11–20 of 105 posts
Hacker News itself does this all the time; there's plenty of topics and conversations that aren't allowed to be posted here. And people get banned/silenced all the time. And that's good! That's what healthy moderation looks like.
It is not legal (and should not be legal) for people to force privately owned companies to publish speech that those companies don't want to publish. Hacker News itself does this all the time; there's plenty of topics and conversations that aren't allowed to be posted here. And people get banned/silenced all the time. And that's good! That's what healthy moderation looks like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit hardly cares about improving the world as much as it's own bottom line. The boycotts by several popular subreddits were hurting them, and that is all. — r/legaladvice is a known hotbed of misinformation of potentially drastic consequences that is allowed to stay, as that misinformation does not run enough across political tribalist lines to make people care.
> The boycotts by several popular subreddits were hurting them, and that is all. you mean boycotts by a bunch of petulant power mods. I sincerely doubt that rank and file reddit users really cared that much. Whether you agree with the outcome or not this is not the situation reddit admins should want to be in. They've just shown those mods that if they're loud enough that reddit will roll right over. Seems like a bol…
And yes, I mean that the boycots were organized by those in control of those subreddits.
It is not legal (and should not be legal) for people to force privately owned companies to publish speech that those companies don't want to publish. Hacker News itself does this all the time; there's plenty of topics and conversations that aren't allowed to be posted here. And people get banned/silenced all the time. And that's good! That's what healthy moderation looks like.
The platforms are public and used by millions.
Ah yes, and now they'll move to an even more permissive platform which cares even less what they think. Oh, and wouldn't you know: those more permissive platforms are also where actual white nationalists, racists, and violent extremists hang out. Just an absolutely pathetic, counterproductive, downright stupid decision on behalf of reddit.
How is it so clearly a bad thing to quarantine extremism and misinformation to dark corners rather than allow them to be in a more easily stumbled upon location by non-extremists or not yet extremists that are somewhat susceptible to falling down that rabbit hole if exposed?
Rarely do people care about improving the world, but feeling part of a team has always galvanized men into iron warriors. — Achieving victory is of course not the concern of these warriors, but the joy of fighting shoulder to shoulder with another is it's own reward.
Of course, that it runs across tribalist political lines is the only reason the misinformation again exists in this particular case, but that also makes it less useful to shut the subreddit down.
The misinformation that is commonly spread, by, say, r/legaladvice, is easier to remedy by simple conversation or alternatively shutting it down and for Reddit to ban lay legal advice, as people believe that simply because they are misinformed, not because they enjoy feeling part of a team believing whatever the rest of the team does.
It is not legal (and should not be legal) for people to force privately owned companies to publish speech that those companies don't want to publish. Hacker News itself does this all the time; there's plenty of topics and conversations that aren't allowed to be posted here. And people get banned/silenced all the time. And that's good! That's what healthy moderation looks like.
> It is not legal (and should not be legal) for people to force privately owned companies to publish speech that those companies don't want to publish. The platforms are public and used by millions.
I know this conversation has happened numerous times on HN by now, but at times like this I can't help but speak up. Although I have matured over the past decade, no longer the "Ron Paul" libertarian of my college days, and I understand the nuances w.r.t large public platforms facilitating misinformation; there still exists a part in me that pines for the "old Reddit," and laments that all attempts to remake platforms with liberal free-speech policies have come from far-right extremists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The boycotts by several popular subreddits were hurting them, and that is all. you mean boycotts by a bunch of petulant power mods. I sincerely doubt that rank and file reddit users really cared that much. Whether you agree with the outcome or not this is not the situation reddit admins should want to be in. They've just shown those mods that if they're loud enough that reddit will roll right over. Seems like a bol…
Reddit wants to be somewhat decentralized and offload many of it's labor to users who provided it with free content. — This is the other side of it, I suppose. And yes, I mean that the boycots were organized by those in control of those subreddits.