Reddit Finally Bans Hate Speech, Removes 2,000 Racist and Violent Forums (variety.com) 334
Reddit first launched as an online discussion site in June 2005. Now, 15 years later, it has finally taken action to officially ban hate speech and groups that promote it. From a report: A revised Reddit content policy, announced Monday, explicitly states that groups or users that "incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability" are prohibited. "Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying and threats of violence," it says. With the updated content policy, Reddit is initially banning about 2,000 subreddits, most of which are inactive, the company said. Included in the purge is The_Donald, a pro-Donald Trump forum notorious for users posting racist, misogynistic, anti-Islam and anti-Semitic content. In 2015, Reddit adopted a new content policy and banned several blatantly racist subreddits. But until today, the official rules still did not explicitly forbid hate or racist forums. Reddit CEO/co-founder Steve Huffman, in an post about the new policy, said "I admit we have fallen short" in supporting the site's communities and moderators with respect to adopting a comprehensive anti-hate policy.
Ban websites that don't support UTF-8 properly (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing says hate like failing to adopt a character set that only works for Western Europeans and Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
We allow you lower case, instead of the pure and true six bit ascii.
Stop complaining, and pray that we do not alter you to Baudot . . .
doc "six bits should be enough for anyone" hawk
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aunt Jemima (Score:4, Insightful)
Family of woman portrayed as Aunt Jemima opposes rebrand saying ‘we do not want that history erased’ [marketwatch.com]
Lillian Richard was a former slave who worked for the company for 23 years, traveling around as Aunt Jemima to serve pancakes until she suffered a stroke.
“She was considered a hero in [her hometown of] Hawkins, and we are proud of that. We do not want that history erased,” Harris, Vera Harris to Lillian, said.
Re:Aunt Jemima (Score:5, Informative)
So opposed that the alleged family of the women whose image has been used on the packaging sued PepsiCo for $3 billion [eater.com] for "for failing to pay royalties for the use of Anna Short Harrington's likeness" and allegedly stealing "64 original formulas and 22 menus from Harrington."
But some other family of a different woman who "become a brand representative in 1925," i.e., one of dozens of Billy Mays [mentalfloss.com] prototypes, wants otherwise so let's never change the marketing ever.
Re: (Score:3)
So opposed that the alleged family of the women whose image has been used on the packaging sued PepsiCo for $3 billion [eater.com] for "for failing to pay royalties for the use of Anna Short Harrington's likeness" and allegedly stealing "64 original formulas and 22 menus from Harrington."
I don't see the relevance of a suit brought by some people claiming to be heirs of "Aunt Jemima", but weren't. From your link:
The men tried to establish that they are indeed Harrington's heirs, but failed royally.
The actual heirs clearly don't like what Quaker Oats/PepsiCo is doing.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know that? Seeing as how Anna Short Harrington is a completely different woman from Lillian Richard. Seeing as how she was neither the first or the last, but only 1 of 8 [wikipedia.org].
You're arguing, in effect, that McDonald's shouldn't change its branding to abandon Ronald McDonald because the distant family of some guy who used to wear the costume in southern Texas doesn't want them to. Meanwhile, Willard Scott's [wikipedia.org] family has either sued
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds logical. Would be cool if logic had a place in the world today. Instead hypocrisy reigns supreme. I mean, are they just going to leave the syrup that color???
Re:Aunt Jemima (Score:4, Insightful)
Family of woman portrayed as Aunt Jemima opposes rebrand saying ‘we do not want that history erased’ [marketwatch.com]
Lillian Richard was a former slave who worked for the company for 23 years, traveling around as Aunt Jemima to serve pancakes until she suffered a stroke.
“She was considered a hero in [her hometown of] Hawkins, and we are proud of that. We do not want that history erased,” Harris, Vera Harris to Lillian, said.
Afaik Lillian Richard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] wasn't a slave, I think you have her confused with the first Aunt Jemima; Nancy Green https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] The logo, is based on the third Jemima, Anna Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Ban websites that don't support UTF-8 properly (Score:2)
But opinions masquerading as facts are.
The users of The_Donald had moved on (Score:5, Informative)
The_Donald was not active any more. The users took their nuanced, well reasoned political analysis and reputation for tolerance to thedonald.win
Re: (Score:3)
Won't someone think of the bots?
Re: (Score:2)
How did they break the rules when there were no posts? Spez is a lying coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you telling us that you're not buying the official story? That chest thumping blue lives matter conservatives at the_donald threatened cops?
What a tinfoil hatter you are. Next you'll be telling us that Spez has a history of editing posts of other users or other such crazy right wing conspiracy theories.
