Reddit Will 'Hide' Vile Content After Policy Change 164
AmiMoJo writes: It will be more difficult to find "abhorrent" content posted to community news site Reddit, the site has announced. It stopped short of banning the material outright and instead will require users to log-in to access it. The company reiterated its existing complete bans of illegal content, including child abuse images and so-called "revenge porn." Chief executive and co-founder Steve Huffman told users: "We've spent the last few days here discussing, and agree that an approach like this allows us as a company to repudiate content we don't want to associate with the business, but gives individuals freedom to consume it if they choose."
Note to editor (Score:5, Insightful)
I really feel like the quotes should be around 'vile' instead of 'hide'
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. Regwalled content is generally hidden from Google search results if the site's set up properly. Ergo, "hide" as in "ensure current and future search results are not valid".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's an ihtoit.
Vile discrimination (Score:1)
The real question (Score:1)
The real question is if advertisers will buy it, and Reddit's reputation will be restored enough to keep the money flowing.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the real question is when Dice will sell Slashdot to Reddit. There are way too many stories about them here to believe something is not up.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery Slope (Score:3, Insightful)
How will they determine what free speech is "abhorrent"? Anything that doesn't fit into the SJW group think?
Re: (Score:3)
Going by yesterdays AMA, [reddit.com] that would be correct. [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're defending /r/coontown?
I'm defending free speech no matter how distasteful it is. Besides, there are worse like /r/cutecorpses or /r/shitredditsays that are actually worse. And I'll defend their right to be assholes and scum too. I realize that it's difficult for someone who probably doesn't live outside the US, and in turn doesn't actually know what "free speech" actually is to understand that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's got nothing to do with free speech. Reddit is a private web site, not a government one. They get to choose what content they want, just like you get to choose what content you want in your own home. You wouldn't let someone come into your house and scream obscenities all day, just to preserve their "freedom of speech", would you?
Reddit's list seems perfectly reasonable. The only "controversial" part is their desire to get rid of content that would make a reasonable person feel threatened or unable to p
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:4, Insightful)
It has plenty to do with free speech, if you don't grasp that censorship exists at a government, business, publication, and personal level for whatever reason, you need to go spend more time out in the world. That means getting out of the country you live in.
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between private and public. And I'm sure you're going to go ah-ha, but reddit is private. True reddit is private, reddit also bills itself as a bastion of free speech, or did...at one point. [bbc.com] Reddit also claimed they're not banning ideas, they also claimed they're only banning actions. Which is of course why they've banned people for ideas, and treading on their 'safe space' policy, which is of course a feels based policy.
And you go ask the mod of Neofag who was shadowbanned* [reddit.com] for asking for the sub to be unbanned because they never harassed anyone. So yes, that was a ban because of 'reasons.' And subs like SRS and Gamerghazi are already trying to get subs banned because of feelings, and things they don't like. There's no threat to them, or other people...it's all things contrary to their feelings. In their world, hurt feelings are "what is reasonable to protect themselves from."
*Neofag was a circle-jerk sub.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that Reddit should be forced to publish everything because to do otherwise would limit freedom of speech? What other commercial organisations does that apply to? Would they be compensated in any way?
Re: (Score:3)
I think he's saying that the are claiming to have free speech, but this is trivially falsifiable. That they have things that they'll ban you for, raw speech.
And the other side has even more ammo- once it is obvious that they *have* a decency standard, the question then becomes WHY THE FUCK IS IT SET WHERE IT IS?
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. But they should avoid limiting freedom of speech if said freedom is a large part of what makes them attractive to their audience (unless they want to completely change that audience).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't trust anything coming out of Wong's mouth, mostly since the admins own words seem to be countering it. Like this [reddit.com] and like this. [reddit.com] In other words, the guy is a lying piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to do with *censorship*, but it's still related to free speech. In fact, we're now at a point where this is being lost on a lot of folks- that if you provide a platform where anyone can express any thought, that you are somehow implicitly responsible for all those thoughts, and leaving them around is the same as approving of them.
The wisdom of the greybeards is showing pretty sharply these days. The older, less centralized usenetty-style things didn't have anyone to stick a pitchfork in, s
Re: (Score:2)
If only I had mod points. +1, Insightful.
