It is well past time for Reddit to die, with its authoritarian policies that amount to propagandist control of information and ideology. There are many alternatives out there (https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/oioeot/...) but how do any of them overcome network effects and become viable and mainstream?
Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#72Reddit's procedure for communities that go against any mainstream progressive narrative is to quarantine them and then ban them under the accusation of "brigading". They have essentially trimmed all alternative thought or discussion from the website and turned places like /r/news, which used to be a moderate and balanced place of discussion, into a completely one-sided echo chamber of modern progressive politics. The…
>They have essentially trimmed all alternative thought or discussion from the website and turned places like /r/news, which used to be a moderate and balanced place of discussion, into a completely one-sided echo chamber of modern progressive politics. This has been going on for years. After the Orlando nightclub massacre in 2016, /r/news and /r/worldnews completely shut down postings about it because a Muslim was th…
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#73It 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.
I dont think this article questions if this is legal. Many companies do things that are Legal but are perhaps unethical or just not aligned with consumer interests. Your focus on legality to me is completely irrelevant at this stage. People want to discuss if this decision was a good idea or bad idea.
I don't care for moralizing. If you're not going to make a legal argument, I really couldn't care less. Companies aren't ethical; they obey laws. That's all they will do.
Often, ethics become law. If you care about this at all, figure out what laws you want and organize to pass them.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#74Reddit's procedure for communities that go against any mainstream progressive narrative is to quarantine them and then ban them under the accusation of "brigading". They have essentially trimmed all alternative thought or discussion from the website and turned places like /r/news, which used to be a moderate and balanced place of discussion, into a completely one-sided echo chamber of modern progressive politics. The…
There's no rational discussion to be had between homeopathy doctor and an oncologist, for example. It's just a waste of bandwidth and source of misinformation which is killing innocents.
So my mother oncologist also offered alternative medical treatments that were basically homeopathy. I think the truth is that it every cancer is curable. And if you are in a fatalistic situation like that it’s important to have something that modifies your outlook in addition to practical treatment. Otherwise you as a patient might simply give up.
To note my mother was also a doctor herself and worked on trauma cases (military) so she was well aware that homeopathy was just a way to provide hope in a fatal situation.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#75If you have a controversial, non-mainstream opinion you need to be extremely rigorous with verifying your information. That’s something NNN users didn’t do enough of. They got banned for a fake pedo sub being created by someone (maybe a member, maybe a brigadier) that was then used to say “look at the people supporting vaccine mandates… pedos.” That claim got upvoted on NNN so it made them look like they’d upvote any…
Opposing a mandate doesn’t need science.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#76Reddit continues to insist that its sitewide administrative policies are based on behaviour rather than content , though it appears that this is a somewhat narrow distinction, and that behaviours which draw attention … tend to be associated with questionable content. I’m not criticising the action. I support it. (The reasons are complex and difficult to articulate, though what I had to say ... on Reddit ... about lim…
>The reasons are complex and difficult to articulate, though what I had to say ... on Reddit ... about limitations on speech some six years ago seems strongly appropriate
I don't think basing your argument on Schneck does it any good. It doesn't seem to be considered good decision nowadays. That case would fall well within First Amendment protections by standards established in later cases.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#77It 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.
But Hacker News doesn’t have healthy moderation. The mods let flagging run rampant.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think this article questions if this is legal. Many companies do things that are Legal but are perhaps unethical or just not aligned with consumer interests. Your focus on legality to me is completely irrelevant at this stage. People want to discuss if this decision was a good idea or bad idea.
I don't care for moralizing. If you're not going to make a legal argument, I really couldn't care less. Companies aren't ethical; they obey laws. That's all they will do. Often, ethics become law. If you care about this at all, figure out what laws you want and organize to pass them.
Since you replied so will I.
Take example this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072424
It actually doesnt matter if its legal or not for them to be doing this. Whats important is for customers be fully aware of whats going on and to make a choice (purchase or not). The opinion of customers will undoubtably shape that companies future decisions.
So companies do much more than obey laws and follow contract or EULA. The respond to their customers and users based on their perceptions and feedback.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#79Reddit continues to insist that its sitewide administrative policies are based on behaviour rather than content , though it appears that this is a somewhat narrow distinction, and that behaviours which draw attention … tend to be associated with questionable content. I’m not criticising the action. I support it. (The reasons are complex and difficult to articulate, though what I had to say ... on Reddit ... about lim…
>The reasons are complex and difficult to articulate, though what I had to say ... on Reddit ... about limitations on speech some six years ago seems strongly appropriate I don't think basing your argument on Schneck does it any good. It doesn't seem to be considered good decision nowadays. That case would fall well within First Amendment protections by standards established in later cases.
But I didn't base my argument on Schenck. What I did was to take the metaphor of a dissenting opinion [Note: majority opinion, see comments below, my error] and then invert it (which would make any precedent invalid regardless) for the purpose of posing a question: what can we ask about the nature of harm caused by denying a threat, most especially when there is a self-serving interest in doing so?
Schenck was a bad ruling, it's been overturned, and Holmes's argument appeared in a dissent. [Update: Nope, majority, see reply below.] It's memorable language (which is why it is invoked all the time, usually in a mistaken or misleading way). But it has never been guiding language.
It's still a useful notion: one of considering private right to speech vs. the court's interest in public harm. Holmes's hypothetical was in falsely claiming a threat where none existed. That occurs occasionally, but is actually somewhat less an issue than denying a threat. The second is a behaviour we've seen again and again and again, mostly in a private-enterprise, "free market", private-property (and profit) context, where by downplaying some harm, profits or business can be transacted for a longer time with a larger market (or frauds perpetrated). This is what Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway document repeatedly in Merchants of Doubt.
The benefit in Covid disinformation may be harder to pin down, though there are several pretty plausible cons that might be played, including poltical power, sale of hoax or ineffective cures (as has been suggested regarding Florida's governor and a key political funder), and general huckstering and grift.
Re: Reddit bans anti-vaccine subreddit r/NoNewNormal after site-wide protest
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The reasons are complex and difficult to articulate, though what I had to say ... on Reddit ... about limitations on speech some six years ago seems strongly appropriate I don't think basing your argument on Schneck does it any good. It doesn't seem to be considered good decision nowadays. That case would fall well within First Amendment protections by standards established in later cases.
But I didn't base my argument on Schenck. What I did was to take the metaphor of a dissenting opinion [Note: majority opinion, see comments below, my error] and then invert it (which would make any precedent invalid regardless) for the purpose of posing a question: what can we ask about the nature of harm caused by denying a threat, most especially when there is a self-serving interest in doing so? Schenck was a bad…
>Schenck was a bad ruling, it's been overturned, and Holmes's argument appeared in a dissent.
I'm not sure I follow. Holmes authored opinions for unanimous decisions for upholding convictions of peaceful criticism of draft in Schenck, Debs and Frohwerk.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...