Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#201

Post by DavidVoid » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

k33n wrote: post #132

DavidVoid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run a forum and a user is constantly making up lies, harassing other users, and spamming misinformation then I don't think banning them is "free speech" issue. t_D should have been banned long before it eventually was imo. It actively spread misinformation and hate and made the website worse for other users. And a question for you: You say that Reddit is not in favor of free speech because it banned subs like…

I’m amused when people post flat out lies like this. T_d was a positive sub that loved Trump. They were pretty “rah rah” about him. It drove the anti-Trump people crazy, which is why it was banned. That’s the only reason. Just go cruise the comments on /r/politics for proof. They call for actual bloodshed and for the death of Trump and his supporters every single day. TDS is very real. It causes people such as yourse…

You can't in good faith make the argument that t_D was a positive sub. It loved Trump, yes, but it also frequently called for the execution of Muslims [1], immigrants [2], Planned Parenthood employees [3], Hillary Clinton [4], etc. [5]

[1] https://archive.is/Kfl86 https://archive.is/DwlAc

[2] https://archive.is/oOqOR

[3] https://archive.is/LGH19

[4] https://archive.is/0uCjr https://archive.ph/LPuGH https://archive.fo/Z0s1x

[5] https://archive.ph/2Gj8w

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#202

Post by sebmellen » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #169

sebmellen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point about child abuse is ridiculous. We prohibit child abuse precisely because it is a physical act. If I said "I will whip my child 50 times", and didn't do it, that would not be child abuse. It becomes child abuse once it is a physical act. You make the faulty presumption that speech itself can be a form of abuse. This is where free speech absolutists such as myself would disagree. Speech is a protected clas…

>It becomes child abuse once it is a physical act. Agreed, so being a physical act seems to be necessary for its prohibition. But we're not talking about child abuse, we're talking about the creation and distribution of child abuse videos, i.e. child pornography. These are two separate crimes. >Speech is a protected class of expression precisely for this reason: it cannot be abusive. People can absolutely be abused b…

Yes, child pornography seems to be the one big outlier. However, even the Supreme Court ruled to expand free speech in the case of a borderline child porn case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit....

Most of the child pornography laws that are used in prosecution are actually obscenity laws, which are an entirely different class of strange laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_....

Obviously this is probably the most egregious and disgusting form of criminality out there, so it's an important issue to deal with. I'm not sure what the proper solution is, but what we have now seems to work, given its extremely limited and well-defined scope.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#203

Post by ceilingcorner » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

noelsusman wrote: post #198

ceilingcorner wrote: post #28

Reddit today is the opposite of what it was in the beginning. Unsurprising that they’d write out Swartz in their quest to be a friendly corporate face. Alas, a new competitor will replace it soon. Virtually no one has brand loyalty to Reddit and their audience is becoming narrower and narrower.

Meanwhile in reality Reddit had 430 million active monthly users last year, 30% more than Twitter.

Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Reddit seems half filled with bots and alt accounts to me.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#204

Post by claudiawerner » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #202

claudiawerner wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It becomes child abuse once it is a physical act. Agreed, so being a physical act seems to be necessary for its prohibition. But we're not talking about child abuse, we're talking about the creation and distribution of child abuse videos, i.e. child pornography. These are two separate crimes. >Speech is a protected class of expression precisely for this reason: it cannot be abusive. People can absolutely be abused b…

Yes, child pornography seems to be the one big outlier. However, even the Supreme Court ruled to expand free speech in the case of a borderline child porn case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... . Most of the child pornography laws that are used in prosecution are actually obscenity laws, which are an entirely different class of strange laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_p…

I very much agree with you on virtual/drawn "child pornography", in which there is no victim and no abuse. Fiction should always be unrestricted.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#205

Post by dontcarethrow2 » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

mansion7 wrote: post #157

Krasnol wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But their success proves that they don't have to care... I mean seriously this "Diggs past will come for you"-line is being repeated for years but it's not happening. Meanwhile "alternatives" come up and and become irrelevant or nests of hate.

Reddit is very much a nest of hate, if you are any stripe of conservative. "The Donald" was censored, then banned, for speech less heinous, in lesser amounts, and with lower, or often negative, voting scores, than is currently allowed on the site now (by those with approved political beliefs, of course). Those with non-approved beliefs find themselves silenced and censored by moderators and admins, while those who in…

This is too accurate. Thought control in its simplicity. Ban all dissenting opinions, create a bunch of hacked up minions.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#206

Post by thiht » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #203

noelsusman wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in reality Reddit had 430 million active monthly users last year, 30% more than Twitter.

Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Reddit seems half filled with bots and alt accounts to me.

As an avid reddit user, wtf? That's not my feeling at all. What subreddits do you use?

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#207

Post by djsumdog » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

k33n wrote: post #187

DavidVoid wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know that a number of objectively hateful subreddits were not banned because they were hateful of people "in the majority" (whatever that means). Don't be vague, give concrete examples if you're going to make broad statements like that. > The question here veers into the territory of whether Reddit is a "publisher" or "platform". Well are subreddits "publishers" or "platforms" then? Because a lot of the hateful s…

Why do you guys always call t_d a hate sub? It was a Trump fan sub. Dedicated to positive content about Trump. It was the complete opposite of hateful, of course. Now, take the far left sub “/r/politics” which actively promotes hatred against half of the United States. Threats of violence against law enforcement abound there. Calls for actual bloodshed and violent “revolution” constantly. Subreddits are private or pu…

I truly was, and it's was hilarious.

California/Silicon Valley has a big issue of absolutely belief they are right. Big tech companies want to stop "disinformation" by banning people from their platforms.

A recent case is Dr. Li-Meng Yan who's been publishing research about CoV2 origins. There are academics who've taken issue with some of those releases/papers, and there is room for discussion for sure. But it should be discussed. Twitter just said, "nope, disinformation, cut and dry" and banned her account.

There are a lot of experts recently who have been banned on platforms like YouTube, Twitter, et. al. for spreading bad information. But science is not democratic. California companies have somehow become the arbitrators of what is good and bad science.

But coming back off of science to t_d, the same applies. It's a huge feedback loop of "he's bad" and a "fascists" and subs like these showed time and time again the massive media distortion of every one of his statements. There are a lot of agendas going on here and few of them are for the Truth.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#208

Post by anothermoron » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #203

noelsusman wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in reality Reddit had 430 million active monthly users last year, 30% more than Twitter.

Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Reddit seems half filled with bots and alt accounts to me.

Twitter as well.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#209

Post by leephillips » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:42 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #203

noelsusman wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in reality Reddit had 430 million active monthly users last year, 30% more than Twitter.

Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Reddit seems half filled with bots and alt accounts to me.

If I recall correctly, its initial user base was mostly composed of fake users, to make it appear as if had quickly become popular.

Re: Reddit’s About page doesn't include Aaron Swartz as a founder

#210

Post by agumonkey » Sun, Oct 04, 2020, 1:44 PM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #143

agumonkey wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem disagreeing and indeed our views are worlds apart. Social media means moot to me, I think internet has reached its limits long ago and better things are done without this. Now that reddit is hypocritical about its motto.. very plausible, and I personally, consider reddit as a toy, not a tool, nothing more. And you stated it yourself, both subs you mentionned became too extreme, this was the sole rea…

I am more against this because I believe it is emblematic of a broader societal sway towards the concept that speech can be violence, which is what I disagree with. Reddit is simply one of many high-profile cases of this ideology finding root and with real effect.

What real effects ? I'm curious