Re:The users of The_Donald had moved on (Score:5, Informative)
The excuse for quarantining The_Donald was that it was attacking the police. That was laughable at the time, and it got airbrushed out about a month ago when about half of reddit became explicitly about attacking police.
The now, chapotraphouse says that it was banned for promoting hate. The_Donald now says that it was banned for breaking rules 1, 2 and 8. I don't know what the hell 2 is doing in that list, or even how it could be possible to ban a board for not following its own rules.
Looks like the big one was rule 8 - "Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit." I guess it is now clear that any right-leaning content that isn't token controlled opposition "breaks the site".
Best of luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best of luck (Score:5, Informative)
"The answer to 'where you draw the line' is literally always 'somewhere.' You draw it somewhere!" -- John Oliver [vulture.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well they never attempted complete genocide on themselves so there's that. Just because you haven't found the line doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure this time it won't devolve into a purity spiral where more and more people are pushed out over time as their options are deemed hateful.
Have you been on reddit recently? It could do with some thinning of the herd.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It worked well for them last time. All the toxic stuff went to Voat. In one fell swoop they got rid of a lot of undesirable content and destroyed a competitor.
Similar thing happened to Gab. Seems like setting yourself up as a free speech haven is suicide. Meanwhile Twitter is bigger than ever.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's Reddit's website and they can do whatever they want.
Just more PR (Score:2)
To say they're banning it, but then to point out how most are inactive says it all. They're going where the wind blows them.
/r/samandtolki not banned (Score:2)
Freedom of speech vs My Site My Rules (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's also your freedom not go there anymore.
What can't be banned is freedom of speech from the public sphere and simply existing somewhere. That's what must be allowed. As long as having the wrong ideology is not a cause for your site to be closed, we're fine.
When we place "offensive content" as the law defined limit of freedom of speech, then beware, because we turn what people is allowed to say into a purely subjective judgement by authority. And we end up without any freedom of speech at all, because everything can be offensive to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's also your freedom not go there anymore.
I just wish racist fuckwits would actually exercise this freedom rather than simply talk about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Instead of maybe realizing their ideas are abhorrent they double-down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're legally near-impossible to enforce as many of them have hilariously one-sided bullshit in them, and a severely one-sided contract holds little weight in court.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Sites enforce their ToS all the time. This is what Reddit is doing, and what Twitch are doing. No court is going to rule against either of them for enforcing a ToS that applies to users across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
In courts? Or by internal action of banning users who choose not to go to court over it?
Because that other person was specifically talking about the courts, and you appear to be ignoring this entirely and trying to pretend he was talking about internal action.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong [reason.com].
Why 'finally'? (Score:2, Troll)
Should we really celebrate yet another step on the slippery slope of political correctness?
Good enough rason to delete your account them (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
I never really used my Reddit account anyway. But if they're going full potato and jumping on the 'hate speech' band wagon that's a good enough reason to abandon the site entirely.
Well since you admit to rarely using your reddit account, maybe a thinning out of the number of fuckwits using the site may actually be reason to start using it.
Because rules like this will always be applied with an eye towards the censorship of political ideologies
Thank god. If we could eliminate political nonsense the world would be a better place.
Reddit Founders Do Not Care (Score:2)
I was an early redditor who liked and participated in a few subreddits. As I watched their defensive posture over the pedophilia being enabled and supported by their platform, I realized I could no longer be a part of it. I see this as proof that this leopard has not changed its spots at all.
They eventually caved in to pressure (and maybe just a little fear of finding themselves regulated - my own non-omniscient pontification there), but it was clear that it was not out of any sense of responsibility to the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the primary reasons for its continued existence is its huge fetish communities. Something reddit doesn't like to advertise. Pedophilia was tolerated for a very long time on reddit and had several active subreddits dedicated to things like pro-pedophiac politica activism (i.e. the LGBQTP movement, MAPs etc).
Those got banned by reddit a couple of years ago after a massive campaign against them, which was the time when there was a massive influx of those same people on twitter where they currently resid
Great! I'm jumping on! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use it to keep a tab on subjects of interest, but it doesn't get a lot of weight or priority. It's surprising how right-leaning it is, even for local/municipal groups/communities that are generally left-leaning (seems like mostly conservative-leaning people vocalize there).
For example, in the /vegan subreddit one sure-fire way to get downvoted is to mention that the Impossible Burger or Just Egg were tested on animals by their 'vegan' companies.
Seems like a defensible vegan position, right? Animal testing
Is discussing the Bell Curve hate speech? (Score:2)
Can discussing Bell Curve without dismissing it out of hand be non hate speech with enough hemming and hawing and prostrating, or is that hate speech period?