I didn't quite get the bit about it being difficult for a person who wasn't outside the US to understand free speech (as I live in the US and understand what free speech is just fine). OTOHZ, I think about how many people in the US are in favor of more restrictions to curtail speech, and I hope that this is merely a local problem, and not a global one. Sadly, I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
He likely meant the reverse, and dropped in an extra unneeded negation. US has one of the most permissive laws in the world with respect to free speech, especially the subcategories of it that are often labeled "hate speech" elsewhere. To that extent, the notion of prohibiting speech is much more acceptable in the rest of the world than it is here, and quite often you can see foreigners not understanding what the issue is about when discussing those fringe cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in the same way ACLU was defending KKK [aclu.org] and the American Nazi Party [aclu.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By reddit's metaphysical rules, an SJW is just someone who you disagree with.
Or perhaps more to the point: an SJW in anyone who has less Reddit karma than you, and fails to abide by the carefully-arbitrated deontological ethics of Reddit. Namely, to offend is Good, unless such offense is directed at the interests and peccadilloes of Redditors.
Hide it well (Score:1)
Perhaps Reddit's owners/creators can go back to creating a bunch of fake Reddit users and posts like they use to do. That might help hide posts they don't want anyone to see.
Can someone answer me this? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand why the following doesn't solve all discussion board problems with trolls. OK here goes:
1) the ability to declare someone either interesting or a troll (or neither) and have such cumulative count public.
2) have the option to hide from your view all posts by poster X
3) have the option to hide all poster's posts hidden by one or more posters you think are interesting
4) have a reputation report available on each poster, including yourself, on how many or what % of posters are hiding that posters posts and how many of those posters you marked interesting.
Done.
\
RESULT:
1) you can learn from long timers who the trolls are and inherit their preferences.
2) you can block someone without declaring him to be a troll
3) you can see how people see you. Trolls whose posts aren't seen go away.
Slashdot has something like this in prototype. But it seems simple to me. Implement that and you're basically done.
Seriously, what am I missing?
Re: (Score:1)
You're underestimating the ability of people to make new accounts on a whim.
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That can be mitigated with 2 things:
Reddit needs an "Anonymous Coward" account so that people don't have to create throwaways for every single thing they don't want to post under their main account.
Reddit needs to limit moderation rights. The problem with Reddit is everyone gets a vote. With Slashdot mod points are distributed based on Karma. (And it actually meant something), you can also not vote and comment in the same thread.
Anonymous cowards always start at +0. Registered accounts always start at +1. But just because you register a dozen Slashdot accounts doesn't mean you get to moderate what other people get to say on a new thread.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you've been around long enough and contributed by moderating it's +2. I turned mine back down to +1 down ages ago, but not because I didn't think I'd earned it.
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought /.'s moderation system was pretty clever like that. It rewards commitment. Stackexchange has taken it a bit further and limits the type of things you can do until you gain some "creds" by participating on the site (can only mod up until you get the "right" to mod down). I don't know why these systems aren't more common? The childish trolls don't have the patience to gain trust and those who commit to a site are the sort of community you want to foster.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, those moderation systems are both MORE COMMON and are SUPERIOR. The issue is simpler: the reddit style of setup is there *to create conflict*. Slashdot is an internet town square, where the crier stops by and hear-ye hear-yes and everyone talks about the topic for a bit. Stackexchange is an internet guild hall, where you keep your conversation on topic and those with the most credibility (usually deserved, but sometimes not) get a louder voice and longer time at the podium.
But reddit is an
Re: (Score:2)
> The reason it exploded wasn't because it was a superior discussion system- nerds made better ones at the dawn of the net, and they are still here.
They did make some incremental improvements. I love Markdown now. I stopped writing HTML ages ago for my own blog. Reddit is much easier to use in terms of adding formatting to text.
Coming back to Slashdot I realized how tedious doing full mark up was just to add some emphasis or a URL. I also like that with RES you can view images inline. I wish that there w
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not a troll. Ive been on /. for a very long time. I left /. for a very long time and came back more recently. /. has a niche. even with that people still complain about the moderation system here. /. /. principles there.
