Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 407 posts

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#391

Post by emodendroket »

dragonwriter wrote: post #382
emodendroket wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For future reference, when people say "libertarian" without further clarification, at least in American politics, they almost always mean right-libertarian.

IME, the split is much closer than you suggest between people meaning right-libertarian and not realizing there are more and meaning libertarian more generally, but perhaps associating that with opposition to the left (exluding the use of “Libertarian”—capital “L” in writing, at least when not sloppy—to mean “member of the Libertarian Party", which itself leans right—but not exclusively, I've met left-libertarians wh…

You think half of users of the word not realizing it doesn't exclusively mean right-libertarianism is an argument against interpreting unqualified use of the term in that way? That's not how I see it.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#392

Post by zeth__ »

vidarh wrote: post #176
zeth__ wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the street battles between communists and nazis allowed Hitler to take 30% of the vote in two consecutive elections. The left wins elections when it is the victim of violence, it loses when it tries to use violence itself.

You're changing goalposts. If the right had not been willing to suspend democracy in the name of their own hunger for power, 30% or not Hitler would not have gained power.

That's not how a multi party parliamentary democracy works. The Nazi were by far the largest party, it would have not been possible to make a parliament without them.

That's the whole reason why there were two elections in 1932 and rule by decree from von Papen. Germany was headed for a third election in 8 months until the deal with Hitler.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#393

Post by conanbatt »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #370
conanbatt wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there is no principle behind the desire to oppress, it is just an application of violence.

You won't get consensus out of me for that.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#394

Post by tscs37 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #374
tscs37 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 br…

> the human race should have It hasn't. Therefore we can either shrug our shoulders and let people get on with their subjugations and violations or we can accept that we're not an enlightened race of ubermensch ripped from a Star Trek episode and utilise our "brutish tribe mentality" to protect those who need it.

So just because we don't have yet means we will never? Oh my, I think that might be a fallacy.

Not that you are wrong because of that but you are wrong for different reasons. Possibly because Star Trek has little to do with an Übermensch and considering the context you also used the word wrong.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#395

Post by tscs37 »

Danihan wrote: post #381
tscs37 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.

The colonists were from and used to monarchy. Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed. "The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

In what way does this respond to my comment? I asserted that America's amendment does not exist in other legislations and that democracy has been far older than america. None of which are relevant in your comment.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#396

Post by Mikeb85 »

Pxtl wrote: post #351
Mikeb85 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/r/Canada isn't too bad because that's how Canadians are. Even when we disagree we generally try to be civil.

No, I meant /r/CanadaPolitics, but the name got autocorrected away. /r/Canada is a hive of racism and getting worse since the last election or so.

It's not a hive of racism, Americans just have become such virtue signalling morons that they call everything racism.

There happens to be a middle ground on many issues. Debating immigration policy isn't racist. Hell, even Emmanuel Macron and Merkel have started to control migration. No country can accept all the world's poor. It's simply not feasible. And the truth is, that is the concern that most Canadians are having. The economy's not great, working class wages and jobs are disappearing, the few places with good jobs have unaffordable housing, and Trudeau's talking about increasing immigration.

You guys can talk about how everyone that wants to debate certain topics is racist, but that doesn't change the fact that politics all over the west are moving a certain direction. The only question is whether we'll simply adjust policy, or wait too long and elect someone extreme as a knee jerk reaction.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#397

Post by te_chris »

ThomPete wrote: post #197
te_chris wrote: post #147

Earlier 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.

And yet isn't all you have to show for that his tweets.? Which of his actions shows that he is that bad. You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that you are proving the parents' point.

I don't understand how you can even argue that, unless you're trolling?

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#398

Post by grandalf »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #355
fhood wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. The first amendment is a specific thing with a specific meaning, and invoking it implies the weight of law. Facebook can censor speech without breaking the law. They might be violating the principle of free speech, but not the first amendment. I agree with you about reddit.

> About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. My bad – I didn't even notice the comment to which you were replying had done this! We might be disappointed tho in so far as "first amendment" comes to mean 'free speech' to too many people. I mourn the loss of precision, and I'm a little afraid of people conflating the two ideas too.

OK so I was on my phone trying to hastily type out a comment and I got sloppy. I think the intent was still abundantly clear, even though the loss of precision in my choice of words is unfortunate.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#399

Post by adekok »

j_s wrote: post #383
adekok wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tried to avoid gigantic quotes from the Vidcon Medium post I linked previously, but I'm assuming you read this: Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things: 1. He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.) 2. He apologized to her fo…

> He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context

Ah... so the rules don't matter, because excuses.

Look, if Sargon and his ilk did something, fine, punish them. But so far, the only response to my request for evidence is insults.

And side-stepping the topic.

> a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

Which means that they didn't talk to the victim in this case (Sargon). Only the abuser (Anita). Sargon said as much on Joe Rogan's podcast.

i.e. accusation of guilt is assumption of guilt. Evidence be damned.

> which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

People who showed up and did nothing and said nothing to her. OMFG, crucify them.

Look this whole victim complex is appealing. But did any of it happen?

According to everyone in this thread? Nope.

> it boils down to trusting those responsible for rule interpretation and enforcement.

Nope. If they show they're biased, I don't trust them as far as a shit-flinging monkey can throw poo.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#400

Post by anon1385 »

stale2002 wrote: post #298
anon1385 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what if anti-nazi party came into power I would hope that describes virtually every post war western government. And many of them have implemented various levels of 'authoritarian' systems to prevent the (re)rise of Nazis. Ranging from the banning of books in Germany to more mundane things like the British police spending a lot of time and money infiltrating neo-nazi groups and banning them. In the latter case exact…

> no problem with the police targeting Nazis So what you are saying is, that all the police have to do is label someone a Nazi, and you'll give them a free pass for whatever it is that they do?

No. I'm saying the police in western countries already have a wide range of powers which they use against Nazi groups (or any other group that's committing acts of political violence). This has not lead to a totalitarian state where mainstream conservatives are being targeted. i.e. the slippery slope didn't happen.

I do think the police should act to try and prevent violent groups from committing violence. Your position seems to be that the state should accept violence as long as the people committing it claim to be political? If anything organised political violence is the type of violence that it's the most important to prevent because it has by far the largest potential for harm.

I can talk about specific things the UK police have done when targeting 'extremist' groups and how I disprove of them if you want (undercover police assuming fake identities to the extent of having children with women in the targeted groups being one). But disapproving of specific things isn't the same as saying the police shouldn't be investigating and infiltrating organisations advocating violent ideologies.

Post reply on HN