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

Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 877 posts

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#741

Post by intopieces »

dmfdmf wrote: post #520
WalterBright wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have appalling speech than censored speech. The idea is to not confuse supporting a person's free speech with endorsing his views. Also, reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom.

At last, a voice of reason in hundreds of pointless comments. Free speech is a principle and people should be free to say whatever they want no matter how disgusting or distasteful to the majority or mainstream. This is the ideal of a free society and people who can't make the distinction between supporting the principle and yet rejecting the advocates of idiocy are implicitly advocating some form of government censo…

But as the comment you're replying to said:

>Reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom.

We must be careful not to confuse commercial viability with government censorship. At some point, advertisers will leave a website that continues to foster vitriol/hate speech/illegal content because they do not want their brand associated with it. This is freedom of speech in action.

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#742

Post by dvanduzer »

makomk wrote: post #718
DanBC wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fatpeople hate was banned for brigading - for actions not ideas - because fatpeople hate would link to real world people and real world profiles and thousands over users would visit and vote and hundreds of users would leave harassing messages. Ellen got so much shot for the "we're banning actions not ideas" quote (in this thread even) yet here's an example of it being used - leaving absolutely vile subs live because…

They did, but I don't think most people realised that FPH brigaded because the details didn't make it into the news and weren't mentioned in the admin response. So for anyone who didn't dig deeply into it themselves, it looked like the admins had just banned it at random. Then rather than explaining it, the admins made a bullshit PR non-statement about how they were "banning actions not ideas". Really badly handled.

And... The fact that /r/CoonTown apparently wasn't brigading and therefore was left alone for free speech reasons is... not really badly handled?

Pick.

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#743

Post by bluecalm »

wvenable wrote: post #675
geofft wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not subscribed to any of the default subreddits; I imagine very many long-time users are the same way. I never read /r/all precisely because it's an aggregate of posts on subreddits I don't care about. In particular, I'm subscribed to no general-purpose or wide-purpose subreddits. A few city/geographic subreddits mentioned it in passing, but, like, /r/programming or /r/nycbike or /r/radicalchristianity are going…

I browse /r/all occasionally to get out of the bubble of the subs I'm subscribed to. And sometimes there is a popular post in an obscure subreddit that I've never heard of before and get that gets me to subscribe.

They could add something like sub-reddit tags: NSFW, offensive, video games, sports, technical etc.

Then on r/all NSW/offensive are disabled by default (the same way NSFW is rigth now - you need to change your account settings).

Problem solved, FPH will never make it to people who don't want to see offensive staff.

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#744

Post by intopieces »

rustynails77 wrote: post #686
ryanmonroe wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? No

This thread is very interesting and I deeply appreciate the comments people are making, including FoS, fear to comment on FoS, etc. I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. For example, HN strongly discourages attacking another member personally (eg. calling someone else idiot). I consider this a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, but concepts and opinions should be fully open for discussion (eg. pro/…

>On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"?

I want to pull this quote out and address it directly, because it's a valid concern with a real answer. The reason we don't represent "people's rights" is because all people do not need their rights defended. To use an analogy, think of our system for measuring the level of endangered for animals, from "Critically Endangered" to "Least Concern." Is it sensible to say, 'Well, aren't all species important to the ecosystem? Why do we seek to protect Garrulax courtoisi but not Megascops watsonii?' This is because the former is nearly extinct, while the latter is ubiquitous. The cause of "social justice" -- the oft-derided 'warriors' of anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc -- is to correct years of disadvantage. It's not accurate to call, say, attempts to further women in technology as 'sexist'. In fact, that's co-opting the term to obfuscate the original issue.

Overall, your heart is in the right place -- it does seem like our attempts to further minorities comes off as patronizing (like affirmative action). But, in the end, the good that is done outweighs the bad so long as we adequately train the individuals we put forward through these initiatives such that no one believes they only 'got it because of their gender' (which to me is no different than 'got here through someone she knows' -- this is how most business seems to be done in the world!)

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#745

Post by growupkids »

arrrg wrote: post #720
zmb_ wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. The problem is that as soon as you draw such a line, you need to appoint a censor to determine what qualifies as "hate". As Christopher Hitchens asked: "To whom would you want to delegate the task to decide for you what you could read? To relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear?" Typically this job falls to the public prosecutors.…

Counterpoint: Censorship is awesome. It creates and shapes places that are just great and pleasant all around. Being an excellent censor is a great ability and there are sadly way too few out there who can give a clear voice (not in the sense of being one voice, necessarily, though that can also be great!) to something and be really excellently opinionated about their censorship. I want more great censorship, not les…

Perhaps I'm missing something. How would you know if someone is an excellent censor (I.e. They only censor "bad" speech, and not "good" speech) if then intent is to shield you from the "bad" speech. Wouldn't you then not know what they censored?

Specifically, it seems to me that if you're shielded from seeing that they censored, then they could also be censoring "good" speech too. So the only way it seems you could ensure they weren't do this poorly or deliberately would be to allow everyone access to what they've censored. Which inversely seems to defeat the purpose of having a good censor. Now essentially nothing in censored.

