Reddit Conducts Wide-Ranging Purge of Offensive Subreddits (arstechnica.com) 330
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, [Reddit] announced a new policy clarifying its rules against content that incites violence. "We will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people," Reddit administrator landoflobsters wrote. Promoting harm to animals is also against the rules. Within minutes, moderators started to ban a long list of controversial subreddits, including /r/Nazi, /r/DylannRoofInnocent, /r/SexWithDogs, /r/WhitesAreCriminals, and /r/PicsOfDeadKids. The bounds of propriety remain fairly wide at Reddit, however. Commenters pointed out that /r/WatchPeopleDie -- which is exactly what it sounds like -- is still around. Landoflobsters said that site administrators have "no plans to remove it for now." The self-explanatory -- and horrifying -- /r/CuteFemaleCorpses is also still active. Evidently, merely depicting violence is fine as long as people in a subreddit don't glorify violence. In practice, of course, the line between these things is pretty thin. A subreddit devoted to merely discussing violent acts is naturally going to attract people who like to promote violent acts -- especially after bans of related subreddits where those people previously hung out. Reddit's new policy seems like the basis for an endless game of Whac-A-Mole as the Internet's creeps search for new places to exchange disturbing content.
More Like Narrow-Banded (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More Like Narrow-Banded (Score:4, Informative)
The Anarchism subreddit isn't a problem. They never do anything except argue about how to define anarchism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Anarchism subreddit isn't a problem. They never do anything except argue about how to define anarchism.
Splitter!
Re:More Like Narrow-Banded (Score:5, Informative)
They're also following the usual hypocritical pattern of retroactively banning everyone guilty of wrongthink while allowing latestagecapitalism, anarchy, SRS and its owned subs, and the like to get away with posting a sticky saying "Guys no more doxing and violence, we're super duper cereal this time"
Re:More Like Narrow-Banded (Score:4, Interesting)
This argument over the relative badness of one sub to another is just a distraction. It's one of the most common logical fallacies these days - "he is terrible, but she is worse," or "okay Nazis but what about these guys?"
It's not hypocrisy to not be omnipotent and capable of evaluating everything on a precisely calibrated scientific scale and then enacting a mass cull in one single hit for maximum fairness. It's just the nature of large web sites with limited resources to do a difficult job.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On the contrary, it's absolutely vital for the reputation of such a forum that they apply their rules in an even-handed manner.
I wonder: if Reddit blocked the communist subs, but allowed the neo-nazi ones to continue, would you be so sanguine?
Re: (Score:3)
it's absolutely hypocrisy for very public subs and major multi-sub-spanning groups, with years long histories of doxing and long-term severe harassment and abusive behavior, to ALWAYS be given a free pass to continue their utterly toxic behavior because of their direct association with the admin staff. And there's nothing fallacious about pointing out that people who openly organize real world violence and supposedly intolerable banworthy behavior like doxing have constantly gotten away with it while other
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like what Reddit is doing, and it isn't directly harming you, ignore it. If you want to start your own site with stuff I find offensive, I'll ignore your site. It's really, really easy to get set up on the net.
Reddit has precisely no responsibility to do what you think they should do.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because these things are incremental. You start with the extreme cases to introduce the principle. Then it's just an implementation detail to expand to any form of activism or voice of opponents/oppressed/disenfranchised.
So when more pressure is applied to Reddit,Twitter,Facebook and so on they won't have much trouble complying.
Oh boo-hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG a business is doing what they want with their own platform as is there legal right! Cue the masses of idiots to defend the 1st Amendment where it doesn't apply.
Re:Oh boo-hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it's their legal right. It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square. You know, the place the 1st Amendment said - between the lines - you could go to say what you wanted.
Censorship got outsourced to the companies.
Re:Oh boo-hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
So the way to get rid of the 1st amendment is to privatize.
Re:Oh boo-hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
social monopolies :)
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit already gives you far more freedom than a typical town square. How long do you think you would get away with displaying pictures of corpses and remarking about how hot they are in real life?
The system as it stands is fine. There are sites like 8chan, Gab, even hidden sites on Tor where you can say literally anything. It might annoy you that those sites are not very popular like Twitter and Reddit, but that's how ideas work. If they have merit they spread, they become mainstream, if not then maybe you
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit already gives you far more freedom than a typical town square. How long do you think you would get away with displaying pictures of corpses and remarking about how hot they are in real life?