One detail. (Score:4, Insightful)
They explicitly said that their new rules don't protect "majorities". [reddithelp.com]
For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.
I'd bet money this protects Islamists (23.2% of the world) but not Atheists (14.1%), Han Chinese people (19% of the world population, literally the largest ethnic group) but not Caucasian people (11%), and Asians (4,641,054,775 people) and Africans (1,340,598,147 people) but not Europeans (747,636,026 people) and North Americans (368,869,647) but lord knows that will apply to South Americans (430,759,766).
Speaking of money, as written this also protects the rich and famous but not the massive quantities of people who live in poverty or paycheck to paycheck, AKA the demographic that everybody punches down on.
They might actually run into a legal issue over that, companies in the past have suffered consequences for discrimination even under the shield of pRiVaTe BuSiNeSs.
I would also like to point out that it is currently eerily difficult to find numbers on the racial demographics of the world.
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Would it help if he called it "ethnic demographics" instead, or is ethnicity also a myth in your mind?
Re: (Score:3)
Apologies to jump in the middle of this, and I could not help it. I would want someone to chime in with this if I were in the same position. I know you might not want someone to do this, but I practice the golden rule, and this is motivated by love, not some kind of gotcha-based emotional clap-trap.
You just said "I am arguing with you because I want you to accept what I personally admit to be a demonstrably false and self contradictory concept. Because I do not want to accept the self evident truth of th
1st Amendment - flushed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What Russia and China did is widely considered the opposite of Marxism by Marxists.
How many millions have died because of Capitalism from prioritizing the development and distribution of life saving drugs based on wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
How many millions have died because of Capitalism from prioritizing the development and distribution of life saving drugs based on wealth.
0 millions of the "real" people (the rich C-suite class).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It's like arguing that Christianity has killed millions because the Nazis where Christians. The killings were not driven by the ideology, they were at most an excuse and often not at all relevant.
Re:But marxism isn't "hate" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that, and the fact that Hitler and many of his top Nazis were irreligious at best, perhaps even anti-religious. The Nazi party was steeped in paganism and occultism, and mostly tolerated Christianity because such a large percentage of the German population identified themselves as such.
But I agree with your point. There are fanatics in every organization, political group, or religious organization. Protestants and Catholics killing each others is about as un-Christian as you can get, yet it happened. Some modern-day Christians use some ancient Jewish laws to condemn homosexuality, even though, strangely enough, they don't seem to get all that particular about all the OTHER old testament laws. Yet I still wouldn't classify Christianity as a hateful religion. There are many positive aspects, such as an emphasis on moral fortitude, self-betterment, forgiveness, and charity.
People divide themselves into clans, and figure out ways to hate the other clans. It's just human nature, sadly, and I think it's something everyone needs to work on collectively. Anyone feeling too smug about "their clan" versus "the other clan" is engaging in precisely that sort of clannish thinking that leads to hatred and bigotry.
Re: (Score:3)
Marxism has caused the death of millions.
By that logic, so have many other political ideologies. And religions.
Just because some adherents to a philosophy are violent does not necessarily mean the philosophy advocates violence. That goes for Marxism, Christianity, Islam, Democracy, Capitalism, just to name a few.
It's an us-vs-them ideology,
So is practically any political ideology. Your point?
it labels people with property as oppressors and people without as oppressed.
But that is not hate speech. That reflects the times during which Karl Marx and his associates lived.
It promotes classicide.
I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound like Marxism. Marx identified clas
Re: (Score:2)
It promotes classicide.
I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound like Marxism. Marx identified class-conflict as political, not violent.
[Disclose: in case anyone cares, I'm not a Marxist. But I do think that ideologies of any kind should not be misrepresented.]
I'd rather narrow that down to what Engels called "historical materialism", and illustrate it with a quote from The Communist Manifesto "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.". But then also not a marxist, so there are prob
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather narrow that down to what Engels called "historical materialism", and illustrate it with a quote from The Communist Manifesto "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.". But then also not a marxist, so there are probably better suggestions out there.
Marxists did not just try to describe history. They saw a problem, and proposed a solution. The problem as they saw it was that history shows a cycle of the oppressed rising up to overthrow the oppressors, but then the new leaders turn into oppressors, and it all keeps repeating. Their solution was to have one final "revolution" that adopted a philosophy of non-oppression through all of society, effectively eliminating class. As subsequent history has shown, the solution was noble, but naïve.
