321–330 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it both? I don't see how moderation (in the form of removing/editing content) isn't censorship.
Let me clear it up for you: Say you post an article about the current state of socioeconomic affairs in the EU in /r/askscience. Your submission will be deleted, because /r/askscience's subject is not to host such articles. There is room elsewhere in Reddit for such an article. This is an example of moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm speculating but it seems like an easy outlet for that "being offensive for its own sake" mindset you see sometimes in kids and young adults. I think it's part of growing up... It just happens that the Internet allows people to focus and concentrate that negative energy.
While that's likely part of it, that's not the entirety of things. To be fair, I would wager that fatpeoplehate had its share of trolls, but I would definitely believe that the vast majority of its denizens were former fat people, and very frustrated at the obesity epidemic in the United States. Frustration leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. You know the rest. I speak here from some experience. Several members of m…
Actually (and frighteningly) you'd be wrong about that.
This article dramatically understates the magnitude of the shitstorm that is currently unfolding. Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/all/ if you feel like seeing all the ugliness. (And if anyone has any doubts that this is ultimately about harassment, count how many of the posts on the front page (and their comments) are made up of personal attacks and/or obscenities targeted at CEO Ellen Pao.) I don't fault the Reddi…
I see mentions of thought-policing etc., but that's really wholly different from censorship and moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never understood why reddit was so lenient with its community. There are so many racists and hateful subreddits, that attract more and more people like that, that makes the community as a whole worse. There's a large segment of the online community in general that understands the ideal of free speech to mean that no one may ever be prevented from saying anything , in any location or context. These folks believe t…
When you claim that an extreme emphasis on free speech originates from people who secretly wish to silence others, you might be inadvertently revealing something about yourself :-) My idea of free speech is that large privately-owned communication networks shouldn't engage in censorship, just like the government. If you disagree with that, say goodbye to free speech on the internet, because most of it is privately ow…
I think that's kinda weird. Does a book publisher have to publish my manuscript because "free speech" and rejecting me would be censorship? If MTV doesn't want to pick up a show is that censoring the producer's freedom? If I owned a site and then shut it down because I couldn't afford the bills is that censorship of the people who engage in my site? If I owned a very large site do I have to have a comments section for the stuff I post am I censoring other people's opinions on what I post? If I made a community dedicated to (say) Christians and it became overrun by atheists and was no longer suiting its original purpose and I shut it down because of that is that censorship? Is the New York Times obligated to post dick pics because a reader posted them in the comments section?
Private (IRL) meetings for a certain groups/organizations have the right to kick out troublemakers and those who disagree. Those kicked out have the right to start their own group with their own members too. That's not too much different with how it works on the internet too. If you go to (say) and atheist conference they are not obligated to give the podium to anyone who walks into the door and has an opinion. You are suggesting something as strange as that.
>If you disagree with that, say goodbye to free speech on the internet, because most of it is privately owned.
That's silly. There's plenty of hate and various opinions on the internet and always will be - but it thrives in smaller communities with a more dedicated audience. In other words something like Reddit who was trying to be "everything to everyone" has problems with making everyone happy but the KKK forums are certainly not going to have such an issue and will thrive. If there is so many people who want to shout to the world their hateful things than you bet one of those people (a private individual/company) is going to spend a couple bucks to make that happen.
HN users consistently imply this place has better comments than Reddit. "Reddit is a cesspool." "Can we please not bring this to HN as well." etc. I've never had a problem avoiding content I didn't like there. Meanwhile I saw great discussions at various times. Here, on the other hand, I've nearly stopped reading. Besides the unjustified elitism, constantly I'd post on a thread here only to see it disappear with no e…
> will probably end up going to Voat.co like everyone else talks about. Good luck with that. The users exiting reddit are precisely the kind of users you don't want on your website. The young, trolls, immature and racist/bigots. They're essentially filling their community up with 4channers. That site is already filled with reddit's /r/conspiracy users. They run many of the most popular subreddits. That place is doome…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the people leaving are the obnoxious hate monger, bandwagoners, and other general trolls that's fine with me. If Reddit wants to get some of the amazingly creepy stuff under control, I'm all for it.
>If Reddit wants to get some of the amazingly creepy stuff under control, I'm all for it. But they're not actually doing that, because they're leaving plenty of subreddits that are arguably much worse.
Because they've taken so little action (and because of the way the admins were defending it in the announcement thread) instead of a real step forward this looks like someone pushed them forward 2mm and they're trying to claim victory.
But if some of the worst elements of the site want to take this as an opportunity to abandon the site, I'll feel better about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't real life. It's access via a screen. In real life, my argument wouldn't stand. On the internet, you are given tools to weather the storm. Shitty people will always exist. Everyone else now has to suffer as casualties of the wide net cast in hopes of eliminating a vitriolic idiots because of a few victims.
Internet hate can often turn into real life hate. Witness: SWATing, emails to employers, ordering pizzas as a "joke". Not to mention, the number of death threats and threats of sexual violence is climbing at an alarming rate, especially for women and PoC. I have no idea why people think it's socially acceptable to say things on the internet to people that you wouldn't say to them IRL in front of a police officer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the years since SJW turned from a meaningful term into a catch-all for anyone who advocates for social justice in any way other than qualifying lip service[1], the general reddit crowd has noticeably moved away from standard-issue PC/liberal to anglo-centric liberal. Systemic issues of injustice are portrayed as primarily matters of self-fulfilling prophecy. The protestant work ethic is heavily espoused for minori…
> The protestant work ethic is heavily espoused for minorities What do you mean here? Just looking for an explanation...
It's a bit of a confusing term, because its use from a more theological perspective (e.g., hard work is a symbol of salvation). I probably should have used a different term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Are you comparing feminism to misogyny and racism?
There's a movement of people who call themselves "Social Justice Warriors" (SJWs). They engage in activities that they claim are in support of race, gender and class equality but are in fact often racist or sexist. In general they seem to be hateful people damaging the causes they claim to fight for. The #KillAllMen, #KillAllWhiteMen hashtags on Twitter are good examples of some of their activities. Their backwards a…
The concept of feminism becoming discredited started happening way before the term "SJW" existed. Both from outside the movement (See: the straw feminist trope) and within the movement (from a small minority of crazies).
The West is so inconsistent. It will cheer as Charlie Hebdo mocks the prophet of a quarter of the living people on Earth. "Free speech!" But then it will close down forums where some people say mean things about some other people. "Propriety!" "It's 'curated' or 'managed', not censored!"
> It will cheer as Charlie Hebdo mocks the prophet of a quarter of the living people on Earth. I think the gentlemen shooting bullets at the Charlie Hebdo authors contributed quite a bit to this attitude of defiance.