Isn’t that what anti-abortion groups do?
Re: (Score:2)
Occasionally, and around here they are asked politely by police to remove them and then arrested. In fact I read that even in the US it looks like a ban on protesting outside clinics is constitutional, because free speech has to be balanced against other people's rights to access medical services.
I get it, they want people to see their important message about babies being murdered, but that has to be balanced against the rights of people to go about their lives without being subjected to disturbing imagery
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a clear difference between handing out fliers promoting unpopular opinions, and publicly displaying distasteful or harmful images.
This is why laws typically do not try to enumerate all possible disallowed behaviours. It's a judgement call, with a legal system behind it for disputes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh boo-hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square.
No, they're not. Simple as that.
If you write to (say) the Catholic Herald newspaper, you can't seriously complain when they don't publish your "the Pope is a Paedophile and the Antichrist" cartoon. Similarly, they are under no obligation to accept adverts from condom manufacturers.
You don't have to read the Catholic Herald, and you don't have to visit Facebook or Reddit. It's not some Stalinist state controlled monopoly.
Re:Oh boo-hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square.
No, they're not. Simple as that.
That's sort of the difficult question at hand. Do we, as a society, have a "Town Square" anymore? A location where everyone goes to participate in a marketplace of ideas? If it's not Facebook or Reddit, then where is that place? Freedom of speech to state the 'approved' set of ideas is almost as useless as freedom of speech limited to the middle of the desert in Nevada - technically accurate, but practically useless. The implication that Freedom of Speech was both the very first entry in the Bill of Rights, and that it was written under the auspices that it can only meaningfully be exercised in isolation, frankly doesn't make sense. Freedom of speech does imply meaningful access to an audience of some kind. Now yes, that audience must also have the readily-available freedom to not-listen and I don't think the Bill of Rights guaranteed a particular or captive audience, but an audience, at some level, there must be.
If Facebook and Reddit don't want to provide a true marketplace of ideas, that's kinda their right, but the question is "should it be?". These companies have plenty of regulations. Their buildings must have fire exits, they can't lie on their SCO filings, and they can't physically beat their employees until morale improves. Adding a requirement to not-stifle the first amendment would just be another requirement.
The alternative is the realization that we do need a town square, where nazis and antifa alike can make their views heard on equal footing. Usenet used to fill this job well, and I'd argue that it's still about the best system for this (or at least the best model for one), but it suffers from the dark side of the network effect. I'd also be in favor of some sort of government hosted public forum system, but even ignoring the funding and spam issues, it becomes a potential point-of-failure if it is ever manipulated by the government maliciously, and would lack accountability to do so.
So, if the government is not going to provide a digital town square, and private industry can't either, then someone is going to have to pay for it, either through donations or ads, which brings us, I guess, to the NPR model...but NPR is far from a 'marketplace of ideas' as I have yet to hear anything on my local NPR stations that vaguely resembled a conservative point of view - or, for that matter, something that wasn't political at some level, unless you count 'fundraiser season'.
The final option is that we have no town square - Freedom of Speech, but nowhere to meaningfully exercise it. I don't think that's something worth fighting for.
If you write to (say) the Catholic Herald newspaper, you can't seriously complain when they don't publish your "the Pope is a Paedophile and the Antichrist" cartoon. Similarly, they are under no obligation to accept adverts from condom manufacturers.
You don't have to read the Catholic Herald, and you don't have to visit Facebook or Reddit. It's not some Stalinist state controlled monopoly.
First off, the Catholic Herald does not have nearly the same userbase as Reddit. Second, the Catholic Herald is not understood to be a publication whose primary content is user-submitted. On the contrary, it is a topical periodical with editors and writers intended for a specific audience. Anyone reading it will assume it has gone through an editor who made choices as to what was deemed the most desirable content to distribute, a far cry from the community-driven aspects which are a primary feature of both Reddit and Facebook. Nobody would expect the Catholic Herald to publish an article called "the pope is a pedophile", and arguably /r/catholic probably wouldn't either as a function of the individual moderators on that subreddit....but are we ultimately arguing that there should be nowhere on Reddit that such an article *could* be posted? I'm not arguing for the front page, nor am I arguing for /r/sldkgfnw (the equivalent of the Nevada desert), but I am arguing that there does need to be a place for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no there not. They're commercial social spaces created to make money. They are owned wholly and fully by said companies.The companies can do whatever they want with them, including censoring. They can make them whites only, blacks only, jews only, etc. There are no laws anywhere stating otherwise.