Re: (Score:3)
No, history doesn't show that, because the Marxist solution was never tried. It probably can't be tried on any large scale, because communal groups don't scale well beyond something a bit less than Dunbar's number (about 50 from experiment, but it depends on the charismatic quality of the leader, so it's often much less).
Calling it noble is questionable (on several grounds, e.g. "aristocratic label a praise for a communard?"). Calling it naive is a massive understatement. Any historian should have been a
Re: (Score:3)
I said "noble, but naïve" for rhetorical and prosodic reasons, and because it alliterated. I suppose "well-intentioned but unrealistic" would have been clearer.
Re: But marxism isn't "hate" (Score:2)
None of that is hate speech, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But marxism isn't "hate" (Score:5, Informative)
The current take on Marxism, identitarianism, boils down to 'you share the same race or sex with others that tend to have more property, so you're an oppressor.' This racist and sexist ideology is worse than traditional Marxism because it encourages hatred of groups with even less regard for individual circumstances.
Identity politics is more of a liberal left thing rather than being associated with Marxism. I think most Marxists would be of the opinion that essentializing workers' issues to cultural identity distracts from the underlying class struggle. While discrimination based on race, sex, orientation, etc certainly exist in as much it negatively affects the material conditions of the people who experience them, ultimately those effects are symptoms of the structural inequality of capitalism.
That's my interpretation of the Marxist view on the issue based on the reading and listening I've done anyway, I'm by no means an expert.
I'd also point out that political organization based on identity (either constructed or inherent), is not strictly a left thing. There as many people on the right making demands based on being a Christian or a gun owner as there are on the left based on being transgender or black.
Re:But marxism isn't "hate" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's my interpretation of the Marxist view on the issue based on the reading and listening I've done anyway, I'm by no means an expert.
If you look into countries that had a Marxist-Leninist period, I don't think you'll be able to find anything approaching identity politics. If anything, it would probably would have made the authorities suspicious.
Re:But marxism isn't "hate" (Score:5, Informative)
If you look into countries that had a Marxist-Leninist period, I don't think you'll be able to find anything approaching identity politics.
Unless it was about ethnic minorities that were deemed as untrustworthy by the state, deported into wastelands where they could starve to death.
Re: (Score:3)
There has not been a country with a "Marxist-Leninist period" that was anything Marx would have been willing to call Marxist. I would hypothesize that there couldn't be, except possibly some small island somewhere. Marxism is too unstable to survive in a large group.
Re: (Score:3)
Karl Marx lived a long time ago and his ideas have some derivatives by now. Where his original philosophy of oppressor-oppressed dynamics were formulated around economics, 1930s German philosophers brought in things like psychoanalysis and extended the applicability into politics and culture. More recently they have been married with postmodernism and to develop "critical justice theory" which is the Neo-Marxist philosophy being referenced.
It's something of a slander to associated it with "liberal" beliefs
Re: (Score:2)
The current take on Marxism, identitarianism, boils down to 'you share the same race or sex with others that tend to have more property, so you're an oppressor.' This racist and sexist ideology is worse than traditional Marxism because it encourages hatred of groups with even less regard for individual circumstances.
What you seem to be referring to here is the idea of "Cultural Marxism", but that does not exist but for a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The current take on Marxism, identitarianism, boils down to 'you share the same race or sex with others that tend to have more property, so you're an oppressor.' This racist and sexist ideology is worse than traditional Marxism because it encourages hatred of groups with even less regard for individual circumstances.
In what way is it a "current take on Marxism"? Isn't it kind of the exact *opposite* of Marxism?
For what it's worth, I've been noticing lots of marxist flyers stapled to poles around my city (Seattle) over the past several years that are quite opposed to the democrats, quite opposed to identity politics. I think the flyers saw more in common with Trump's past election appeal to poor whites than they did with the Democrats. (But I think they also were deferential to Russia and maybe they felt closer support
Re: (Score:2)
We push for violent revolution. Marx insisted that the revolution be violent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an ideology that is undisputed number one in number of people murdered, people tortured and people enslaved for ideological reasons in 20th century by a very large margin to the second largest: national socialism.
So unless you are of opinion that nazism is not hate speech, marxism is hate speech, because marxism is a far worse ideology than nazism on its historic merits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain why hate speech deserves tolerance. But first, a rebuttal [medium.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Here's why those fucking retarded Conservatives deserve to die because they're evil and dumb. But first, no speech for them."
Signed,
Tolerant Liberals
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the tolerant libertarians [libertarianism.org]. Now scream how Charles Koch is teaming up with Lenin to oppress your freedom.
Re: Hate speech doesn't exist (Score:2)
You linked to an article arguing against suprrssion of "hate speech" in order to argue that it should be suppressed?
Amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read "suppression" as being something other than governmental laws against hate speech enforced with violence, then you need to reread the article.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't say "it doesn't exist", but it certainly doesn't have a commonly agreed upon definition. I'm sure that many people have workable definitions, at least of the "I know it when I see it" form. But the definitions don't agree. A union of the definitions would probably be the command "shut up!", and the intersection would probably be the null set.
Re:when will slashdot follow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when will slashdot follow (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the moderation system works pretty darn well here.
The main problem with the moderation system -- I should say, moderators -- is the few that will mod something "Troll" or "Flamebait" simply because they (apparently) dislike and/or disagree with it. I mean this with regard to comments that are demonstrable facts and/or arguably true. I guess that reflects more about these moderators than anything else but, like it not, sometimes reality is messy. Perhaps they should be required to supply a comment justifying these types of mods for either everyone or the meta-moderators to see. The saving grace here is that other moderators usually see through and correct this type of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are onto a good idea.
Moderation should have a Changes link where people can see the names of the people that moderated a comment and randomly have a chance to use Mod Review points to ding a person making a bad mod.
Not only should people have a reputation score, they should have a moderation reputation. In both cases moderation points should be randomly assigned and the more dings a person gets on their moderation score the less points they have until their moderation score is so low that they are no l
Re: (Score:3)
> What some people consider Flamebait others feel is an important subject to bring up.
Indeed. When you get down-voted just for asking a question -- that is a good sign that you are in an echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Reddit, I don't like that huge numbers of forums/posts have been removed. I guess folks are only allowed to post GOOD stuff that conforms with the flavor-of-the-month discussion trends. As old and qurky as it is, I keep coming to Slashdot as I don't see much of the swastikas or GNAA stuff, not that I'm that sensitive to cry about it if ASCII porn slips through.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Reddit, I don't like that huge numbers of forums/posts have been removed.
I guess folks are only allowed to post GOOD stuff that conforms with the flavor-of-the-month discussion trends.
It is possible to say negative and/or contrary things without being racist, misogynist, sexist, mean, nasty, etc... But, it's also possible that people who enjoy and/or have to rely on those constructs are lacking in some educational and/or personal growth areas. Even so, it doesn't take that much effort to make a point *and* not be a dick -- unless being a dick *is* the point. I think it's that last thing Reddit (and others) are trying to moderate.
Re: (Score:3)
No doubt /. moderation has it fair share of problems.
The worst is when someone says something true in the first paragraph and something false in the second paragraph. Mods go absolutely crazy. Up-voting / Down-voting.
Meta-mod is a good "checks and balance" system. As bad as /.'s moderation system it is a helluva lot better then Reddit for two main reasons:
* /. requires a CONTEXT for WHY there is an upvote or downvote. Informative, Interesting, etc. Reddit half of the time is just a popularity contest.
Re: (Score:2)
When you can define hate speech in legal terms that hold up in court. Otherwise its entirely subjective.
Re: when will slashdot follow (Score:2)
But social media companies are private businesses, they can't be regulated in that way. Just as cake decorators can refuse to serve gay couples, reddit can refuse to host content they deem hateful.
If you don't like that cake decorator, or that social media platform, there are others.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Except, if you want to be a publisher and decide what content is or is not suitable for your private network, then you take responsibility for the content on your site.
Social media companies have been claiming common carrier status, ie they are not liable for the content on their sites. You can't do this and also take an editorial stance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a Joe Biden/Corn Pop
If you want to pay me, I'll make one. Statues don't just appear, someone pays to put them up.
Re:False and misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not very different from "I'm not racist, I kicked a white guy out yesterday."
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be terribly disappointed to learn I don't bother with Reddit. No tears from me troll. Hubris and arrogance? You don't know me at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Hatred is extremely vague.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HATE SPEECH, n. Speech I hate (Score:5, Funny)
I hate you.
No law can ever stop that. No law will ever make you lovable.
Re: (Score:3)
The human rights define it all. Your highest right is your dignity at #1 and freedom of speech is ranked at #18 or so.
This means that anything you say that violates another person's dignity is wrong. That's why white people cannot call black people the n-word, because it violates the dignity of black people.
It's not necessary for you to feel hate when you say the word or for black people to be in the room when you say it. So do not all people speak the same language, some cannot talk or be heard, some canno
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not your dignity. That's your stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do something not even you can do? When you want people to change then lead by example.
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly no, they haven't stopped hosting racist material.
E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fragi... [reddit.com]
That's right, Reddit policy is that racism is ok if it's against white people. Fucking racists shits.