line where free speech ends is pretty clearly delineated, and that's when it crosses over into criminal or violent action in the "world of atoms". Almost all of your examples can be prosecuted based on their direct effect on the real world (or representation of a crime, such as with child abuse videos), not the content of their speech . The difference is crucial. To take things to an extreme, if I say "all XXXX s…

It's not just a saying, the pen is truly mightier than the sword.

Hitler never physically dragged a jew into a gas chamber. After 1933 he never shot someone or so much as brawled with anyone. Yet it was only words, his words, his speech, or ink on a paper, that compelled millions of people to commit some of the greatest atrocities in modern history.

Words can obviously be a more powerful thing than actions. In another example, if someone is depressed or suicidal, and they are close to you, you can probably make them kill themselves with words alone, if you choose them correctly.

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

#142

Post by DavidVoid »

sebmellen wrote: post #123
DavidVoid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run a forum and a user is constantly making up lies, harassing other users, and spamming misinformation then I don't think banning them is "free speech" issue. t_D should have been banned long before it eventually was imo. It actively spread misinformation and hate and made the website worse for other users. And a question for you: You say that Reddit is not in favor of free speech because it banned subs like…

Perhaps. I know that a number of objectively hateful subreddits were not banned because they were hateful of people "in the majority" (whatever that means). An archived copy of Reddit's "Account and Community Restrictions" from the time of the ban reads as such [0]: > While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of…

> I know that a number of objectively hateful subreddits were not banned because they were hateful of people "in the majority" (whatever that means).

Don't be vague, give concrete examples if you're going to make broad statements like that.

> The question here veers into the territory of whether Reddit is a "publisher" or "platform".

Well are subreddits "publishers" or "platforms" then? Because a lot of the hateful subs that have been shut down over the years (t_D, uncensorednews, European, etc.) banned users who disagreed with their moderators.

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

#143

Post by sebmellen »

agumonkey wrote: post #84
sebmellen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I have no problem disagreeing and indeed our views are worlds apart. Social media means moot to me, I think internet has reached its limits long ago and better things are done without this. Now that reddit is hypocritical about its motto.. very plausible, and I personally, consider reddit as a toy, not a tool, nothing more. And you stated it yourself, both subs you mentionned became too extreme, this was the sole rea…

I am more against this because I believe it is emblematic of a broader societal sway towards the concept that speech can be violence, which is what I disagree with.

Reddit is simply one of many high-profile cases of this ideology finding root and with real effect.

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

#144

Post by CapricornNoble »

mard wrote: post #14
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.

Free speech stands against the financial interests of social media. Reddit is the real estate for ads, and the best value for top global advertisers are safe spaces that are free of controversy. In the end, it's the advertisers that decide what is allowed to be published there.

>>it's the advertisers that decide what is allowed to be published there

1. How much would/should advertisers care about their "brand image"? Cancel Culture has taken the long history of corporate boycotts and connected it to a hair-trigger, with massively amplified effects compared to the per capita aggrieved consumers. The leverage that advertisers exert on publishers is a rational risk-avoidance policy in these times of massive outrage-induced revenue losses.

2. How much of the risk-aversion in advertising is related to demographic shifts in the personnel making up the advertising and public relations departments?

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

#145

Post by hnracer »

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

While that may be true the HN moderation team does a great job of being balanced and removing all politically charged content and flamebait irrespective of the political views of the poster. They don't have an axe to grind.

It's a very different situation to Reddit where left-leaning political extremism (/r/LateStageCapitalism) is tolerated, but subreddits like t_D are banned.

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

#146

Post by BLKNSLVR »

quantumwoke wrote: post #42

I'm sitting here crying at my computer screen. Everything the early pioneers of the internet fought for, freedom of speech, lack of censorship, open discussion of radical ideas, is being destroyed. The destruction of Aaron's legacy is just the latest in a long list of final straws that is eroding my trust and hope for the future. Dark day today indeed.

Build something worthy of your ideals. Join a group that's pushing in a direction you can agree with and contribute in any way you can.

Legacies exist to be destroyed because popularity and money create change from both inside and out, and it takes a very rare human will to resist selling out one's ideals in the face of amounts of money one has only ever dreamed about.

The ideals aren't dead, the old places built upon them are dying under weight of mainstream popularity. Find or make a new underground.

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

#147

Post by ss64 »

Reddit was founded in June 2005. Aaron founded Infogami, Infogami merged with Reddit in November 2005. When Conde Nast bought Reddit in 2006 they each got one third of the money. The other founders then fired Aaron in 2007. http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-07-n78.html

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

#148

Post by throwaway_gdc »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #130
ratww wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. If anything, Reddit is getting bigger. In my circle nobody knew what it was five years ago. Now it has effectively become mainstream, and is being (positively) quoted on TV, etc. This is actually the second time it happens. Ten years ago people also claimed that "Reddit is dying". It wasn't, it was just changing its core audience of technical users to a broader one. And now it is doing it again.

Mainstream name recognition isn’t particularly indicative of success. In my experience, Reddit is slowly eliminating anything that doesn’t conform to a west coast American view of the world. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world is coming online and has a different view of things. We’re starting to see this with India and the EU. Best case scenario for Reddit is a link aggregator for a very narrow group, unle…

>Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world is coming online and has a different view of things. We’re starting to see this with India and the EU.

Reddit moderation is especially going to clash with many Europeans view on immigration from Islamic countries.

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

#149

Post by rapsey »

watwut wrote: post #129
sebmellen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. I know that a number of objectively hateful subreddits were not banned because they were hateful of people "in the majority" (whatever that means). An archived copy of Reddit's "Account and Community Restrictions" from the time of the ban reads as such [0]: > While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of…

I assume those not banned subs are still there and you can link them. Because whole ton of subs were banned, not just Donald and not just right wing.

If rules applied to all subs the same topmindsofreddit would have been banned long ago

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

#150

Post by bborud »

DavidVoid wrote: post #106
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.

If you run a forum and a user is constantly making up lies, harassing other users, and spamming misinformation then I don't think banning them is "free speech" issue. t_D should have been banned long before it eventually was imo. It actively spread misinformation and hate and made the website worse for other users. And a question for you: You say that Reddit is not in favor of free speech because it banned subs like…

It can’t be a free speech issue. Reddit is not part of government.
Post reply on HN