Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but a registrar / hoster that has just closed one hate site isn't going to let someone spin up another immediately. And soon enough they'll be out of options.
Your brazen support of censorship is troubling.
Why?
Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
301–310 of 407 posts
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#302Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Milos case there is soliciting views of neo nazis and video examples of defending child rapists. Quite apart from not wanting your company associated with that content there is probably a legal need to distance ones self to avoid litigation in some countries.
He made a joke about his own experiences as a young gay man on the Joe Rogan podcast. He has continually distanced himself from the Alt-Right and neo-Nazis. He has also recently married his fiance, who is a person of colour.
It's extremely telling that false statements made against predominantly right-leaning individuals in this thread maintain their prominent hue, whilst true statements correcting those beliefs are fading to a less visible hue.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about hate speech. Hate speech is illegal and should be removed. This is about material that advertisers don't like. Advertisers aren't cops. They don't necessarily care about illegality. Rather, they might tolerate some degree of hate so long as it gets eyeballs. This is about marketing.
> Hate speech is illegal and should be removed. This is a lie. Hate speech is not illegal, and the SCOTUS has explicitly made this clear. To not have an understanding of the critical importance for private individuals to speak freely shows an extraordinary lack of knowledge of history, for one. And you declare you are an attorney in your HN "about" page?
Depends on where it is. In parts of Europe, it is.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing You seem to have misplaced the context which I'm sure was unintentional - the panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee, who specifically sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers to make a point, called him a shithead. That, sir, is why the organisers did nothing - because h…
> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers Who also didn't harass her. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then. The same goes for othe…
[deleted]
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#306What I don't understand about this new trend of companies trying to make their content "Advertiser friendly" is that those same advertisers seem to be fine advertising during events like the Vegas Shooting. I'm just hoping this trend of making your websites rated G dies off sooner rather than later.
I don't see the connection between the shooting and advertisers. If you are American I understand that the Las Vegas shooting probably affected you very much. There is a lot of violence going on around the world, so what do you suggest?
I don't think advertisers associate their ads with violence when cnn reports on it and I don't think they should associate social media websites with the minority of offensive content they host. Reddit and YouTube aren't identified by their edgy content.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry but if you’re advertising on a platform for hate groups, you’re financially supporting them, and I can choose not to do business with you because of it.
I'm a creator, and your logic impacts me financially, although I don't depend on this money, here's why: Advertisers don't even know my channel exists. The only thing an advertiser knows about my channel is that my viewers tend to watch tech-related videos, and can be associated with other related metadata produced by deductive reasoning alone. When it comes time for XYZBlenderCorp to invest in advertising, they don'…
The filters are only as good as they have to be. If the filters didn't work at all, nobody would pay for them. If the filters showed adult content intermixed with children's content, that would be a problem. Intermixing Blender with "Will it Blend" videos likely isn't a problem, but if it was integral to the platform and really bad, it could drive the Blender community away.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe he's an example of incompetence; creating national and international gaffs literally every day. Refusing to normalize his behavior isn't a devious agenda when it's that behavior that has paralyzed the government such that there isn't anything else to report on.
Well, that does make sense that it's a daily story to you if you think that way. I just wish the people who do think this could understand how tiresome it is to see every story infused with a Trump angle. Like this Al Franken story for example, there are no posts about the topic that don't focus on the Trump accusations foremost. Why can't it be examined by itself?
Because nothing happens in a vacuum. How would it be fair if Franken were to be held accountable (which he should be, absolutely), but Trump not?
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of an inside joke on reddit now how left-leaning /r/politics is. It frames itself as a generic political news page but it's so biased it's incredible.
Politics wasn't always like that ... it's now a counter-balance to The_Donald. Hard to remain "neutral" when right next door there's not even an attempt.
It was like that long before T_D existed.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?
One could argue /r/politics is an echo-chamber, too. I mean, it has been anti-Republican for a while, but at this point it's beyond absurd. All I see is Trump news. Like they hardly even talk about bad laws Republicans pass anymore. If it's not Trump-related, it's typically not upvoted/is downvoted. I think it may be time for Reddit to experiment with removing the downvote button, or maybe give it 25% of the power it…
> All I see is Trump news
13 out of 25 of the front page of /r/politics right now (sorted by hot) are Trump news. 16 out of 25 if sorting by top.
That doesn't seem excessive, considering how vocal Trump is.