Are you guys (and gals) seriously implying that reddit should basically be turned into
Aside from the stupidity that they are currently embroiled in, I can't see another way to more effectively destroy reddit than to try to implement the
Reddit is a social site first and then a news and information site second. To leave moderation in the hands of a few select people takes most of the social aspects away from people.
The strength of reddit is in the community and not in the content. there is probably as much or more garbage that goes through reddit as good and interesting content. The benefit is that the worst of it is obscured through a subscription model where you only subscribe to the groups that you are interested in.
Moderators already have to much power and pull there. and The shadowbanning nonsense, while i can understand the original intent, is being abused by people with power to silence people they disagree with.
Im a member of both of these communities. What reddit does now is going to determine whether they go the way of the dodo (Digg) or they continue to be a viable social community for discussion of any topics of interest to people. Hate groups can stay in their little silos and feel like they can have their free expression as long as it doesn't trickle out into unrelated groups. Subscribing to those groups should come with a stern warning or two to make sure that people with sensibilities know to avoid it.
I cant stand the hate and vitriol. The hate groups are a blemish on the internet and the world. But if people start banning that speech, that means they have the power to ban other unpopular speech or even people they disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit is a social site first and then a news and information site second. To leave moderation in the hands of a few select people takes most of the social aspects away from people.
They're trying to be both. I would much prefer my Slashdot news over Reddit. Reddit, by virtue of being truly demographic (with an authoritarian police) will have multiple articles posted in multiple places. I liked that I had one central site to discuss the latest Tech article and that the comments within were voted mostly on their own merit and not by who made them or bandwagoning.
Re: (Score:2)
To leave moderation in the hands of a few select people [...]
That's not how Slashdot works.
Mod points aren't that hard to acquire: Get an account, don't be a dick and contribute something useful once in a while. ;-)
Although I guess on Reddit such behavior might indeed only be expected from a select few
Re: (Score:3)
"The strength of reddit is in the community and not in the content."
There's no reddit community.
Coontown hates primarily Blacks, and also to some extent Jews. Don't like it? Why, there's another sub that hates primarily Jews, and also to some extent Blacks. See, diversity! Meanwhile, there's a zillion political boards, each with their own slant. That hate each other. Then there's this whole Gender War going on, and there's a bunch of red pill subs that all say they hate reddit, and there's the SRS sub
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably everyone who still goes there is enjoying it, so... what's the problem?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you have to manually block people, then you're going to get a lot of fly-by abuse from new accounts that people make to dodge the block lists.
If the system allows users to say "auto-hide all people from my screen who have a 50% troll rating or higher", you're going to get a lot of people abusing the system. It's REALLY, REALLY common on political discussion sites for users to dogpile on people whose opinions they don't like and flag them as trolls, and often they use bots to do it more efficiently.
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing with Reddit is there is just a +/- system. There is no taxonomy in why you moderate someone + or -.Everyone also gets an equal vote, which for some types of discussion, is best.
With Slashdot points are randomly distributed and you can't both moderate and comment, which is appropriate for other types of discussion.. In that way Slashdot got a lot of things right.
The problem neither site is a one size fits all solution for moderation. For actual tech discussion I want Slashdot's moderation. For pictures of Cats I want Reddit's.
Slashdot's moderation and "Anonymous Coward" account also prevented bandwagoning on the Brianna Wu [slashdot.org] Interview despite her trying to get her twitter followers to do exactly that [twitter.com]. They didn't have the same power that they did on Reddit or Twitter so they really didn't affect the conversation.
Usenet just needed a good moderation system built on top of it.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to 3 separate types of 'moderation' that can be enabled/disabled.
- No moderation. 4Chan, Usenet
- Everyone gets to moderation Reddit
- Not everyone gets to moderate. Slashdot. Mod points are handed out at random.
Each have their advantages or disadvantages. The "inline sharing" is something that should be done client side anyway. After using reddit for a few years and coming back to Slashdot I realize how much more I like markdown for just doing forum posts. Not that I have a problem with HTML but it takes a bit longer to type out the same content. Add a web front end and call it a day.
