201–210 of 302 posts
The problem I see with his retiring is one I've experienced on reddit as a moderator. When someone higher than you "retires" or goes otherwise inactive, yet still retains the power they hold, they inevitably come back. It's guaranteed. Even if it's only for a day. That doesn't sound like a problem at first, but it's a HUGE problem. Why? Because new policies, rules or ways of handling things get enacted or evolve and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that actual calls to swat people have been deleted on that board. But, I can't say for sure because I don't hang out there, and the events of GamerGate have me applying a shakerfull of salt to any negative press surrounding 8chan. And as far as "incorrect", that is your opinion and it is your own, I have a differing one. I like the idea of a site where the admin has assured tha…
There's a pretty substantial difference between "I like the idea of a site..." and "only legitimate stance to take." Can you explain why you think granting the ability to create a sub-board generates a different moral obligation, in your opinion, than granting the ability to create a new post?
Allowing posts on a single board doesn't carry that obligation, because that's not what you're offering; the individual posts aren't and aren't meant to be communities with their own culture. I would still say that moderators have a moral obligation to be open, accountable, and representative of the community they moderate (even if it's a community they didn't want or ask for), and HN does a particularly poor job in this regard (lobste.rs demonstrates that it's possible to run a site like this with an open moderator log).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have elaborated on it for months. It's so thoroughly discredited in every way that if you don't see it now, you're not going to. Consider it "unfairly maligned" if you want - no one cares any more.
> People have elaborated on it for months. It's so thoroughly discredited in every way that if you don't see it now, you're not going to. Consider it "unfairly maligned" if you want - no one cares any more. Oh the corrupt journos showed up. I wonder why. https://twitter.com/totalbiscuit/status/521737847758663680
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's weird about the idea that somebody you're sleeping with could affect your judgement?
It's naive and presumptuous. Have it your way, though.
fortunately the more responsible publications have already updated their policies and looked inwardly to prevent fucking up so publicly and obviously again. (We can hope at the least they won't soapbox to their readership that they are assholes for calling them out!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He did create that cesspit and allowed it to thrive and attract the dredges of society. Not until 6 or 7 years into the site did he decide to crack down on the cp posted there. He definitely deserves ridicule.
Does he deserve ridicule for creating one of the few big internet communities where free speech means something? I think he deserves some credit for enduring all these years of enduring the hate of anybody offended by something posted on 4chan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Image boards aren't like newspapers or blogs. All content is user generated.
You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't. If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.
How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slippery slope which implies censorship from the very beginning. Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? Once you go there, you no longer have freedom of speech, which I agree with Hitchens et al. has to be protected even when it is uncomfortable.
I agree that there is a very tricky ethical case when it comes to harrassment or terrorism, but I have no good ideas on how to resolve it. We should err on the side of not censoring stuff we don't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Image boards aren't like newspapers or blogs. All content is user generated.
You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't. If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.
Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through government. It's still censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there was no "initial scandal"
The initial scandal was that Nathan Grayson had been friends with the relatively unknown developer of Depression Quest for a long time, to the point of getting thanked in the credits of the game. He then plugged it, here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-v... And also covered her here: http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-we... ...without disclosing the relationship. Whi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't. If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.
Same with VPS servers. Same with internet infrastructure; hubs, switches and fiber. Or ultimately any physical area in which people uttering heresy and atrocious opinions stay while uttering them (the latter point would ultimately be of concern to any owner of private property, or the state itself in the case of common public property). How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slipper…
No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the providers are responsible for it and are definitely enabling it, but sometimes that's better than the alternative. Not everything's black and white, unfortunately.
I'm not entirely certain that unrestricted use of a popular destination is the same thing as unrestricted use of a transport, though, to try and figure out a place where the line should be put. If you have an audience and allow people to reach that audience with dangerous and harmful ideas, that's likely worse than giving them the transport to build their own audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hah, good point. That might be the only one that actually works. However, it has an advantage in that it's rarely the start of a sentence (usually it will be The iPhone), and anyone using a Mac will have it autocorrect.
> usually it will be The iPhone So the brand still doesn't work, since Apple never uses an article.
They do use articles in their presentations sometimes, though