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

191–200 of 313 posts

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

#191

Post by ceilingcorner »

future_unclear wrote: post #186
ceilingcorner wrote: post #130

Earlier 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…

.

As an American also living in Europe, I think this is a highly naive view. American media pushes American values, and American values are hardly equivalent to technological development itself.

Instead, I’d say we’re at the very beginning of a massive global backlash against American values propagated by technology. Expect it to continually ramp up as media-creation technology spreads. China is just the beginning.

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

#192

Post by sebmellen »

andrepd wrote: post #133
valvar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Painting an opposing view as "utterly ridiculous" is not the best way to start an argument. But moving on. It's always interesting to see that, when actually probing deeper, almost no-one believes in truly unrestricted free speech, even people who proclaim themselves as free speech champions (such as yourself). For example, can I slander you? If I own a newspaper, can I try to convince my readers that you're a pedoph…

Libel laws have historically had an extremely high burden of proof. The right wing is usually the first to try to expand these laws (as with Trump, maybe Peter Thiel/Gawker). Libel is also a civil offence if it is one, which again, is extremely hard to prove.

Telling someone to commit murder for you is an example of speech directly inciting violent action, so no, that would be a criminal act.

It's iffy whether telling someone they should commit suicide is free speech or not. Given that suicide is illegal in most societies, it would probably be illegal in the same way directly inciting violent action is, though the subtleties of the case matter.

No, lying under oath is a violation of a contract. That is outside the realm of free speech because you willingly and knowingly restrict your freedom of speech to testify under oath.

Psychologically abusing your children — again, a very fine line, with a very high burden of proof. Psychological abuse is almost never punishable unless it crosses over into the physical world, which can also include things like curtailing access to proper nutrition, etc. But at that point, it's not a matter of free speech, but of child neglect.

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

#193

Post by ratww »

throwaway_gdc wrote: post #184
ratww wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you're implying by that, but do you know what else clashes with "Europeans view on immigration from Islamic countries"? Views from other Europeans. We're not an homogenic bunch as you think.

I am not talking about raging far-right people. I meant the swing to the right among the general population and politicians. https://www.thelocal.se/20200118/swedish-pm-calls-for-dramat... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A1LtmxkAYk

I didn't think you were talking about anything specific. Sorry if it came out this way.

My point is that any "Europeans view on immigration from Islamic countries" will clash with the views from other europeans.

Europeans are not single-minded about those issues. Views are probably way more varied than the US. Even an European-ran Reddit would ran into the same issues.

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

#194

Post by fastball »

anticristi wrote: post #53
xevrem wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yep, an interesting idea, and definitely something worth thinking about and discussing.

The problem is that people like the GC pretend that this is some sort of Universal Law which has been proved to be true, and therefore use it as a carte blanche to "weed out intolerance".

Unfortunately it is not a such. It's just an idea, unproven and untested.

Though it's also worth noting that I highly doubt Karl Popper would've agreed (based on his various clarifications) with almost any situation where it has been used to justify silencing "the intolerant" on the internet in the last decade.

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

#195

Post by seattledev »

squarefoot wrote: post #26

Just the one question: alternatives? Not necessarily already established and crowded platform, but also free and open, privacy friendly ones that can be slowly brought to self sustaining levels by enthusiasts, so that they can attract normal users.

Chapo.chat is a popular one for leftists that formed after the chapo subreddits were censored/banned a couple months ago. Fair warning: most HN users aren't going to like it because they advocate for things like food and shelter and healthcare for everyone, no matter what

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

#196

Post by zapdrive »

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.

[1] is an example of a hate sub against men that's not banned by reddit. But [2] is just a group of men who have decided to never date, marry etc. is quarantined because somehow that is hate. Also how are women a minority when they are 50% of the population? Baffles me.

1 https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/

2 https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/

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

#197

Post by rtx »

cies wrote: post #165
bonzini wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally what they did and it was already considered censorship by some.

Considered good censorship by me. If you preach hate to minorities in my house you are also going to be asked to leave.

Do you have same rules for the majority

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

#198

Post by noelsusman »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #28

Reddit today is the opposite of what it was in the beginning. Unsurprising that they’d write out Swartz in their quest to be a friendly corporate face. Alas, a new competitor will replace it soon. Virtually no one has brand loyalty to Reddit and their audience is becoming narrower and narrower.

Meanwhile in reality Reddit had 430 million active monthly users last year, 30% more than Twitter.

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

#199

Post by thinkingemote »

future_unclear wrote: post #186
ceilingcorner wrote: post #130

Earlier 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…

.

The idea that American views are emebedded and spread in the very technology that America champions is itself the American view that is criticised.

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

#200

Post by unityByFreedom »

gonzo41 wrote: post #48
kchr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe GP is debating whether Reddit is popular. People will put their "content" on whatever platform appears "free" and easy to use.

I know, but is any social media not run top down? I don't see the issue with it. They pay for the servers. Maybe we are expecting too much?

Reddit is really good at getting people to remove content for free. That's the distinction IMO. They give mods power to remove things they don't like in exchange for removing or reporting illegal stuff that would otherwise be impossible (?) for reddit to cost effectively manage.
Post reply on HN