Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Aaron Swartz's own words from May 2007 > One of the points of the merger was that we would all call ourselves co-founders, so that's what I've been doing. I'd be happy to stop if that's what Steve and Alexis wanted, though. https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/1octb/reddit_co... This comment by spez is also interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/d2njs/til_th... It seems AS was given th…
As I recall, Aaron was doing his own startup through YC (Infogami). Paul Graham introduced him to the Reddit guys and I believe suggested they merge Reddit and Infogami. As part of that merger, Aaron gained the title "cofounder", IIRC. This is backed up by comments in that Reddit thread, FWIW.
Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
151–160 of 313 posts
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#152It seems to me that the same thing that happened to Reddit is happening to Hacker News now. I've seen an uptick of misleading titles, which make you question what is real. Another trend I've noticed is an increase in pro-drug/pro-medication posts, which aim to frame life's challenges as something that need medication.
This is honestly not something I can relate to. HN has always had a policy of using titles of the articles themselves, and apart from a small subset of them being editorialized by the mods (typically because they’re misleading!), this is still the case. And I haven’t seen a noticeable uptake in pro-drug/pro-medication posts compared to, say, a decade ago, and frankly I don’t understand how that has anything to do wit…
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#153Reddit 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
I have most hopes for Lemmy[0] as a place for the more rebbel Redditors to seek refuge. Really cool project, advancing really nicely.
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#154Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up a lot of things. Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. Recruitment and instructional videos are speech. Assange is speech, but, he wasn't a journalist with protections for handling secret information. Copyright used to have a limited term before it dropped in to the public domain where it would become speech. These are all different things with their own problems.
> Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. I say movies of such acts. That's not the act itself. See Japan where comics that show sexual abuse of "young looking individuals" are freely distributed. > These are all different things with their own problems. > You're mixing up a lot of things. No, they are all current limitations to free speech encoded in law. I mean to say (please re-read my comment) that "true…
https://myanimelist.net/manga/127513/Dansei_Kyoufushou_Datta...
A manga that depicts serious child abuse that turned the author into a porn star. It's written by herself. Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to express herself and hide it. We can all then live a happy fantasy where everyone is a good person in any depiction.
My first thought when reading the manga, how can we stop this?
Suffice to say, I didn't enjoy it one bit but I never thought this should be censored.
There are many similar manga that depicts all sorts of stuff. Some of them written by the people which were unfortunate.
It's also evident you don't care about the medium because you used the word comic.
Censorship of evil acts was rampant in the history. People didn't want to admit what others were doing. There are broader issues if people are pushed to the extreme by media. Why would someone join a terrorist group after watching one of their videos? There must be something else causing the problem. The videos are a symptom, not a cause.
Last, I have consumed media of both your examples. It didn't turn me into a child abuser or a terrorist. I want to help make world a safer place for children and terrorism free more than before. I want to stop it so it stops get depicted on its own.
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Views from other Europeans.
We're not an homogenic bunch as you think.
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that Reddit's own popularity was boosted by Digg's collapse due to unpopular changes and dysfunction, you'd think that Reddit would be more aware of the risks of pursuing an antagonistic relationship with their users.
But their success proves that they don't have to care... I mean seriously this "Diggs past will come for you"-line is being repeated for years but it's not happening. Meanwhile "alternatives" come up and and become irrelevant or nests of hate.
"The Donald" was censored, then banned, for speech less heinous, in lesser amounts, and with lower, or often negative, voting scores, than is currently allowed on the site now (by those with approved political beliefs, of course).
Those with non-approved beliefs find themselves silenced and censored by moderators and admins, while those who instigated their silencing are left unmolested.
Subreddits with thousands (or in the case of "The Donald", HUNDREDS of thousands) of members are banned for the actions of a very, very few. In some such cases, those few were outside instigators (Reddit calls them "brigaders") from subreddits with opposing views; purposefully posting inflammatory material under sockpuppet accounts. The "brigaders" then report the naughty speech to the admins.
Doesn't take many such reports to have all those thousands of voices silenced. Of course this tends to go one way. Although "brigading" is ostensibly against Reddit rules, subreddits with approved views are allowed to do it openly, although some do in private.
And lest we forget, the CEO of Reddit HIMSELF has hacked into user accounts of those with unapproved views, and posted inflammatory things posing AS them (an act which Redditors were assured was not possible). Supposedly he's only done it a few times, but how are Redditors to know for sure?
When all these activities on the part of Reddit's leadership go one way, and are directed specifically against one political persuasion, it becomes very clear that Reddit IS a nest of hate, and that's the way they like it. It is also clear that they censor not to stop "hate" but to cease the discussion and meme production of conservatives, to which they partially attribute Trump's 2016 victory.
To this end, they've recently gone so far as to announce that they will censure users for merely VOTING on unapproved topics. Sure, they say those unapproved topics are "hate", but when the people defining "hate" are so slimy as to hack into and pose as their own users to sow discord, or to tacitly approve one way "brigades", one need not wonder their actual purposes.
Like so many of their brethren in the media who took it personally when Hillary lost, they are taking drastic action to be sure that such free speech activities not continue if there is any possibility of a repeat of 2016.
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#158Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#159Earlier 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 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 s…
Here is a small list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti.... Most of these subreddits are not Nazi or Stalinist-level hateful, but could still be considered hateful (the definition of hate is actually very shaky, I regret saying "objectively hateful" in my above comment).
I could back to you with a longer list of more underground subreddits, though I don't really have the time to. You can go to something like https://reddit.guide and search for subreddits similar to the ones banned. Plenty are still active, just much smaller.
Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Child abuse is a physical act and isn't speech. A video is a form of expression that falls under speech for all intents and purposes. There is no general caveat to freedom of speech which states that one cannot create a video of some illegal act. Child pornography seems to be the only exception in the US. Further, metaphysically, 'physical acts' such as burning flags fall under freedom of expression, and all physica…
Your point about child abuse is ridiculous. We prohibit child abuse precisely because it is a physical act. If I said "I will whip my child 50 times", and didn't do it, that would not be child abuse. It becomes child abuse once it is a physical act. You make the faulty presumption that speech itself can be a form of abuse. This is where free speech absolutists such as myself would disagree. Speech is a protected clas…
> To argue that child pornography is a form of speech is rather ridiculous
To lawyers it is not. Again this is about the video, not the act itself. You repeatedly dont get that difference.
> but there are limits on forms of expression. I cannot choose to stab people as a form of free expression, nor torch a building.
Great! you get it! We cannot allow all expression. Now on stabbing we agree. On abuse videos as well. But on inciting hate/violence we dont.
May I ask why you want to defend inciting hate/violence -speech?