Reddit takes a new direction

>Trade? Not really

Well then you are incredibly naive. Do you understand what "exploit" means? They're exploiting either the naivety of the children taking these photos, or the naivety of the people who posted them to the internet.

The damage isn't finished being done after the photo has been taken. The damage happens in the way that these photos are then used. Imagine doing something foolish in school and then being teased for it. Did the damage stop happening after the original act was completed, or is there damage happening in the act of teasing as well?

The fact that there are people who think that this should be protected ("this" being: the exploitation and sexualization of children) is a embarrassing to anybody [read: most people] who believes in free speech.

People tend to think of online communities as democracies where the freedoms they're accustomed to from their normal lives apply.

So when a post gets deleted by a moderator, people tend to think of it as a freedom of speech issue. There's a whole constitution out there specifically defending anybody's right to create a pro-Nazi subreddit, and to otherwise post anything they please on the site so long as it's not illegal, right?

Not really.

Not at all, in fact. Reddit is not the United States. It's Reddit. Online communities are not democracies any more than your back garden is a democracy. You pull weeds, plant seeds, and otherwise encourage the plants in your garden to comport themselves in a manner that ends up with a pleasing result. It's your garden, so you have the absolute right to pull weeds. The weeds get no say.

Reddit seems to have forgotten this for a while, and as a result they started sliding until they became, well, Reddit. The community we're currently discussing this in, on the other hand, has been a lot more conscientious in cultivating the type of garden it would like to see. And I think we can all say the result is a lot more pleasant than a less tended place such as Reddit or 4chan.

I can't help but feel this policy only serves lip service to "Stopping exploitation of kids". Personally, I think Reddit has the right to have whatever policies it wishes -- but this 'think of the children' argument is the same one that will be used to pass SOPA like regulation.

I don't think a sane person would suggest that exploiting children is acceptable, but the answer then becomes -- to what degree to we sacrifice our autonomy to satisfy the regulator's thirst for a censored communications.

"Exchanging information about marijuana is not."

Except for that now the Obama administration is trying to charge anyone who speaks out in favor of drug reform under the RICO laws, which carry a possible death penalty. Some Montana legislator was just charged a couple weeks ago.

>Well then you are incredibly naive.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

please.

>Do you understand what "exploit" means? They're exploiting either the naivety of the children taking these photos, or the naivety of the people who posted them to the internet.

I'm not sure what kind of pictures are we talking about here. Child pornography or teenagers in underwear posing to a mirror? If the first, then it is the act of taking the photos that is exploitative. Whatever happens afterward is only immoral because it incentivises more production.

>The damage isn't finished being done after the photo has been taken. The damage happens in the way that these photos are then used. Imagine doing something foolish in school and then being teased for it.

I don't find anything wrong with a teenage girl being teased about a photo she posted to the internet. Teased, not bullied - but bullying is wrong whatever the cause, so we do not need new rules for this. No real damage done, and the embarrassment might teach her to be more careful on the internet (same with boys, of course - but there is less social pressure on them, so not as much teasing I would guess).

>The fact that there are people who think that this should be protected ("this" being: the exploitation and sexualization of children) is a embarrassing to anybody [read: most people] who believes in free speech.

If sexualization of children is so wrong, why are all the 'miss 6 year old' shows legal?