The best part is if you made it a RFC people could run their own usenet circles. I would love to get a slashdot replacement going outside of corporate control. If you host nodes in a few countries it would be hard to take down. (It's how Usenet was designed).
I'm ready to jump ship from Reddit and Slashdot to somewhere else and would prefer if that somewhere else was a protocol rather than a specific site.
It's kind of come to a head now that there is nothing really left for people to just discuss stuff. Slashdot sold out to Dice. Fark and Reddit sold out to SJWs and "mainstream". Voat is just reimplementing Reddit, but poorly (IMHO).
Why isn't 'moderation' in a RFC yet? It's something that could probably be nailed out by now as we've tried multiple different methods.
I personally prefer Slashdot's style of moderation for most things. (Where its limited to -2 to +5, and you have taxonomy built in). But for some things I prefer Reddit's where everyone gets a vote. Let people write their own implementations of the RFC and let anyone incorporate it into their website. Slashdot and Reddit are open source in the same way that OpenSSL was. Technically open source but such a pain in the ass to get running & modify for most people it wasn't worth it (and we see how that turned out).
The nice thing about it being an RFC is that most of this stuff can be implemented client side. I can write my own app to discuss things. NNTP just needed distributed moderation like Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Brianna Wu try to get her followers to "bandwagon" the Slashdot discussion in some other tweet? The one that you linked to does not do that or anything like it. Perhaps you could clarify?
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:5, Informative)
Easy enough. [archive.is]
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:4, Informative)
Mod points are handed out at random.
No, it's linked to karma
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
No it isn't. There's something else at work. I've had almost no comments downmodded in years, I get upmodded regularly, I real Slashdot every day, yet I haven't got mod points in a year or so. I have no idea why, I used to get mod points occasionally. But it's stopped completely now.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is still a component of randomness.
I've had 'excellent' Karma for years but it would still be months before I had points and then some times I would be awash in them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still there. I check the site twice a day and never get any points. When I go on a trip and only get to check it once (at best), I come home to mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
[mod points] linked to karma
completely false
(intentionally blank)
Maybe it is like it is because most of the people realize that it is indeed mostly linked to karma. The responders trying to make it look like I had claimed to be completely deterministic are tearing down straw-men. /., then I've got a bridge to sell to you.
If you think the people responding to a given post are representative of the prevailing opinion on
Re: (Score:2)
The main factors are: do you log in on average as frequently as the average (probably median) Slashdotter
My experience doesn't support that point. I've been logged for ages. My karma has been "Excellent" for a longish time.
My meta-moderation score can't be particularly good, as I'm sharing quite a bunch of unpopular opinions, and also tend to give the occasional troll some credit where deserved. So if what you say is true, I should not be getting much opportunity to moderate. Yet I frequently drown in mod points, 15 at a time.
, and do you have a good or neutral metamoderation score.
Oh and there's the catch-22 that you're not going to be meta-moderated before you had
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought that an almagamation of the generic up/down (shown as Ars Technica does, where you see cumulative, total up, and total down) and Slashdot's karma system would be best. The up/down would show the overall approval or disapproval of a comment, but the Karma moderation is what hides it or brings it to the front. Thus you can understand the overall community's feelings (if that matters to you) but still have unpopular-yet-interesting posts rise. Up/down would not affect a user's Karma in any
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I think there needs to be a moderation RFC with everything we've learned about moderation of internet discussion over the last 40 years.
When discussing some social things everyone should get to moderate. However when discussing science, math, technology.
I also think there should be some sort of statistical regression like Slashdot had with meta moderation.
Voat just looks like a rehash of Reddit with some incremental improvements but not things I would like to see.
Re: (Score:3)
You are assuming a person is a troll or not a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing basic rules of grammar when you say things like "answer me this".
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:4, Interesting)
This bit, it's called brigading
What is "brigading" and how do you do it? [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
SRS would brigade the shit out of the system making it useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can someone answer me this? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of thoughtful comments inthese replies.
I don't see that anyone could brigade away anyone else since it's up to the end user who to remove from view. I am not suggesting people marked trolls be auto-disappeared without the end user deciding to take that action. Remember, the same thing happens here- people get modded down and who has /. set to view the 0 rated comments? (does anyone?)