Again, perhaps I'm missing something but if I'm not then I don't understand how you resolve this conundrum.

Edit: Unless you're referring to ex post facto censorship, where everyone sees the "bad" speech, and the speaker is banned for violating "community standards" To pre-emptively ban future speech. But this too still allows "bad" speech, and I suppose you also have the problem of deleting the bad speech. If it's gone, then what substantiates the ban/censorship? Because again, what if the action was either done in error, or maliciously to ban "good" but unpopular speech/speakers how would you know?

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#746

Post by Zuider »

nailer wrote: post #721
Zuider wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why did it take so long to deal with characters like violentacrez? He wasn't dealt with. He deleted his account in a frantic and futile attempt to avoid exposure. Violentacres/Violentacrez (had to block him twice) set himself up as king of the reddit underworld. The admins cast a blind eye to his antics, and in return he prevented the raw sewage from gushing onto the clean streets of the reddit front page. He was a…

> He wasn't dealt with. He deleted his account in a frantic and futile attempt to avoid exposure. Doxxing is doxxing. It doesn't become 'exposure' when people you like do it.

>Doxxing is doxxing.

I meant that the reddit admins didn't 'deal with' Violentacrez. Chen doxxed him, destroying his career, despite the full knowledge that Violentacrez had innocent dependants who would also be hurt badly. If Violentacrez deserved to be 'punished', then whatever punishment was meted out should have fallen exclusively on him.

>It doesn't become 'exposure'.

Bad choice of words. I intended the term in a literal sense, not a judgemental one. It was revolting how Chen made Violentacrez crawl in the false hope he could salvage some part of his livelihood.

>...when people you like do it.

I dislike the people who doxxed Violentacrez very much. I disagree with the use of doxxing as a tactic.

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#747

Post by geomark »

ketralnis wrote: post #703
geomark wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good definition. But even that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it. An example is the so-called free speech zones at some colleges that are small designated spots far from earshot of the entire campus population.

> that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it Okay. But reddit isn't "those with power". reddit isn't making it illegal to do it elsewhere.

Agree. I was speaking more in general rather than specifically about reddit.

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#748

Post by lewisl9029 »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #47
nhf wrote: post #10

I think this was the right thing to do from a PR perspective. Having Steve back as the new CEO will definitely be good for the community. I also applaud Reddit's announcement for calling the community out on their childish BS: > As a closing note, it was sickening to see some of the things redditors wrote about Ellen. [1] The reduction in compassion that happens when we’re all behind computer screens is not good for…

As an occasional user of reddit, this whole ordeal has confirmed the reason why I prefer not to hang out in its forums. I have no idea whether Ellen was a capable CEO, but the vitriol which I kept seeing peripherally (through other news articles and here on HN) was absolutely appalling.

Agreed.

Some of the things I see people say on the internet makes me wonder what kind of social lives those people can possibly lead while being so hopelessly devoid of any empathy.

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#749

Post by vacri »

benihana wrote: post #725
agumonkey wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about duty of thinking ? I'm often weirded by the freedom of speech argument in non critical contexts. These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? not just a free card to be able to let yourself loose in public. I have no solution, but far too often FoS ends up a noisy non-discussions. ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freed…

> These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? No. That's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech. That's the whole freaking point - nobody wants to silence unoffensive opinions. > ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Spee…

> Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech.

No it's not. It's meant to protect speech which the politically powerful find objectionable. It's not about protecting abuse, but protecting ideas. Rebellious and revolutionary ideas, for example.

This is all a canard anyway - Reddit is not the (US) government. They get to set the rules for communication in their playground. If you don't let them do that, then you are infringing on their freedom of expression. Reddit can only say 'no' on their own systems; they don't stop you spreading whatever disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, or foolish speech in other forums.

If you want free speech the way you describe it, then you need to go to an unmoderated forum. Incidentally, on the front page of HN at the moment is a request for help in removing child porn from a web service, because the owner doesn't have enough resources to moderate it. If you ever wanted a clear example of where free speech is not meant to protect disgusting material, that's got to be it

Re: Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief

#750

Post by Merovius »

benihana wrote: post #725
agumonkey wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about duty of thinking ? I'm often weirded by the freedom of speech argument in non critical contexts. These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? not just a free card to be able to let yourself loose in public. I have no solution, but far too often FoS ends up a noisy non-discussions. ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freed…

> These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? No. That's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech. That's the whole freaking point - nobody wants to silence unoffensive opinions. > ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Spee…

> It is funny. Because it's the people who want silence others' free speech who repeat the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" meme as justification for their horrible actions.

Ugh. "horrible actions" as a description for calling people out who threaten, belittle, insult and harass other people and claim that is "protected speech".

By the way, even in a context, where the term "freedom of speech" is really adequate (so, when talking laws and government actions, for example), freedom stops where you infringe the rights of others. That's the whole point of states: To balance the natural freedoms of one person with the rights of other people, thus providing stability. Which is why you can't steal, for example. That's a freedom that had to be balanced against the rights of other people.

Post reply on HN