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

271–280 of 313 posts

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

#271

Post by squarefoot »

seattledev wrote: post #195
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

As a leftist myself I'd be inclined more to this one, although I wouldn't condone any violence that is not for self defense, nor attacking anyone just because of their ideals - unless their ideals consist in endorsing the opposite of the above. My take on food and shelter and (basic) healthcare for all is that I agree until this can pose a (real, proven) problem for others. Judging from current military expenses and top manager leaves, I'd dare to say that there's enough wealth out there to guarantee most of that to the entire planet.

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

#272

Post by ratww »

tinus_hn wrote: post #257
ratww wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that such an open-ended prediction has absolutely no value whatsoever... I'm sure Reddit will die someday, but people have been saying this for at least 10 years or more. When non-technical users started using it, when violentacrez et al were banned, with every layout change big or small, staff changes... People said the same thing about Facebook when it opened to non-edu users or when it launched the…

The value is in knowing they always have to watch their toes because it can all be over in a heartbeat. There is a very fine line between domination and irrelevance.

Digg, MySpace and Friendster weren't "over in a heartbeat". It took decay and lack of care with the platform, plus strong competition with strong venture capital funding. Plus, they were never as dominant or as entrenched as Reddit is.

Reddit is not going away just because you dislike it.

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

#273

Post by valvar »

pwdisswordfish4 wrote: post #93
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.

Affirm the status quo, as in the currently elected US president?

Clearly I must have misunderstood something, then. Reddit's suppression is obviously an anomaly, and in actuality the POTUS and his followers are dictating the boundaries of acceptable speech via their domination of academia, the media, and tech giants.

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

#274

Post by valvar »

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…

I really do not see what your point is. Of course there are things that are and should be illegal to say — but none of them are really politically relevant. Protecting free speech is about protecting dissent and the expression of political and related (e.g. artistic) ideas. Perhaps you can contrive of situations where your examples overlap with dissent. I guess the main one will be inciting violence, and in this case the "paradox" isn't entirely ridiculous. The problem is that it can be used as a very convenient justification for the suppression of entire heterogeneous groups. Which is why the violence itself is what should be illegal, and not the speech.

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

#275

Post by watwut »

iamben wrote: post #163
watwut wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is heavily moderated and posts that cross lines are quickly removed. It is not even secret and HN does not pretend it is not so. The reddit rules are much more loose. The subs that were banned on reddit would not even had achange to start here.

The quality remains relatively high on HN though. I'm pretty sure it's the only website I've used consistently (ie almost every day) for ten years. I know some political posts (and definitely trash/advertising) get cut and not everything (as defined by "free speech") gets through, but on a personal level for me (and I'm sure many others) I think the moderation works.

I like HN. I am not saying it is heavily moderated to make them stop moderating it.

But the fact is, it is what it is precisely because a lot effort goes into moderating it. Acting like HN it's some kind of free speech place is absurd.

Claiming that HN is good and then going into outrage because another site applied significantly looser restrictions is dishonest. For that matter, trying to pretend the Donald or incels subs were merely normal subs merely discussing conservative policies is outright lie.

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

#276

Post by easytiger »

cryptica wrote: post #267
easytiger wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid you come across as insane.

I am poorly adjusted, if that makes me insane, then I take it as a compliment. "The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does. Th…

It would take a staggering level of immaturity to find solace in the assertion that your adversarial opinions have value because they are in and of themselves adversarial.

Clearly you were someone who needs to simplify the dull anarchic complexity of life into simple terms in order to make swift overarching proclamations to make themselves feel like they have some power over it.

The end is nigh, etc.

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

#277

Post by dang »

cryptica wrote: post #30
losvedir wrote: post #6

I thought it really was founded by those two, and written in Lisp at that. Then YC hooked them up with Swartz and his big thing was rewriting in python. (And maybe there was some contention about this? I forget, but I seem to recall some drama at the time about his contributions.) It was a long time ago, though, so I might be misremembering. In any case, I'm fairly certain Swartz did join after the fact, but I'm not…

They were more than happy to call him a cofounder until now. Clearly they always throught of him as the 'diversity' hire. Now they want to pretend that he never existed. It makes me wonder if Alexis Ohanian also married Serena Williams to get diversity PR. I wouldn't be surprised at this stage. It's a direct attack against everything that's good in the world.

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of whom you're attacking. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Considering that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24673298 was just a day ago, this is a serious problem. I don't want to ban you, so we need you to fix this going forward.

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

#278

Post by dang »

easytiger wrote: post #252
cryptica wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people in the corporate sphere have no idea what's going on outside of their bubble. Society is falling apart. Morals are essential to the functioning of society.

I'm afraid you come across as insane.

Personal attacks are not acceptable here, regardless of whom you're attacking. We've had to ask you not to do this more than once before.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting to HN, we'd be grateful.

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

#279

Post by dang »

swebs wrote: post #226

>This comment by spez is also interesting For what its worth, Spez was caught abusing his admin access to secretly edit comments in the past, including other people's comments who he disagreed with politically. I would doubt any comment posted on reddit where Spez has stake in, as he might have just changed the story sometime down the line.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24678138.

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

#280

Post by ethanwillis »

saagarjha wrote: post #255
ethanwillis wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take your claims at face value. Let's say this is all 100% correct. Maybe then the prudent action is not to ban a subreddit that is a valid topic, but instead to ban users who have a history of behavior that's not acceptable? In fact, Reddit does ban users including u/soccer. To conflate r/911truth and r/Holodomor isn't fully honest. Edit: Meanwhile this exists - http://reddit.com/r/stalindidnothingwrong

That looks like a joke sub.

This looks like a joke comment. If you're not going to add anything please comment elsewhere.

It's not a joke sub there are people who legitimately believe this. And the point it's illustrating is that even if it's a "joke" some "jokes" are more well tolerated by Reddit than others. My original point is that there is definitely ideological biases at play in what is/is not bannable on reddit.

Post reply on HN