801–810 of 877 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't used the product in nine years. Wouldn't you say it's possible they've changed the formatting in those nine years?
https://www.reddit.com/user/spez Did you think I would be tricked by your lie?
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…
While I agree that pointless, hateful etc. speech deserves protection one word I almost never see in the reddit free speech wars is *dissent. As in "free speech is meant to protect speech that opposes or challenges orthodox opinion and conventional wisdom."
It's almost like the most vocal part of reddit gets off on being offensive for its own sake and is more concerned about the right to call fat people names rather than defending free speech generally. It does seems like they are flying the free speech flag purely out of narrow self-interest.
How many of them actually give a crap about free speech outside of their "community"? How many of them regularly downvote opinions they don't agree with, I wonder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm not a Reddit user, but the vitriol seemed pretty commensurate with what motivated it, which among other things included the despicable (and possibly illegal) firing of an employee for having leukemia (more or less). That employee got cancer in 2012. He got a salary for almost two years while too sick to work, of the total three years he was at the company. Four months of that salary undo Pao. Then he got an addi…
A few things: > somehow this became twisted by the furious mob There's no mob here. If anything, most people seem unfamiliar with this episode. > Legally in the US you are guaranteed three months of unpaid leave for getting sick Except where one qualifies for protection under the ADA [1]. > That's not just not despicable, it's laudable There are two things here. That Reddit maintained the employee for nearly two year…
Top post on multiple reddits, various random threads upvoted to /all, brought up in this thread by multiple people as a reason the CEO was despicable.
>There are two things here. That Reddit maintained the employee for nearly two years, as you say, is clearly laudable, though this decision predated Pao.
While she was CEO he got 4 months of the almost two years of paid time while he was unable to work. Also under he he got an extra year of medical insurance.
>Maybe in the end he would have relapsed again, and maybe his doctor would have determined that he was too sick to perform his duties, and maybe firing him for that actually would have been legal (without knowing his ADA status we can't know), but that's quite a few 'ifs'.
He was supposed to move to the office in 2012. He was never well enough to do so. At the time he was finally let go, he still didn't have a move scheduled. He was still 2 to 3 months away from being able to to start the job. Note his woolly timelines, especially in his followup comments, where 5 months later he was still not ready for full time work.
Changed your mind is not lying, "Sorry, we actually need to someone to start this job immediately, we can't keep waiting."
All this is giving him the most charitable reading of his posts, a post he made at the height of rage at the CEO filled with obvious dog meat like: "Does anyone know of any Reddit alternatives?" "I don't know anything about why Victoria was fired, but he's some speculation as to why she was fired." Etc.
So yeah, I find it despicable that people find this despicable, that comments all across the internet are calling her 'human garbage' and whatnot for treating an employee better than 99% of other companies would have. It's absurd. The story should have been, "Wow, reddit treats employees amazingly!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t. I just accept that sometimes I just cannot know the absolute truth and that’s that. But I do have the ability to trust people and I know when I enjoy something. So, this all might sound very abstract, but I do know that I like the censors (they call themselves editors) working for certain newspapers I like. I trust them to make good decisions, partly just because I don’t have time to make those decisions mys…
> Sometime you just don’t know. Sometimes you just have to live with that. I live with it and I like it. Honestly, this comes across as "He loved Big Brother"-level creepy.
Do you have some sort of trust issues? I mean, sometimes I’m willing to trust other people, that’s all. I don’t have to believe that everyone is evil and out to get me. So when I read a newspaper I like I have a general trust that the editors (censors) have done their job … because what else can I do? What else can you do?
I don’t have the time to sit around 24 hours by the newswire … and even then, the people writing that and reporting that … how do I know I can trust those absolutely? I can’t. That’s all.
We humans are forever doomed to not know the truth always all the time. And no one is an island and sometimes you just have to trust other people. And that’s healthy and that’s ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Counterpoint: Censorship is awesome. Well it's crucial that the censors are people who like you. If they didn't like you, you probably wouldn't be such a fan of censorship. That is to say, the only reason you're in favour of censorship on reddit is that you're reasonably that the censors will be people like you, which really is no more than sophisticated tribalism.
If I didn’t like the censors at Reddit I would do the same thing. I think that’s normal and healthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a long time enthusiast of HN, and not a total shithead based on karma, I don't think there was anything hyperbolic in the original comment. What is even slightly out of sorts about comparing Ellen Pao to Paul Graham?
You don't think calling PG sociopathic or downright evil is hyperbolic?
I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that both sites have an element of sociopathic and downright evil people influencing the culture. And reasonable people can still disagree about the level of accountability for the actions and inactions of Pao and Graham.
There are plenty of details that don't line up well when making that comparison, but I read the comment as intending to illustrate all the hyperbole around Ellen Pao. There are a lot of people on the Internet talking past each other this week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#1 rule in tech: listen to your users.
Wow, Steve Jobs is forgotten so soon?
> “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -H. Ford
Users present solutions to their problems, when you listen you discover what their problem actually is. In the above case, faster more reliable transportation.
edit: Jobs was a cofounder of what is(or close to) the most profitable company in the world. He saved the company from bankruptcy and is arguably the best quality control engineer ever. Rules always have exceptions but thinking you are the exception often helps to prove the rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The so-called misogynists (I'm of the opinion that much of the brutal words written about her were a large part tongue-in-cheek, deliberate over the top absurdity, not that that excuses it) are a part of reddit. You can't just say "I shouldn't have to deal with this". Besides, these people have always been there and haven't caused any large scale problems, and they didn't when Ellen was appointed (which is when they…
I didn't mean to take a position on the misogyny part. I just meant leaving that question aside completely, the point was woefully incomplete. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control.
One of us has a misunderstanding on that and I'm not so sure it's me. I'm aware of the brigading claim, but not of any widespread evidence. And even if so, then how do you defend the inconsistent enforcement of that rule amongst other subreddits like /r/srs? If you're going to use a rule to close a sub, then by god enforce that rule consistently if you want people to take you seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP did not say he was offended, just disgusted. Like "haha gross, look at these shitty guys". Just like if someone starts making racist remarks, even if I don't personally believe they would murder a black person in the street, I will feel embarrassed for associating with them, and recognize that they are shitty people at the moment, and that is not a slippery slope to thought policing. That is how culture slowly fix…
I don't know, where I'm from "disgusted" is a much stronger term than "offended". It's like a visceral repulsion that triggers something bordering on mild rage. I don't know how the OP intended it, but if it's as you describe, then yes, it's not too bad, but I haven't seen that term used so lightly usually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't mean to take a position on the misogyny part. I just meant leaving that question aside completely, the point was woefully incomplete. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control.
> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control. One of us has a misunderstanding on that and I'm not so sure it's me. I'm aware of the brigading claim, but not of any widespread evidence. And even if so, then how do you defend the inconsistent en…
If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive.
As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. Not that I need to defend reddit's decisions, nor automatically become on their side. Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.