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

211–220 of 313 posts

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

#211

Post by blackbrokkoli »

sebmellen wrote: post #173
cies wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want law to protect people that say "all X should be killed", then X is not demonstrably super violent/intolerant in the first place? Let's say someone campaigns that all people that have gay sex should be killed: do you want this "speech" protected? Well: I dont. That's why I think "intolerance of the intolerant" is good. Most law books in developed democracies agree with me. White supremacists, racists, fasc…

Yes, I do, actually. We have a number of tiny fringe groups like this in the US, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, which would surely be illegal in most of Europe. I will defend their full right to speech so I can have my full right to speech. In Europe, free speech laws shut down leftist activists, not just "white supremacists, racists, fascists, extreme wahabists/salafits". I think this is a strawman and an idea…

You are going full circle without realising it.

A political party may be banned in Germany, as in: You cannot vote for them any more. For that to happen, they have to be hostile against fundamental parts of the constitution. That is division of powers, free development of the individual, independence of courts and stuff like that. Only then a ban might be even considered.

And it is still fully legal to be against these things, tweet about them or whatever.

This is to -protect- Jews, Muslims and Christians, because as was so colourfully demonstrated in Germany 33-45 it is very easy to run a platform striving to destroy these values within a democratic framework. (Similar to what the Free Speech Paradox is about)

There is no slippery slope here, and your argument that there is either bad faith or extremely uniformed.

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

#212

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

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…

.

Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by the west coast American view of the world?

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

#213

Post by _v7gu »

luckylion wrote: post #182
cies wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality. Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. So it's already practical. > Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ? This gets…

> Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. Depends. Germany for example takes a similar route as Reddit does. If you're Turkish, you're allowed to say "Germans are a dog race" when the German parliament recognize the fact that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians (hey, fun fact…

Isn't flamebait not allowed here?

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

#214

Post by djsumdog »

carlinmack wrote: post #183
watwut wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does banning those reddits only after shootings prove it is about groups liberals sympatize with? I mean it shows mostly that reddit bans after shootings.

Shootings that the contemporary liberal media highlight. We can't recall mass violence that target Asian, Romani, or global south communities because our media doesn't think it's notable enough.

and yet there's nothing on the anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting this year (most likely because the media needs to memory hole what was really a failed assassination attempt)

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

#215

Post by ceilingcorner »

thiht wrote: post #206
ceilingcorner wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Reddit seems half filled with bots and alt accounts to me.

As an avid reddit user, wtf? That's not my feeling at all. What subreddits do you use?

I read many subreddits. It’s my strong impression that most of the mainstream subs (which make up a vast majority of the userbase) are filled with questionable accounts.

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

#216

Post by k33n »

DavidVoid wrote: post #201
k33n wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m amused when people post flat out lies like this. T_d was a positive sub that loved Trump. They were pretty “rah rah” about him. It drove the anti-Trump people crazy, which is why it was banned. That’s the only reason. Just go cruise the comments on /r/politics for proof. They call for actual bloodshed and for the death of Trump and his supporters every single day. TDS is very real. It causes people such as yourse…

You can't in good faith make the argument that t_D was a positive sub. It loved Trump, yes, but it also frequently called for the execution of Muslims [1], immigrants [2], Planned Parenthood employees [3], Hillary Clinton [4], etc. [5] [1] https://archive.is/Kfl86 https://archive.is/DwlAc [2] https://archive.is/oOqOR [3] https://archive.is/LGH19 [4] https://archive.is/0uCjr https://archive.ph/LPuGH https://archive.fo…

If I cared to waste my time doing so, I could find plenty of objectionable comments in just about any Reddit sub. You seem to believe tough conversations about whether Muslim culture is compatible with Western culture, or whether the US should begin mass deportations of illegal aliens should not occur. I’d have to disagree with you there. If we can’t discuss complex topics like this on the internet, then where can we discuss them?

You’re really not very good at gaslighting.

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

#217

Post by f69281c »

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 technology itself gives rise to it

Do go on.

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

#218

Post by djsumdog »

itsthewrongspe wrote: post #135
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…

If misinformation and hate are why t_D was banned, why are r/latestagecapitalism (openly hateful and violent / ban dissenters),r/blackpeopletwitter (openly racist, spread misinformation), r/socialistrifleassociation (openly fomenting revolution) allowed to exist? Reddit just bans speech it doesn't like. It has nothing to do with hate -- only who you hate. Hating conservatives, Republicans, Whites? That's all fine on…

Don't comment on comments. It's against the rules and isn't constructive.

But I agree with you. Reddit is growing to be as hard-left as voat is hard-right. It's not quite there because there are still a lot of old communities before everything got political who still use Reddit (/r/MechanicalKeyboards/ and such).

But honestly, everyone needs to get off Reddit and go back to the days of phpBB forums, individual blogs and RSS feeds. Aggregation sites like HN, Reddit, etc should be where you go to promote stuff you've found though following individual you like.

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

#219

Post by f69281c »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #67
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.

Do you have a source for "their audience is becoming narrower and narrower"?

I think they meant ideologically

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

#220

Post by blackbrokkoli »

sebmellen wrote: post #69
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.

To piggyback on this, here is a quote from Karl Popper (the "discoverer" of the Paradox of Tolerance): > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

When one sides always takes the intellectual high ground, the other side can go continually lower, all while amassing significant cult-like follower ship. Alphabet Soup, machinegun argumentation, at hominem, gaslighting, oversimplification, non sequitur. It does not end in free society prevailing.
Post reply on HN