If this submission gets flagged/killed (it’s already gone from the front page) will I be penalized for upvoting it?
Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
311–320 of 401 posts
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://i.imgur.com/pkzrm25.png -- It literally says it was deleted by the user.
As another user has pointed out, it's both. The post was removed by moderators first, then the user deleted it some time after that. This information is only visible in the old design, not in the redesign.
Unfortunately if the user removed it you can't really see the order of events then. I don't believe you can now see who removed it first. I know as a mod on reddit I have deleted posts that were already removed by the user.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#313There is an alternative to the group think/hive mind called https://gab.com/ but it’s also a cesspool or horrible people sharing horrible ideas. Not sure what makes sense.
It continuously baffles me that some people don't learn from unmoderated online communities. They become dens of bigotry, doxing, attack mobs, racism, misogyny. Saying your site is driven only by "free speech" is the cowardly reply that refuses to stand up to these things.
> bigotry, doxing, attack mobs
Reddit is currently full of these, and it's apparently Ok when it comes from correct side of political spectrum
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous relative to Facebook and all the other social media sites. Sure, having user accounts is not completely anonymous, but it is good enough for 99% of people.
Not having a real name policy isn't the same as being anonymous. Back in the day my irc nick and my WoW username were far more well known than I, the human, will ever be.
Anonymous is probably the wrong term, but I'm not sure there's a better one.
I think the point is that there's a distinct disconnect between your profile on Reddit (and any other sites you share the username with) and your physical person, at least up until the point where you (ideally) make the connection public yourself if desired.
It's anonymous insofar as the "person" on reddit is not easily attributable to the physical person themselves.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
removed
> they should also disclose their bias This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels. > Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free. Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim? > But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving…
> Subbredits are run by users.
No, they are run day to day by users, but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners. Case in point, this article we are discussing.
> Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?
The behavior of the site owners? Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently, although there is single characteristic differences (gender, race, etc) because of the people and topics that are generated from the groups. Pre-censoring, is not uncommon, which has led up to this wrongthink penalty.
If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another user has pointed out, it's both. The post was removed by moderators first, then the user deleted it some time after that. This information is only visible in the old design, not in the redesign.
Unfortunately if the user removed it you can't really see the order of events then. I don't believe you can now see who removed it first. I know as a mod on reddit I have deleted posts that were already removed by the user.
Yes you can, because it is impossible to remove a deleted post. Your anecdote is not true.
Also, the user posted a comment complaining about the removal.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't happen soon enough. The days where forums were the defacto place for discussion were just better. The communities would self-police and alternative opinions weren't suppressed nearly as easily. Reddit is a meme slideshow, not a place for discussion.
The biggest hit against reddit is that every large sub has to resort to weekly discussion posts/tagging every post so people can filter, simply because of the way subreddits are forced to be laid out. A normal forum will have different sections to discuss everything even mildly related to the overarching topic, and a number of areas to talk about things not related to the topic. But Reddit doesn't have those features…
A solution is creating more niche subs, As an example the main Star Trek sub is very relax, so you get a variety of posts there and the comments vary in quality from very informed ones to just memes , hare and entitlement. So there are sister sub-reddits , I like r/DaystromInstitute because if has a narrow scope and the moderation is strong no lazy comments allowed. There are subreddits for each Star Trek series(even the old one get hate and low effort meme comments) so you can discuss your favorite show and keep out the hate and meme comments. IMO this is the best thing, I seen it in gaming too, because fans will not agree which version of the game is good and which one is trash so they make smaller sub-reddits to talk in peace. Though you need someone to kickstart things and force moderation, then the community grows a bit and it can self moderate.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users I never said that. But it's probably a good idea to have some sort of oversight for a massive platform that censors and manipulates discussion of millions of people. You may think their policies are totally justified and correct (they aren't), but the specific opinions they choose to promote may change to something you are against. >…
> But it's probably a good idea to have some sort of oversight for a massive platform that censors and manipulates discussion of millions of people. You may think their policies are totally justified and correct (they aren't), but the specific opinions they choose to promote may change to something you are against. Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work. Someone will have to decide "is this site…
> Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work.