It doesn't matter what you think. Until the laws change, facebook and other such sites can do whatever they want with their sites.
Re: (Score:2)
They can make them whites only, blacks only, jews only, etc. There are no laws anywhere stating otherwise.
Yeah, there are. Just like I can't open a restaurant and put a "No Blacks" sign on the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Your understanding of the (US) laws is severely lacking. While creating group discriminating non-protected groups would be allowed (with some limitations) discriminating of protected groups would not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing different here. Right down to the fact that after the "censorship," people whining about it will ignore the fact that calls to violence was the issue, not "I dislike your message."
Re: (Score:2)
The only time speech has been limited based on inciting violence is if the violence is going to happen imminently, like within 30 seconds.
This is fucking nonsense and you know it. Call for violence in a public place against a politician thousands of miles from you and test your theory if you don't.
Now it's Twitter's turn (Score:2, Insightful)
r/PeopleFuckingDying is still alive. (Score:5, Funny)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Peopl... [reddit.com]
No Clicking (Score:3)
Nope. Not a single one. I am not clicking any link associated with story!
The more boring a site gets (Score:2)
If a site just wants to offer government policy, political press conferences, positive big studio movie review, tourism news..
Whats the point of using a social media site if people don't get to comment on policy, movies, news, history, music, arts, culture, sports?
Users have to stay 100 % positive in how they write about a movie?
Freedom of speech, freedom after speech is what made the internet fun and allowed some US sites to keep
Re: (Score:2)
I miss Usenet. (Score:4, Interesting)
Other than spammers, nobody bothered us when we used alt.binaries.pictures.grotesque for this purpose.
For the record, I was in no way responsible for the "Di Death Pic" hoax... but I know who was, an a.b.p.g regular. It was an accidental hoax anyhow, it was not meant to be taken seriously. We didn't know lurkers would forward it without the disclaimer.
Subject is incorrect (Score:2)
Seems to happen every 2 or 3 years. Nothing new here.
two thoughts: (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The folks interested in these things will definitely find other places to congregate, but here's the key: possibly not at reddit. Which is reddit's goal.
2. In terms of it being Whac-a-Mole, it shouldn't be too hard if they implement a user-based reporting / flagging system. Let your users flag suspect subreddits, then every day a reddit employee looks at the top few "most redported" and determines if they meet the criteria for removal. Users who abuse the flagging system lose the ability to flag.
I'm so happy (Score:2)
I adblock reddit.
This is vile and deceitful on Reddit's part (Score:2)
Lawful speech people don't like is still free speech.
Announcing a new policy is fine.... disrupting communities and purging content within hours of the announcement is not.
The proper thing is to allow those subs time to modify their rules and require submissions to conform to the new policies or
decide to move elsewhere WITH REASONABLE NOTICE, As in 30 days notice, not 5 minutes notice.
Community defines standards (Score:4, Interesting)
The take-home to me is that groups online should define and enforce their standards; doing so will determine what sort of people participate and whether the site is a "cess pool". Seems obvious now.
Glorifying violence (Score:3)
Good job Reddit, that'll really give those NAZI's a black eye. ....wait.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's the bar, then when do we hold the eulogy for Slashdot? (Or did I miss it 10 years ago?)
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Funny)
(Or did I miss it 10 years ago?)
10 years ago people were saying the same thing. The only thing that happens more frequently than the death of Slashdot is the year of the Linux desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit was supposed to be the new slashdot, or so anonymous cowherd said.
