71–80 of 120 posts
What would be more interesting is to see what subreddits are tolerated that promote excessively immoral or illegal behavior.
throw r/the_donald in there with them
Yes! Lets silence the opinions of everyone we disagree with! Lets take away their places to talk so they have to skulk in the shadows! Lets pretend there's no merit to listening to the thoughts of millions of people! Why stop with removing their access to Reddit? Why not make it downright illegal to talk about it? Why don't we make it illegal to think about it, too? I'm exceptionally left-leaning and I don't agree wi…
throw r/the_donald in there with them
Yes! Lets silence the opinions of everyone we disagree with! Lets take away their places to talk so they have to skulk in the shadows! Lets pretend there's no merit to listening to the thoughts of millions of people! Why stop with removing their access to Reddit? Why not make it downright illegal to talk about it? Why don't we make it illegal to think about it, too? I'm exceptionally left-leaning and I don't agree wi…
If I see a bully insult someone, I'm not going to sit around and tell the victim to just accept it as "free speech."
And if a bully does that in my house, I'm going to kick him out of my house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically you are 100% correct. They are definitely within their rights, as are twitter and facebook. The problem is that we've got a de facto (as opposed to de jure) "censorship" system going on where people with undesired opinions are being forced (whether they wanted it or not) into echo chambers. "Censorship" just forces people underground to talk amongst other people with the same opinions. While it has some k…
If they can't voice their opinion in a respectful manner, I don't see why we have to listen to their garbage. Every site in the world, if they don't want to be a cesspool full of trolls and baiters, will have to moderate.
You can say something hateful, disrespectful, and even threatening to/about a white person(or people) and twitter doesn't care even if you are reported.
However if you say the same thing about/to a black person (or people) [literally the same sentence with only those words switched out] then when reported you will be banned.
If twitter(and others) would actually apply their rules fairly, a lot of people would be a lot less upset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be perfectly happy if these "free speech lovers" were to decamp en masse for Voat.
Just because you disagree with their opinion does not mean you should want to kick them out. They are not acting upon their views in any way that affects you. Totally free expression is crucial and in no way will it affect you physically. I disagree with almost everything they stand for, but their presence is crucial for an open discussion of issues in our global societies.
Until it elects the sort of people who want to see me deported into positions of power. At which point am I obligated to hand them a free platform again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit is under no obligation to support, nurture, or pay for the resources required to keep this up. They are under no obligation to implicitly condone this content, as they have taken on an editorial role in the past and now anything they don't ban is in contrast to those things they have. As you pointed out, it's the web. There are many web hosts that will refuse you service for hosting pornography. That doesn't p…
Technically you are 100% correct. They are definitely within their rights, as are twitter and facebook. The problem is that we've got a de facto (as opposed to de jure) "censorship" system going on where people with undesired opinions are being forced (whether they wanted it or not) into echo chambers. "Censorship" just forces people underground to talk amongst other people with the same opinions. While it has some k…
> Like the mod said in his own words, they are not interested in public policy, they are focused on white nationalist racial discussion. To continue on that course without steering into hate speech is impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a modern day book burning by the tolerant Left. Where's all those people around here that quote (the illogical expression) "I don't agree with you but I'll die for your right to say it" I guess that's just an bad faith argument to be used when convenient.
What's wrong with that? You aren't entitled to freedom of expression on any particular platform run by a private entity. Freedom of expression only applies to the government.
Sure, it doesn't violate the constitution but it still is a serious issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you disagree with their opinion does not mean you should want to kick them out. They are not acting upon their views in any way that affects you. Totally free expression is crucial and in no way will it affect you physically. I disagree with almost everything they stand for, but their presence is crucial for an open discussion of issues in our global societies.
> Totally free expression is crucial and in no way will it affect you physically. Until it elects the sort of people who want to see me deported into positions of power. At which point am I obligated to hand them a free platform again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is literally no "judicial precedent" for a website owner being disallowed from moderating user-submitted content. What are you talking about?
There actually are lots of safe harbor protections for common carriers. Lack of editorial oversight is why sites like YouTube can qualify for these protections, but sites like Gawker wouldn't be able to. (Even though they ultimately got shut down for ignoring a court order or whatever.)