271–280 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you see who it was removed by?
Reddit admin staff don't touch any posts in subreddits unless it is something against the site rules like doxxing,personal info or child porn. Some subs leave a flair or a moderator message on removed submission, if not you can modmail them and ask.
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's almost as if The West isn't a monoculture, and contains people who disagree with each other.
This comment above is about consensus - or its approximate form - that ends up dominating the conversation.
I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I'm against censorship, on the other I'm against internet bullying. /r/FatPeopleHate was engaging in both. In the end reddit is a private site that can do what it wants. Wikipedia removes things all the time and sites like 4chan remove all sorts of extremely offensive material. I'm glad the mods of the hate oriented subreddits have been shadow banned, I actually think…
Wikipedia has a stated goal, a public management team engaged in discussion and debate with their users, and something resembling accountability. Reddit has the Silicon Valley's most notorious gender-baiting troll as it's head, virtually zero interactions between the corporate side and the unpaid community managers, and no clear rules on what it does and doesn't allow. Honestly, the writing should have been obviously…
What does "gender-baiting troll" mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh. IMHO, the real conspiracy here is Reddit's attempting to make it more palatable for advertisers so they can at least make an attempt at making money.
I would never want my business to boil down to a collective of people who will undoubtedly be on the wrong side of history. It's bad mojo all around, not just bad money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes me want to leave Reddit alone.
Why? Hackernews is way more heavily moderated and would never tolerate anything like those subreddits for a minute.
This marks the beginning of the end of Reddit. It's been a long time coming and Reddit has become a huge promotional platform for pseudo user generated content submitted by shills and celebrities. A lot of people are migrating to Voat. http://voat.co
This. I was one from Digg to come to Reddit, but since then the quality of posts has gone to shit. Comments worse than Youtube sometimes.
For instance, /r/games used to be super awesome with great comments and discussion. Since it got bigger over the past few years posts are lackluster, comments are nonsensical, and so on...gah now I'm ranting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pao is attempting to "clean up"... in an environment that cherishes its traditional freewheeling and unrestrained discourse. Even if the stuff getting cleaned up is just the stuff that most people agree deserves it - for some value of deserves - it's a troubling precedent to set. Some people find themselves wondering what opinions will be deemed unsafe next. The policies are not exactly clear-cut, and neither are the…
> what opinions will be deemed unsafe next. I think this is a little dramatic. It's not about censorship of "unsafe opinions" - you are free to hold your opinion and talk about it, just not on Reddit. It's akin to a hotel owner disallowing a Klan meeting in the conference room. I think any business owner deserves that right. > The policies are not exactly clear-cut I dunno, the blog post seems fairly clear cut to me.…
Would it be acceptable, or legal, if that were a Black Panthers meeting? Or a gay wedding?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit's userbase seems to feel especially threatened by Ellen Pao, and it's hard for me to believe that the difference is anything rational. Well, she has basically said that she wants to start cleaning up the "objectionable" sides of reddit. Plus, there is a strong sentiment that content that's critical of her (even the less hateful stuff) has been removed often in the past.
I've seen plenty of these claims but far less in the way of actual removed content. My sense is that this is largely a myth used to stir up outrage.
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!"
I think the gentlemen shooting bullets at the Charlie Hebdo authors contributed quite a bit to this attitude of defiance.
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.
> 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.
Whoa. Incredibly hypocritical of you to lecture others on hate, harassment and tone policing. You have routinely said awful things online and harassed people.
- You tell people to "set themselves on fire", a favorite phrase of yours used to those that disagree with you (http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/8-579... & https://twitter.com/search?q=%22set%20yourself%20on%20fire%2...)
- You harassed a data scientist, Chris von Csefalvay, and set your followers on him to the point he quit Twitter after he conducted some research that didn't suit your narrative. (http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/10.jp... via http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/the-hidden-face-of-hypocrisy-ran...)
- You wrote a non-review on Amazon to bully an author you disagreed with: (http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2015/06/01/randi-harpers-bul... & http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/03/renowned-author-c...)
... just the tip of the iceberg. Now you are posting on HN and masquerading as an online anti-harassment activist. Unreal.