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reddit is different. It is like a rocky coastline full of little tidal pools where tiny fish pretend they are giant sharks. Their tidal pool is the entire world, full of empty threads with little or no comments. Some of the tidal pools are not bad to dip into to get some specialist info out of but making your life a tidal pool, all the fish swimming in the same direction, in the same circle, really rather pointless, much like Reddit has become in the age of for profit censorship rather than leaving it to the courts and the justice system (yeah I know Reddit managements ego are way above the justice system and the law for the lessor people than Reddit censor). Reddit seems to believe the censoring more people and kicking them off will result in more end users because, I just don't know, they think people like to be censored and attacked randomly by the lamest of SJWs of which ever brand (hitler's brown shirts were SJWs, the Klu Klux Klan are SJWs, social justice activists good - social justice warriors really fucking bad, why can you not understand that the word war and social justice are mutually opposing, you can not win a war, you only lose less than the other guy).
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have unrealistic expectations of what a business will do to protect free speech. On the individual level it's likely that someone high up in the organization will decide they don't want to host that stuff, like someone high up at Cloudflare decided they didn't want to provide services to Nazi sites. On a corporate level they can't exist on their own, they need ad revenue, they need sales revenue, they need hosting and peering.
And the real kicker (for you) is that Reddit's purges work. They move most of the asshats over to the Voat cesspit and the majority of Reddit users find that there is less trolling and abuse on the 99.99% of boards that are not affected.
https://arstechnica.co.uk/scie... [arstechnica.co.uk]
What you need is some billionaire to run a free speech site at a loss. But even then you won't be happy, because it will be like Gab or 8chan - small, few people pay any attention to it and it quickly becomes an echo chamber for extremists rather than a paradise of reasoned debate.
Re: (Score:3)
You have unrealistic expectations of what a business will do to protect free speech.
Lets not be quite this confused; when a business chooses what you can say on their website, that is literally them defending their free speech. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Re: (Score:2)
In the main subs, groupthink tends to go against SJW.
Furthermore, for fucks sake, you're making an idiotic sl
Re: Good bye, old friend... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think your view of the world is a tad bit too pessimistic if you think the only reason Reddit is able to stay afloat is because Nazis and people having sex with dogs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has been clear for the last year or two they are trying to clean themselves up to be sold to someone. They just are not sure who. They had a pretty sweet system going on. They have been caught a couple of times manipulating the system. Their advertisers HAVE to be saying 'if they can manipulate some stuff down then they can manipulate other stuff up'.
When you build a 'free speech' platform do not be surprised when every wacko shows up and states whatever dribbles out of their mouths.
I vote on Verizon
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
+2 Insightful? Hardly.
There are sites years older (fark.com comes to mind) that threw out their dumpster fire residents, and those people just take up residence somewhere else, so 4chan is the path of least resistance unless you're into furries or child porn, and those creeps go to 8ch.
Just like a every other social media network before it, Livejournal threw off it's creeps, so people migrated. DeviantArt threw out its's creeps, and they migrated. 4chan threw out it's creeps, and they migrated. reddit is throwing out it's creeps, and they migrate.
Slashdot hasn't done anything to throw out it's creeps, and that's largely because the subject material is high-level nerd interest moderated by humans, rather than the unmoderated cesspool that *chan sites are. reddit is actually moderated rather well as long as you're sticking to fandom and local communities. Where reddit falls apart is in attracting advertisers to pay for it's hosting cost. So like Youtube/Google (who has a very shitty ad policy in general (they will stop showing ads if you show a censored cartoon butt) is the one calling the shots in advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think Slashdot is still full of intelligent people and not mindless drone posts? Have you ever looked at an archived shot of how amazing this place used to be ten years ago?
When was the last time you saw an actual industry expert like John Carmack chime in on a post here?
Yeah. Exactly.
In case you didn't know, he (and many experts) used to.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is Six Apart a Russian company? It is a Japanese company that acquired Livejournal and then sold that to a Russian company (SUP Media). Six Apart is still not a Russian company.
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.
Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?
For the most part. But things than might be considered some kind of threat or indicate an illegal action might occur, or libal... That sort of thing.
But you're right, a lot (most?) of the objectionable material may be disgusting but not illegal...
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part. But things than might be considered some kind of threat or indicate an illegal action might occur
If the police have enough time to investigate every post that has a 0.000001% chance of being a real threat, then we have way, way too many police.
or libal...
Libel is a civil matter, and the police have no business getting involved in it.
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.
Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?
