Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 276 posts

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#221

Post by KozmoNau7 »

hfourm wrote: post #33
blfr wrote: post #13

Why has free speech fallen out of favour with SV? Ironically, it happened rather silently. It's not just an Eternal September-like phenomenon. The very same people who used to support it not only don't any more but pretend they never did in the first place. Speaking of the founding fathers, I ask him what he thinks they would have thought of Reddit. "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would li…

Same reason I would ban someone from my personal forum for spamming racial slurs, violent threats, and all around stupid commentary.

Exactly, because they're being a net negative influence on the quality of discussion on your forum, as decided by you, the proprietor of said forum.

I'm still not sure why people find this so difficult to understand.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#222

Post by KozmoNau7 »

jquery wrote: post #68
_euac wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the "far left" subreddit doesn't have content calling for ethnic cleansing? Just saying.

No, they want to cleanse the bourgeoisie, they're very multi-ethnic in their genocides. And not all of the far left is colorblind, we generally consider people who want to ethnically cleanse white people as far left.

Please point to where you think they're advocating bloody revolution, genocide or ethnic cleansing of white people.

I'll be waiting patiently.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#225

Post by Noos »

sighwhatnow wrote: post #72
KGIII wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue they have no moral obligation to do any such thing. However, they should probably make a pretty clear warning sign. I fear we will digress too far. In short, I'm very pro freedom of expression. I'm glad voat exists, for example. The people there are often horrible, that is true. But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.

> But, they still deserve to express themselves freely. Um, why. What makes you think this. If someone's opinions are stupid and abhorrent, why should they not experience an immediate and firm response, in ban-hammer form. Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into…

Because it easily becomes "let's prohibit any small minority group the people in power find distasteful or unpopular." The net hates/hated Scientologists, for example, but I'm sure you could find others. Jehovah's Witnesses generally are disliked or have only negative public perception.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#226

Post by slededit »

thraxil wrote: post #195
Grue3 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll tell you why. Nobody who isn't an ISIS member has ever been called an ISIS member. However the favorite tactic of American left lately has been calling anyone who they disagree with a Nazi. For example most people are probably politically to the right to the likes of Anthony Fantano or Laci Green. And yet both of them have been unironically branded Nazis, as a quick Twitter search will confirm. So yeah, if you h…

> I'll tell you why. Nobody who isn't an ISIS member has ever been called an ISIS member. I do seem to recall a certain presidential candidate calling Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama founders of ISIS... Painting all Muslim or even brown people as ISIS or terrorists is a pretty common rhetorical tactic of the right.

> I do seem to recall a certain presidential candidate calling Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama founders of ISIS...

The clear and obvious intent of that sentence was to imply their policies allowed ISIS to exist, and that they would not exist had the power vacuum not been created. This new literal reading of everything is just another part of the decline of our political discourse.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#227

Post by zghst »

KGIII wrote: post #6

It's really, really not easy to stand up for the rights of Nazis. If you're a Nazi, you can use voat.co as they are very free speech oriented. You don't have to be a Nazi to participate, but it's a good idea to have a thick skin if you do go there. I go there and talk to the White Nationalists. They are pretty much Nazis. They know I'm not white and that I don't agree with them. They don't scare me. They are scared a…

I’ve know a few white surpremacist in my life, same take. All scared, powerless, in bad health, drinking and eating bad, love conspiracies.

All say “You don’t talk like your color, etc, etc.”

I do not endorse or share their views however I believe they have a right to self organize and believe what they do.

That being said, businesses have rights to deny services to whoever they please. Especially people who are bad for business!

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#228

Post by slededit »

blfr wrote: post #98
untog wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can there not have been a reevaluation? Any changed policy is the result of reevaluation. These debates have been happening for a long time on places like Twitter, where the safety vs freedom debate has raged for a long time. And there's a "Reddit bans community" outrage pretty much every year.

A change in policy is just a change in policy. I would expect a reflection on the before and after states, some rationale. Even something as simple as a blog post stating that due to X, Y, Z, Reddit now considers engagement or whatever more important than free speech and will adjust rules and enforcement accordingly. But there's more to it. It's not only Reddit or some other company. There is a general change in atti…

The change is not just with companies. You can see the changes here too from the average poster. More shocking than free speech was the turn away from democracy after the Brexit vote went the "wrong way" on this very site.

In the past it was taken for granted that the tech community was mostly liberal. That is no longer the case both here and the country at large.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#229

Post by forgottenpass »

blfr wrote: post #13

Why has free speech fallen out of favour with SV? Ironically, it happened rather silently. It's not just an Eternal September-like phenomenon. The very same people who used to support it not only don't any more but pretend they never did in the first place. Speaking of the founding fathers, I ask him what he thinks they would have thought of Reddit. "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would li…

Social media is realizing the new batch of users don't have the stomach for TV-14 content.

So they're bending over backwards to keep their KPIs up, and if that means acting as if Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia so be it.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#230

Post by Chaebixi »

vaishaksuresh wrote: post #142
Chaebixi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance. That doesn't work. There are lots of people who are extremely intolerant to people who hold views that weren't very controversial a decade or two ago and are still widely held today; case in point, Brendan Eich (and the intolerant campaign that got him fired). "Unacceptable intolerance" is something that can have very different definitions from one person to the next,…

I don't want to argue about this on HN, because I don't think this is the right forum. You can argue all you want about how X was discriminated for having Y opinion and how it was not alright. I may agree with you on some instances, however, under no circumstance is is alright to: 1) Own another person 2) Discriminate based on something that people have no control over. Like race, sexual orientation, Gender etc. 3) E…

If you don't want to talk about anything that's fine. However, this discussion is about speech about those ideas, not their actual implementation. You don't really seem to be distinguishing between the two.
Post reply on HN