411–420 of 618 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a wealth of literature on the topic that you could examine at your leisure.
So you're suggesting reddit admins, mods or some algorithm should diagnose antisocial behaviour using the DSM-V based only on a user's written words? This is genuinely what you believe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guns are a bad analogy because manufacturers have no control over their use post purchase. If gun manufacturers could take back their guns (ban users) when somebody threatened illegal violence the analogy would be closer, and it would be quite reasonable to expect them to do so.
> If gun manufacturers could take back their guns (ban users) when somebody threatened illegal violence the analogy would be closer, and it would be quite reasonable to expect them to do so. Except creating a new profile on reddit is trivial, so "banning" is a weak threat at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not responsible in the same that car manufacturers are not responsible when one of their toys gets driven into a crowd of people.
The reason that guns were created was to fire high powered projectiles into people. Cars weren't created to run people over.
Duct Tape wasn't created to be the handy man's secret weapon, and yet here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so people are arguing against that baseline rule. A baseline rule prohibiting threatening violence, most people agree with, but apparently it is a controversial attack on free speech if a private website wants to moderate the use of its platform to promote hatred against people based on the color of their skin. And banning racism is being held as an example of liberal bias! Amazing.
Sticks and stones.
> I had conversations with Jason [Citron] a year ago about the problem of white supremacy on his site, and he said, “I don’t want to invade their privacy by going into their channels and reading what they’re doing.” And I said, “They’re gonna cause deaths because you’re not doing that.” And he said, “You really think so?” And I said, “Yeah.” And sure enough they didn’t do anything, and sure enough deaths were caused…
The idea that these "hate speech" venues have caused deaths is thrown around quite often, but I wonder if a connection has been found in even a single case. Gaping chasm between rhetoric and reality.
I'd argue that the psychopaths who're attracted to such forums have their hateful beliefs reinforced and amplified by them. Whether or not they would've ended up killing people even if they'd never started hanging out on those forums is hard to say, but it seems pretty naïve to me to assume that those "hate speech" venues didn't have an effect on them.
See the many murderers who've been active on Stormfront for example.
White Homicide Worldwide, SPLC (2014) [pdf]: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_file...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, some of the "speech" on Reddit is actually dangerous. Like, get people hurt dangerous.
I've never seen an active threat on Reddit, what do you define as dangerous? Can you give an example? I've been on Reddit almost since the beginning and I've never come across a post that I felt posed any danger. Maybe I'm in the wrong subreddits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not responsible in the same that car manufacturers are not responsible when one of their toys gets driven into a crowd of people.
The reason that guns were created was to fire high powered projectiles into people. Cars weren't created to run people over.
Except why or how these items were designed or created is not really relevant is it? Knives, clubs/bats, bows and arrows were all designed and used for violent purposes, but we're not talking about banning knife juggling or baseball or archery as a sport. We don't blame the manufacturers when someone gets hurt by a bat, intentionally or otherwise.
Plenty of people use guns for recreational purposes only, and that's legitimate enough of a purpose, so long as the manufacturers are specifically not pushing them as items to kill people you don't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they aren't doing it. So if you don't like the fact that reddit supports free speech, you can feel free to leave. Reddit is fully within its right to support free speech. It is the reason why it is successful.
Weird, that sounds a lot like the billboards I used to see in South Carolina along the lines of "if you don't like [guns, god, trucks], you can GIIIIIIIT OUT!" Are you telling me I shouldn't be exercising my free speech right to argue that reddit should remove alt-right subreddits? Are you placing barriers around acceptable free speech?
I am merely informing you of the fact reddit isn't going to go along with your idea to engage in mass censorship because they are strongly pro free speech, and only ban subreddits in very rare situations.
They aren't perfect on free speech, but Id give them a solid A-.
You have lots of other options if you like censorship, and you can feel free to use those instead.
That's the great thing that reddit offers. You can join moderated communities as well as unmoderated. It's your choice which to engage in, and reddit isn't going to take away OTHER people's choice because you say so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The comments here have this mentality of "there are people with different opinions from me, why don't these websites deal with these opinions". It's dangerous thinking that can be applied to your opinions. It has nothing to do with opinions. It has never been about opinions, and you know it. It has to do with antisocial behavior . Antisocial behavior is inherently hostile and doesn't deserve a platform, which has b…
How do you deal with anti-social behavior that uses "stamping out anti-social behavior" as its justification?
You deal with this whole problem by not creating all-powerful giant aggregators like reddit that eat all other communities.
You deal with it how we did in the past: by creating zillions of competing communities and people choosing which ones they found palatable, or creating their own with their own set of rules. This usually results in a number of fairly diverse communities somewhat competing with each other.
> I had conversations with Jason [Citron] a year ago about the problem of white supremacy on his site, and he said, “I don’t want to invade their privacy by going into their channels and reading what they’re doing.” And I said, “They’re gonna cause deaths because you’re not doing that.” And he said, “You really think so?” And I said, “Yeah.” And sure enough they didn’t do anything, and sure enough deaths were caused…
The idea that these "hate speech" venues have caused deaths is thrown around quite often, but I wonder if a connection has been found in even a single case. Gaping chasm between rhetoric and reality.
0: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-al...