Police, FBI, Etc. If someone makes a death threat verbally in a mall, the idea is for them to find out, catch the perpetrator physically, and send them through the courts. If someone makes a death threat via text post on a forum, same basic shit should happen. It's not actually more complicated than that. Though there are some dynamics of policing that become more apparent after you've watched all 5 seasons of HBO's 'The Wire'. Fiction, of course, but one wonders about how much of policing reality inspired that fiction. Be forewarned, you may encounter no small amount of offensive 'lockerroom talk'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Policing infers they restrict or control what people say. Reading what is in plain sight to look for suspicious characters is no worse than sitting on a corner watching a group of masked men.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of what they post is illegal, so it's law enforcement's business. Some of it could open them up to being sued too, and in some countries the state can take an interest on behalf of citizens under certain circumstances.
For example, the subreddit posting pictures of corpses is likely breaking some privacy laws in Europe. Yes, dead people have some right to privacy too, as do their families who probably don't want Reddit users masturbating over images of their recently deceased relatives.
The bestiality bo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read ...
Podesta. and Harvey Weinstein of course. duh. Haven't you been keeping up with the news?
Re: Good bye, old friend... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Limited speech is free.
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives want less government. Interesting that liberals think that we want government control of anything.
Conservatives claim to want less government, but in fact whenever they have power they expand the powers of government.
(I think you may be confusing conservatives with libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.)
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Informative)
corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.
Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.
Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government. As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty. I also support the incarceration of Corporate Boards and CxOs when systemic abuses occur. If both of those were real legal options after a court decision, you'd find a lot lot less of the kind of crap you see today.
As a Libertarian, I support laws that protect people from harm done to them. That is the purpose of government, not control and regulation which actually causes harm.
Here is a simple test. When government fails, who pays? When Corporations fail, who pays?
THAT, in a nutshell, is why I support way less government. Most of the problems we see in Corporations are caused by government rules that prevent competition.
the elephant in the room (Score:5, Insightful)
libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.
Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.
Unfortunately, it's not a strawman. It is the elephant in the room for libertarian philosophy. Governments limit corporate power. Without governments, there would be no limits on corporate power. Once corporations own everything that can be owned, this is dictatorship. Game over: corporations own everything, you do what they tell you.
Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government.
Exactly. Governments are the limit on corporate power
As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty.
Show me one citation -- just one single citation-- to a libertarian source suggesting that "the corporate death penalty" is something that is considered a good idea anywhere in libertarian philosophy.
But: a citation to somebody other that yourself.
Libertarian corporate death penalty (Score:2)
I don't think you even are a libertarian, or for that matter even know anything about it; it just gives you an excuse to troll on the internet.
Re:Good bye, old friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's nice that they would be opposed,shame they wouldn't be able to do jack shit about it.
Libertarians and Taxes (Score:3)
Is Obamacare 'Slaver' as a Libertarian would claim, or is it a commons? If people are truly able to opt in to every aspect of society, then there really no such things as commons.
Take a park as an example. A public park is paid for by taxes collected from eve
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a free speech issue. If you can't say what you want on Reddit, either find some place else or set up your own website and advertise it. (It's easy to set up websites on AWS, and presumably other services.)
Free speech has never included the right to use somebody else's podium. Freedom of the press has never included the right to own your own printing press.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oy Vey! SHUT IT DOWN!
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the old adage about TV being a vast wasteland. It's not. It's a mirror. How you view it is reflection of yourself. If you can't find something redeeming on TV (or streaming) then you simply never bothered to look.
Same goes for reddit.
Re: Good bye, old friend... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want reddit to be a platform for hate you should have no issue with any social media being a platform for ISIS or literal nazis
I draw the line at figurative nazis.
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech has pretty simple limits. It shouldn't be used to attack one of the classic unalienables. In other words, one shouldn't be allowed to promote violence, murder, slavery, unending harassment, or directly create chaos by trying to incite panic. So I won't suggest you shut your whore mouth. I do suggest you have a whore mouth though.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No. As soon as you limit freedom of speech to things you like (and yes your proposal damn well is that) you've severely crippled it. "hate speech" starts to obtain the definition of disagreeing with the status quo. "harassment" starts to obtain the definition of vigorous debate. I've seen those examples and more. The question at hand is who decides what hate speech and harassment are. When a certain disliked group on Twitter started to engage those posting a certain hashtag and winning them over that's when lively debate via twitter started to be called harassment. When "hate speech" became illegal that's when opponents of certain points of view defined them as hate speech. When the question of which speech is hateful is politicized the law against it becomes a tool for oppressing certain points of view, and that is unacceptable.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -H. L. Mencken
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as your explanation of the issue is incorrect (it's not "things people don't like" which are being banned, but "demonstrably dangerous or illegal things"), it's safe to assume you might have made some other mistakes in your argument.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Put the pipe down. Words and pictures have never been demonstrably dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
It's how you create or acquire the pictures that are dangerous. See: child porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the data itself isn't dangerous! The dangers are in the mind of the beholder but the electrons in themselves aren't dangerous! Information want to be free!