I agree that auto creation of sock puppet accounts is troublesome. I read recently where this many tens of millions of accounts on FB are simply fake.
Nevertheless it seems to me that we should be able to auto-recognize fake accounts. Brigading comments (using secondary accounts for sniping and down voting) should therefore be an identifiable event, to some probability.
I can't believe we can't use the sysadmin's god's eye view of all comments to win this war- it's clearly an asymmetric advantage.
OK just talking about brigading, take two use cases one using sock pupet accounts , the other just ganging up.
In the first case, instead providing a view that just says 50% of users think this comment is a troll (in pie graph form say) provide a view that gives that information AND ALSO a "factor in sock puppetry" overlay, which changes the pie graph to show non-sockpuppet percentages.
Point is, you can't run forever. We can make realistic sock puppetry require a deep time investment. We can make recognition of sock puppets an easy thing and then your investment is gone in a flash. We dont' have to ban sock puppets, we just have to recognize them witha high degree of probability and include that as a datapoint available to users.
Inthe second case where real humans are ganging up, we can detect coordination. People who act together *in certain ways* (to be defined, but don't tell me I can't do it) are highly likely to be coordinating. People who act together because of their shared world view but are not coordinating might look like they ARE coordination, but there are differences between those two cases involving timing and past behaviour etc. etc.
It's not that problems can be felled with a single blow, it's that you can make it time-expensive to successfully engage in the kind of system rigging. You can even bring in outside facts about the world generally to act as a reality check to distinguish genuiine behaviour from non.
It's just a variant of fraud detection, right, but without ever actually having to confront the fraudster (since you may be wrong and don't want to alienate honest users). You don't finger anyone, you let your users do that and then your other users decide and or learn to trust or not those user's judgments.
I guess I feel like this is something people just don't want to invest in for some unknown (to me) reason . It appears that people do a little of this and that the hope for the best. That's the level of technology and sophistication we're bringing to it and I don't know why.
Trolls and maurading bands of assholes are an issue but with enough data points- and sysadmins have datapoints - you can just run trolls and other bad behavior to exhaustion, make it too expensive in terms of time and too low in terms fo rewards. That's how the peace is kept in this world generally.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with half the stuff you say, but I value your comments and still find great bits of insight in a lot of them. For instance, whenever you rant on Linux I usually read the entire post. Usually I agree with about a quarter of it, disagree with the rest and find things to think about on both accounts. I believe that you have a reasonable take even on things you don't necessarily like and usually avoid descending into 'troll' territory even when arguing. That's the kind of stuff I've only been able
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>So the moral of the story? ...
>>the mods caught on and shut down his sockpuppet army and took away his rights to mod.
Isn't that the moral of the story? Fraud detected,action taken, troll defeated, more datapoints and patterns discovered to help detect future possible fraud.
Sure, he got one in on you, but getting off a sucker punch is not winning a battle.
Thanks for the feedback about what attackers are liable to try, of course soliciting that knowledge from the crowd was the purpose of my ori
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it would be great if they reigned in the whole shadow-banning nonsense to only allow it in the case of spam. if something is spam and it is verified to be spam, then the post goes away. But no longer allowing shadow-banning for anything else. even if that something else is vile or repugnant. There are other ways to deal with that content.
Maybe the mods in a group can't delete a vile comment but they can moderate it down below a threshold that will cause it to not be visible by default unless t
Laugh (Score:2)
Because viles where the money is?
Seriously strange decision.
This summary is wrong, they are banning content (Score:5, Informative)
The differentiator between a sub to be banned and a sub to be hidden is officially the promotion of violence. Given the unlikelihood they that would start banning subs like
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's more generally about whether the content is illegal or incites illegal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This summary is wrong, they are banning conten (Score:2)
I am aware of that. I wasn't talking about discussion of illegal activity but rather inciting it. Violence would of course fit under that, but so would things like posting your ex's credit card info and SSN and other personal data for others to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read (some of) a sociology paper that looked at violence in legalized prostitution. One of the things that struck me as odd was the explicit declaration that STD transmission, whether intentional or not, was investigated as a form of "violence". While getting an STD is a real concern for that industry, and not a good thing in any way, I think that labeling it as "violence" does a huge disservice to those who suffer actual violence. It's not that much of a stretch, I suppose, as harm is actually inflicted
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech? (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech doesn't have anything to do with a constitution. It's worldwide, not American.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
Likewise, in most societies, Freedom of Speech is a cultural law. It's assumed. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was from Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906. Going all the way back, Athens, had the Freedom of Speech in the 5th century B.C.. The Romans also had Freedom of Speech. It's also apart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and binding on all UN member states.
