This is my main problem with Twitter. The standards aren't consistently enforced. I've seen so many leftist blue checkmarks justifying violence that get a pass.
And on the racism front, Sarah Jeong comes to mind.
31–40 of 970 posts
This is my main problem with Twitter. The standards aren't consistently enforced. I've seen so many leftist blue checkmarks justifying violence that get a pass.
And on the racism front, Sarah Jeong comes to mind.
Both Reddit's and /r/The_Donald speech protected from the outcome. From the article is that that the moderators/participants already have a new place to discuss whatever they want on a reddit clone. Reddit as a platform/company doesn't have to choose to be associated with this hate speech. Both sides have free speech rights and both have outcomes that support that speech...
> Both sides have free speech rights and both have outcomes that support that speech... "Free speech rights" don't apply between two private entities, only between the government and a private entity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appears to be fronted by Cloudflare (as of 1593450845). Curious to see how long that lasts in the current tumultuous environment.
Cloudflare isn't in the business of deplatforming and moderating the way that social media companies are. We all know about that one case, but it was not only an extreme outlier, but also had some other reasoning behind it. I will predict CF does not deplatform them any time soon.
I always wondered what the actual population of that sub was, I felt like I saw some strange patterns where whole hordes of users would appear, disappear, mob another sub and so on. It felt like a very non organic community in many ways.
The issues surroundings that sub weren't just some folks who had a sub to talk to each other, they were very busy mobbing / taking over other subs and etc.
Like most of those subs that leaned right it seemed like a front for sort of a rabbit hole of fear, hate, open bigotry, and blatent calls for violence / division and etc.
Worth taking note that in today's climate, you really cannot win when you are in a position to moderate important things that a lot of people use. There is constantly tremendous pressure on you to perform opposing actions, and even making no decision at all will cause you significant mental stress and harassment, regardles of what the issue is. You have to pick who you want to cave to, and to what extent, and no matt…
While this is probably true in most cases, given the Reddit CEO's history with the_donald[1], this doesn't seem like it applies in this particular case.
___
Never checked it out. Don't regret it
I did and I was left satisfied. I wanted to see their viewpoint on at the time "the hot topic" and confirm my suspicions that I truly don't consider their viewpoint rational or valid. It's like they start from a conclusion and work backwards to excuse it.
The article is incorrect. "racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, glorification of violence and conspiracy theories that flourished there." That can be seen in all political subreddits - even the favored /r/politics. Those forms of hate were not condoned in T_D. But if washpo wants to rewrite history, they can try. T_D was banned because reddit hates the policies Trump was elected to enact.
If black people (or perhaps more specifically, subreddits focused on issues pertinent to black communities) were banned on reddit, but they had a much smaller website where they could discuss issues, would it be an outcome that supported their free speech?
You are drawing an equivalence of discrimination against those with dark skin to discrimination against the profoundly immoral and hateful. You are a racist, and are not engaging in good faith arguments.
Both Reddit's and /r/The_Donald speech protected from the outcome. From the article is that that the moderators/participants already have a new place to discuss whatever they want on a reddit clone. Reddit as a platform/company doesn't have to choose to be associated with this hate speech. Both sides have free speech rights and both have outcomes that support that speech...
Is there a "real" definition of hate speech? It seems like a hard to define rule. I also hate Trump but am allowed to say any horrible thing I want to about him, but if I were to same the same things about Hilary (I also hated her as a politician) it would be hate speech.