There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific proposal.
> Now let years, maybe even decades go by. Now let's say some site you like gets essentially taken out - since massive sites aren't going to be able to do manual moderation of everything - by a regulator who leans to the opposite side of the political spectrum you do.
1) Manual moderation of massive sites is already going away for the most part.
2) Sites like reddit have swarms of moderators, the ability to report, and send legal notices to take down specific content and also be made.
3) We have laws about 'illegal content' these websites are already complying on a massive scale.
4) My suggestion was an oversight of excessive moderation and manipulation of opinion, not what your example suggests, which is the opposite. You literally don't have to moderate anything to not be charged with 'excessive censorship' or whatever.
> Now you don't have much resource, since you aren't free to go off and try again - the regulator would just get that site too.
We have a justice system for a reason.
> I have a hard time seeing how this is better.
We can all come with with 100 different imaginary scenarios where some very generic suggestion may fail. I don't see the point. Do you think there should be no laws about content? No libel laws? No copyright enforcement? Where do you draw the line?
> And this is a weird stance for conservatives to be preaching, since the previous similar thing, the fairness doctrine, was no favourite thing of theirs.
I'm not a conservative, but what I find more jarring is the people who want sites like facebook forced to be censored and moderated politically, while reddit can do whatever it pleases as long is it aligns with their political ideology.
> This is one of those things where you can't say "only the government can solve this problem" unless the only speech you want to see protected is fairly-mainstream government-endorsed speech.
Again, I did not suggest that there should be laws about what content is allowed. I actually think we already have too many such laws - I would personally do away with DMCA and other such bullshit. What we should have is a check on mass-scale censorship and manipulation of opinion by corporations.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#319Reddit has been compromised with actors who do not have free speech in their best interest. The other day there was an illuminating ask reddit post about transexuals who decided to transition back and their experiences. That post got promptly removed by moderators; even though there was no hateful content within it at all. They effectively silenced the transexual population due to an ever so slight conflict of ideolo…
I think the core of a lot of these issues is the distinction between universal findings which almost always are in favour of "progressive" worldviews and anecdotes which aren't necessarily. The example of trans people detransitioning is a good one here - the general truth that transgender people are very happy with their decision to do so (regardless of what that may mean for them) conflicts with individuals and their anecdotes regarding their (or people they know's) transition.
Whilst there isn't inherently incorrect or morally wrong about detransitioning in itself, often when brought up it can lead a person to an idea which is incorrect - essentially applying the anecdotal evidence of a Reddit thread to all situations.
Thus, moderators of subreddits (and administrators, although I think that whilst it is bad when they do so, it isn't as common as many would believe) feel conflicted on the matter. Should they allow the discussion to continue, almost guaranteeing that somebody is going to form misconceptions from the thread? Or should they shut it down, stifling free speech but at the same time reducing the level of overall animosity towards minorities in the community, and preventing people from forming misconceptions?
Ultimately, I think that it should always really come down on the side of free speech, as long as they aren't being blatantly hostile. However, in my opinion, if we really want to have a positive "marketplace of ideas", as some describe it, we really need to educate people from a young age on logical reasoning, cognitive biases and argumentative fallacies the same way we would teach history, geography or the arts. Whilst I think that's unlikely to happen in our current political climate, given that keeping people uneducated is a very effective way to make them vote for those who make the most compelling surface-level arguments, it seems to be the only good solution for the conflict laid out above.
Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”
#320Reddit once being a haven away from large corporate interests, has continually succumbed to the mainstream narrative of what’s appropriate. Sure, there are communities that are horrid, but then there are those that are on the line. And inch by inch that line moves from moral goodness, to corporate interest. Reddit is no different than Twitter/YouTube/Facebook, only they haven’t covered the same amount of ground. Give…
> 1984 1984 and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race. Read another book
I’ve read many books in my time and I liked 1984 both for its entertainment value and as a warning about government power and limiting free speech. What is wrong with 1984? Is there a similar but better book I should read?