31–40 of 561 posts
I find it interesting that Reddit still manages to find themselves invoking the Streisand effect in full force.
Do we need scare quotes around "censorship" when reddit is telling them particular names are unmentionable in any context?
Some people would argue that "censorship" would not apply to a private company owned platform. That only governments and their agents are qualified to perform act of censorship.
What Reddit is doing unambiguously qualifies as censorship. It is also perfectly legal, but that's not the point.
I find it interesting that Reddit still manages to find themselves invoking the Streisand effect in full force.
I'm still shocked Reddit is allowed into the wider ecosystem of tech infrastructure. Between hosting explicit gore content and very extreme pornography with borderline legality at best (Including under Alexis's and Steve's leadership allowing a jailbait subreddit to continue for years) I would have thought they'd be booted from AWS etc.
Booting people off core infrastructure (IaaS, colo, DNS) for reasons outside violation of law is a very slippery slope.
Do we need scare quotes around "censorship" when reddit is telling them particular names are unmentionable in any context?
Some people would argue that "censorship" would not apply to a private company owned platform. That only governments and their agents are qualified to perform act of censorship.
You're mistaking the argument here. The argument is that a private company exercising censorship isn't violating a US person's constitutional right to free speech because the two things are different. It doesn't mean its not censorship and it doesn't mean it can't be unethical. It just means that the company has the legal right to censor whatever they want.
I'm still shocked Reddit is allowed into the wider ecosystem of tech infrastructure. Between hosting explicit gore content and very extreme pornography with borderline legality at best (Including under Alexis's and Steve's leadership allowing a jailbait subreddit to continue for years) I would have thought they'd be booted from AWS etc.
Well, that would be improper, so I'm glad they haven't been. Booting people off core infrastructure (IaaS, colo, DNS) for reasons outside violation of law is a very slippery slope.
Reddit feels very Soviet lately. Everything is heavily manipulated and it seems like users are aware of that fact but are powerless to change anything.
Reddit as a whole is less useful since comment sections were demoted from first class citizens to something barely usable. I think they saw imgur as a threat and wanted to better replicate that experience.
Do we need scare quotes around "censorship" when reddit is telling them particular names are unmentionable in any context?
In this case, yes. For one, the original title has them. Secondly, as stated in the article, Reddit denies the allegations: > [...] admin u/landoflobsters explains that it was not the company’s intention to remove any mention of Knight’s name, but that there had been “overzealous automaton” when it came to preventing doxxing and harassment. The admin explained that an internal error had led to the suspension of a mod…
That's mismanagement that doesn't even see it's mismanagement.
A policy problem that affects a person in leadership affects everyone in the group. They should have communicated with the affected parties and it sounds like they left it to the moderator to sort everybody else out.
They chose... poorly.
Do we need scare quotes around "censorship" when reddit is telling them particular names are unmentionable in any context?
Some people would argue that "censorship" would not apply to a private company owned platform. That only governments and their agents are qualified to perform act of censorship.