(sarcasm for those that can't detect it)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. People getting killed when some pictures of them in some situation (a guy kissing another guy, a member of a sect meeting the "enemy" of the sect etc.) never happen. Words have never caused people to be inspired to do the things the words describe.
I wonder what kind of world you are living in. Either a fantasy or an overly abstracted world where e.g. opening a door doesn't demostrably enable access to the other side of it.
Re: (Score:3)
More of the same I see. You really cannot accept that people are 100% responsible for their own behavior, can you?
Input: "Love everyone as much as you love yourself."
Output: "GOD HATES FAGS!"
Conclusion: Religion is bad. (Wait, what?!?!?)
See, that right there? What I am pointing to is simply this: It doesn't matter what words or pictures are used, humans will find a way to pin the blame for their unacceptable behavior on something or someone other than themselves. And, there are continually people who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Many consider freedom of speech to be an inalienable right, so you shouldn't be allowed to use speech to attack freedom of speech? You should go to jail for your comment perhaps?
(Not to mention, there's no such thing as an inalienable right. That's stupid. Inalienable rights come and go as society deems them appropriate.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(Not to mention, there's no such thing as an inalienable right. That's stupid. Inalienable rights come and go as society deems them appropriate.)
Inalienable rights are not defined by society, but rather by nature. Your right to your own body is inalienable, for example, because you can't stop controlling your own body or give control of it to someone else. Without your body you aren't you. The same goes for rights which are yours simply due to your existence as a sentient being, such as the rights to homestead unowned land, own property, and enter into contracts. (Rights to specific property are alienable, of course.) There aren't many things like t
Re: Good (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure your definition of "platform for hate" is "somebody said something I disagree with". That seems to be the standard for crybaby millenials who can't figure out why they're not allowed to make anything they don't like go away.
Re: (Score:3)
> Finally they get some backbone,
Except they didn't.
The_Dotard which has numerous actual murders is still open.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want reddit to be a platform for hate you should have no issue with any social media being a platform for ISIS or literal nazis
I'd have no problem with ISIS or capital N Nazis having a free and open platform. That's the quickest way for people to see what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is a geometric line, an abstract mathematical concept. A drawn line is never perfectly straight, and contains multiple dimensions.
And a metaphorical line takes the metaphor from the drawn line, and is therefore only as narrow or straight as it is well drawn.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they got rid of the "whitesarecriminals".
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem like Reddit's up/downvote system is broken somehow. I wonder if it could be improved by adding +1 to a parent (and grandparent?) post when a reply was added. In theory, a post which gains a reply seems to have an inherent discussion value even if the reply is a disagreement. Conversations in real life are better with some level of disagreement, it adds engagement and furthers the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought a good deal about this, and there seem to be a few problems: /r/bodyweightfitness, posts don't get a lot of upvotes (10 is high enough to be top rated in any thread). A post like this (https://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/6tmbf4/is_the_front_lever_taxing_on_your_elbow_joints) has a highest-rated upvote of 4for a 300-word, in-depth, properly formatted post. Discussions/Disagreements aren't prope
1 - People don't upvote those they disagree with. As a byproduct, in a forum such as
Re: (Score:2)
upvote everyone in the thread
Effectively accomplishing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to define a line between 'unacceptable' and 'merely offensive'... and both those who want to behave unacceptably and those who are easily offended will use any uncertainty as justification for pushing the line in their preferred direction.
Ultimately, it'll come down to some individual's personal preference which may simply be to let a stupid algorithm do it and live with the problems that causes (for instance, try discussing racial slurs on Slashdot without getting blocked by the 'lameness fi