Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who defines who is intolerant in this democracy of yours.
Consensus, or consensus of representatives.
Intolerants can't have consensus?
Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
361–370 of 407 posts
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way it was phrased, it definitely was. And especially as a german I am not comfortable with some of the solutions proposed in this entire thread.
> as a german Your country has literally banned Nazis, mentions of Nazis, symbols of Nazis, etc. Hell, even Twitter blocks Nazis in Germany. Has it descended down the slippery slope into authoritarian disaster?
No, mainly because only literal Nazis are banned.
You may hold any opinion which does not violate the dignity of humans, no matter right or left. And we do have a fairly active right and far right.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The spillover is very real, just not on the same site. Which is good - concentrate the hate speech into a single place and then take it down.
What if you can't take it down? What if they end up on Tor? And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate. It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.
> [group we don't like]
I appreciate that you're trying to trivialise this into some kind of "different sports team" difference of opinion to score a cheap point but you're wrong - these people want others dead, removed, or subjugated purely because they're different.
And that is something that in 2017, the human race should be saying a very strong "No, get to fuck, you scrotes" to.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not propaganda if he's actually THAT bad. I'm being deadly serious. He is not a normal candidate and claiming that it's biased because there are lots of true stories about a bad person is a feature of our media, not a bug! It says more about Trump's fans that they're willing to overlook his egregious failings and attack and undermine quasi-impartial institutions just to point score than it does about bias.
No, it's baseless propaganda and character defamation cranked to 11. Your hypocritical hivemind tends to overlook that your queen bee accepted tens of millions from the KSA/Qatar in campaign contributions with the knowledge that, in her OWN words, they provide clandestine and logistic support to ISIL. It's OK to be white, it's OK to be American, and it's OK to love your country.
We ban accounts that abuse Hacker News by posting only political or ideological comments. This isn't a place to wage such wars.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if you can't take it down? What if they end up on Tor? And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate. It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.
> [group we don't like] I appreciate that you're trying to trivialise this into some kind of "different sports team" difference of opinion to score a cheap point but you're wrong - these people want others dead, removed, or subjugated purely because they're different. And that is something that in 2017, the human race should be saying a very strong "No, get to fuck, you scrotes" to.
>these people want others dead, removed, or subjugated purely because they're different.
And the other sports team just wants different things to be done. Admittedly not as drastic... yet.
>And that is something that in 2017, the human race should be saying a very strong "No, get to fuck, you scrotes" to.
In 2017, almost 2018, the human race should have learned how to control these kind of ideologies without using brutish tribe mentality.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think it's murkier when one group commits a disproportionate amount of crime - accurate/percise coverage might look disproportionate even though it's actually representative." You're gonna have to prove that's the case. In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher. "Feminism is inherently bigoted" No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only lo…
>In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher. Are we even talking about the same thing? There are absolutely groups that commit more crimes than others. Do you honestly need a citation for a claim like, "young men commit more crimes than elderly women?" >No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only looks bigoted to those who benefit from the ineq…
"Are we even talking about the same thing? There are absolutely groups that commit more crimes than others. Do you honestly need a citation for a claim like, "young men commit more crimes than elderly women?""
You should be able to cite something for that claim, yes. But you know we're not talking about those kinds of groups; we are talking about the ones that are highlighted on sites like Breitbart.
"Feminism is bigoted (but probably correctly so) for highlighting men as the reason there isn't equality."
Feminism doesn't highlight men. Feminism highlights power structures, many of which are put in place by certain men.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some…
>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective. Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away. Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.
The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if you can't take it down? What if they end up on Tor? And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate. It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.
Refusing to provide a free platform for them to publish their thoughts is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to, or even similar to, the "extermination" committed by Nazis, and desired by their modern adherents.
At some point one questions, though, the means by which one is preventing speech, and why it's even an effective technique. In doing so, I think the answer would reveal something about the heavy-handed use of politically vulnerable internet infrastructure.
It also raises questions about whether modern societies should expand notions of private and public divisions over digital infrastructure, so that the tools for public assembly might be adapted for the norms of modern communication.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not familiar with vidcon- can you provide a link to the incident?
https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28#5f56 I think this observation summarizes even this thread: > do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people I was looking for any attempt at a neutral-ish video of the incident but came up empty.
The video taken by the "harassers" at vidcon seems pretty clear.
Were they forbidden from attending vidcon because of their alleged history of harassment of the panelists? No.
Do they get kicked out of vidcon for violating the rules? No.
Does the panelist violate the rules by calling them out and insulting them publicly? Yes.
So... let's say Sargon and his ilk are terrible people. Shall we destroy the rule of law to "get" him?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt
---
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
---
I am disturbed by the fascination with witch-hunts. My attempts here to ask people to explain themselves have resulted in no explanations (of course). Just accusations.
Well, if those people are so bad, then the rule of law should allow them to be banned and/or punished. If they're not that bad, then the rule of law should be followed. If we're not going to follow the rule of law, then why pretend to have rules?
Maybe I'm weird... but none of that makes any sense to me.
Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consensus, or consensus of representatives.
Intolerants can't have consensus?
They have before. The results have been noted. Germany was one place where intolerant groups rose to prominence through eventual consensus.
It just happens that on these little internet message boards, the consensus shifts in another favour, and the same seems to be [mainly] true in North American societies, amongst others.