Just because the USA government's constitution only protects the Freedom of Speech from itself, doesn't mean it's not fucking important, worth fighting for, or a real thing outside of the government interactions.
Moreover, Freedom of Speech does move into the private sector in certain situations. Such as the landmark Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins case of 1980. In California, per their additional state constitutional wording, you can exercise your right to free speech in private shopping centers as long as you are peaceful. Many states have similar wording but have not followed as they are worried about the implications. But the point remains, the idea that "Freedom of Speech" means nothing except with regard to the USA federal government is a stupid lie.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:4, Informative)
Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Re: (Score:1)
^ Of course in the current state of things if you should exercise your "free speech" right to tell a cop to go f*ck himself, you might wind up being granted the right to a speedy burial, while said cop gets a 2 week paid vacation and then cleared of all charges.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd figure if people believe the CEO is such a hypocrite, they'd quit using the service. For some reason they believe that the website is somehow theirs. It isn't. They're just providing free content.
The real issue here is that people who want to discuss controversial topics are pissed that their megaphone is being taken away and they incorrectly believe that because the dude gave them a megaphone one day, he can't take it away the next. It all boils down to "my ideas are unpopular and its unfair that
Re: (Score:3)
reddit is coming down hard on progressives.
How? So, you've gone out and created your own web site where you can "progressive" yourself all day long on any topic you like ... how are the people that run Reddit's private web site interfering with you running your own web site? Please be specific. If you don't provide clear evidence of how Reddit is preventing you from running your own web site as you see fit, then ask yourself what you really mean.
Never mind, I'll tell you what you REALLY want. You want other people to be your web site platform fi
Re: (Score:2)
what gives your freedom to complain about him more validity than his freedom to complain about reddit?
Because I'm pointing out that he's being whiny and irrational in his complaint that Reddit isn't being "fair" in having an editorial policy related to how they run their own web site. His complaint: it's isn't right for people to be able to run their own web sites as they see fit. My complaint: that his complaint is without merit, and is in fact a symptom of a great deal of what's wrong with contemporary society, vis-a-vis the Gimme Dat lefty entitlement culture. See the difference? He thinks someone else
Re: (Score:2)
They even claim nonwhites are only 3/5 of a person according to it.
So what you're saying is that you don't actually know what the constitution says.
Believing free speech only applies to the government is racist.
Wow, you've also got a profound reading comprehension problem to go with your inability to reason.
Free speech doesn't "apply" to the government (you idiot), the constitution's first amendment exists to protect your free speech FROM the government. The constitution is, as it should be, completely silent on what you personally should or shouldn't say on your own private web site or other publication.
Your pathetic attempt
Re: Freedom of Speech? (Score:2)
If I'm the one with the communications infrastructure and I let you use it to communicate, what you say reflects on me because I built your podium.
Free speech does not entitle you to someone elses podium.
Not Good Enough. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not as long as /r/coontown and it's ilk continue to exist with thousands of subscribers.
Reddit can't profit from hate and expect my patronage.
Don't read anything into it that isn't there (Score:1)
It's about maximizing market value. A very simple concept.
Meanwhile in SRS business continues as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Because even the single most toxic sub on the entire website which openly tries to goad at-risk users into committing suicide, routinely engages in doxing, and considers brigading to be a core part of their sub's existence still has the favor of the admins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile in SRS business continues as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
Your sig is a good explanation of the way voting on reddit is supposed to work. An upvote doesn't necessarily mean you agree with something. You're supposed to upvote things that "add to the discussion" and downvote things that do not, regardless of agreement.
