41–50 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit, a private website, is under no obligation to provide a safe space for free speech.
the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit, a private website, is under no obligation to provide a safe space for free speech.
the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump of working for CTR that has lead to such a backlash. > sunlight is the best disinfectant What do you think that disinfectant looks like? It is rarely people changing ideas it is more often society excluding people. Which is what is happening here. You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. You don't have to give them an…
I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this debate. If you're not confronted with the best arguments of your adversaries, you won't understand, learn, or prevail.
The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash.
This all amounts to a lack of imagination on the part of Reddit's management. -- If the issue is doxxing, which was occurring to some degree in sites with cross-membership with r/the_donald, then enhanced auto moderation is needed. The tools are out there. -- If the issue is so-called "hate speech" then give users the ability to filter content they find distasteful. -- If the issue is click-bait to offensive or illeg…
I'm no Trump supporter but this piece is brutal in its implicit bias. Essentially, "free speech should not be enjoyed by those that hold the wrong opinion!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good way to acrue massive, immediate backlash on HN. Calling alt-righters out for being neonazis and reminding people that hate speech isn't free speech is apparently over the line for a subset of users here.
Arrant falsehood does tend to gravel people, I suppose. I'm not sure what anyone expects to gain by doubling down on the goodthink echo chamber that's just lost them an election. Emotional comfort, perhaps? I'm not without sympathy for the need - but that's a private matter. Governance in the US is public, and refusing to engage in the process merely cedes the field. Demonizing one's political opponents not only cede…
>these two women are "as fat as whales" and furthermore that they deserve to be derided based on physical appearance because of their expressed political opinions. Comedic body shapes paired with comedic political views and philosophies. What's wrong with it? They tried cheap virtue signaling and lost the bet. Boo hoo my sympathies. To deride the visual and linguistic imagination of cognitive entities as "hate speech…
If the answer to either question is "no", then this post qualifies as hate speech by the Wikipedia definition:
> Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
i.e. The speech was intended to "disparage or intimidate a protected individual or group" where the "protected individual or group" is these two women as the post "attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good way to acrue massive, immediate backlash on HN. Calling alt-righters out for being neonazis and reminding people that hate speech isn't free speech is apparently over the line for a subset of users here.
Arrant falsehood does tend to gravel people, I suppose. I'm not sure what anyone expects to gain by doubling down on the goodthink echo chamber that's just lost them an election. Emotional comfort, perhaps? I'm not without sympathy for the need - but that's a private matter. Governance in the US is public, and refusing to engage in the process merely cedes the field. Demonizing one's political opponents not only cede…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another possible comparison: cities are composed of mostly private entities. The free speech limitations in private businesses are comparable to those on line. How does that play out? Is the comparison faulty? Honest question. I'd like to figure out a more real-world comparison that matches our intuitions.
There are lots of public spaces available, maintained by the government. Some plazas are larger than all but the largest private gathering places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took a look at their sub. I couldn't find any hate speech (though I ignored heavily downvoted comments). I'm also suspicious of "coded hate speech" since that concept grants license to attach racist connotations to just about any sentence. Is there a post on r/The_Donald that stands out to you as being hate speech?
I was curious. So I looked. This was the top non-stickied post I saw: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5fltt9/amy_schu... To save others the trouble, the title of the post is "Amy Schumer And Lena Dunham Are Finally Leaving The Country" and the image is of two orca whales being prepared for transport. The very non-coded message is that these two women are "as fat as whales" and furthermore that they deser…