For this reason, "brigading" is a bad thing. If, say, a bunch of chocolate pudding afficiandoes on /r/chocolatepudding watch the general /r/pudding sub, and any time vanilla pudding is mentioned, they post a link to the thread and everybody from /r/chocolatepudding goes to downvote the pro-vanilla comment, that's not really helpful. The vanilla pudding comment was adding to the discussion, but not expressing an opinion the chocolate pudding crowd liked. Downvoting it en mass is bullshit.
SRS is /r/shitredditsays, a forum wherein people notice "offensive" things said on other subs, and post links to them. The entire purpose of the sub is to post links to comments and posts you don't like. And gee, I guess maybe if other people don't like them too, they might, I don't know...go downvote those comments?
And of course they go beyond merely downvoting that one post. Some redditors have been known to go through somebody's entire post history, downvoting everything they've ever said. Or worse, sleuthing their real identity, and harassing them offline, or contacting their employer and trying to get them fired for something "offensive" they've said under a pseudonym online.
So, how can the problem be "harassment" and "doxxing" when SRS is still allowed to exist?
Re: (Score:3)
So, how can the problem be "harassment" and "doxxing" when SRS is still allowed to exist?
That's simple, because many of the admins when they quit suddenly become mods of SRS. Just like Ellen Pao did, literally the second she quit a CEO. Or as I like to put it: SRS, where admins and CEO's go to show their true colours.
Reddit: don't read the comments .. (Score:1)
The ratchet effect of censorship (Score:2)
"Chief executive and co-founder Steve Huffman told users: 'We've spent the last few days here discussing...'
There it is. If you've ever wondered how any repressive regime started with perfectly good intentions and ended putting humans through meat grinders, then there it is.
Imagine the scene: the great and the good at Reddit discussion what to do about revenge porn, swastikas and confederate flags in a plush air-conditioned office. They all have beautiful wives and young kids at home. Who, just who among th
Re: (Score:2)
The swastikas and hate speech get modded down primarily because they're off-topic since /. generally doesn't deal in topics where "RACE THE JEWS, GAS WAR NOW" is a remotely logical response. (Yes I scrambled that on purpose. Rule of funny.) But if you browse at -1 as you're supposed to when moderating, you'll see that they do exist. It's much less than it used to be, just like the GNAA has ceased to be much of a concern here, but that isn't just down to the moderation system or the "culture". It's also rela
Re: (Score:2)
A good point, and well made.
Re: (Score:1)
{citation needed}
Re: (Score:2)
Voat can barely keep up with the constantly increasing demand even without taking the constant DoS attacks into account, and they're starting to pull in outside funding.
Re: (Score:2)
...and they're starting to pull in outside funding.
Wake us when this funding would fall under the rubric of "profitable advertising."
Or "sustainable."
Re: (Score:2)
Wake us when this funding would fall under the rubric of "profitable advertising." Or "sustainable."
Well that's sure not reddit, then again you have to ask how they could run a site for years and still need VC to be sustainable. But considering the push that Pao made to can anyone who refused to move to San Fran, it looks like the main VC company behind them want to cash out now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation given. [voatstats.co] But considering that Voat has pretty much been under a DDoS since the 3th of the month when people threw a hissy fit because it's a reddit alternative there's a huge gap missing.
Re: (Score:1)
I love how Poa or Pao or whatever her name was is 1000% not even close to being conservative.
But okay lol
Re: (Score:2)
People with green cards wouldn't need amnesty for being illegally present. Their green card is part of the paper trail of a legal immigrant.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you're the sort of tool who posts revenge porn on Reddit then I guarantee you that the Reddit admins know better than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an excellent point. Anyone advocating censorship needs to set in place some method by which the censorship is achieved. That generally means picking a group of people and telling them to apply some sort of standard (of whatever looseness). What I think the parent poster was getting at (before they were downvoted) is that it's arrogant to think that you, yourself, know best what content is Good and what is Bad
I would add that it's also foolish to think that you can predict the long-term consequences
Re: (Score:2)
90% of the comments section of any political article. The other 10% are "I made $40,000 dollars last week using this one weird trick."**
**Numbers pulled out of my ass, so if they stink, you know why......