Reddit May Need To Ramp Up Spending On Content Moderation, Analysts Say (reuters.com) 140
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Reddit will need to spend heavily on content moderation as it may face greater scrutiny as a public company, analysts said, threatening its longstanding policy of relying on an army of volunteers to maintain order on its platform. The newly listed company warned in its initial public offering (IPO) paperwork that its unique approach to content moderation can sometimes subject it to disruptions like in 2023, when several moderators protested against its decision to charge third-party app developers for access to its data.
Depending on volunteers is not sustainable, given the regulatory scrutiny that the company will now face, said Julian Klymochko, CEO of alternative investment solutions firm Accelerate Financial Technologies. "It's like relying on unpaid labor when the company has nearly a billion dollars in revenue," he added. Reddit reported revenue of $804 million in 2023, according to an earlier filing. Reddit will need to make substantial investments in trust and safety, which could lead to a "dramatic" rise in expenses, Klymochko said. Josh White, former economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission and assistant professor of finance at Vanderbilt University, also said that banking on free volunteers is Reddit's biggest risk. The company would need to ramp up spending on anti-misinformation efforts especially as the U.S. prepares for the presidential election later this year, White said. "We believe our approach is the most sustainable and scalable moderation model that exists online today. We are continually investing in and iterating on new tools and policies to improve our internal capabilities," the Reddit spokesperson said.
Depending on volunteers is not sustainable, given the regulatory scrutiny that the company will now face, said Julian Klymochko, CEO of alternative investment solutions firm Accelerate Financial Technologies. "It's like relying on unpaid labor when the company has nearly a billion dollars in revenue," he added. Reddit reported revenue of $804 million in 2023, according to an earlier filing. Reddit will need to make substantial investments in trust and safety, which could lead to a "dramatic" rise in expenses, Klymochko said. Josh White, former economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission and assistant professor of finance at Vanderbilt University, also said that banking on free volunteers is Reddit's biggest risk. The company would need to ramp up spending on anti-misinformation efforts especially as the U.S. prepares for the presidential election later this year, White said. "We believe our approach is the most sustainable and scalable moderation model that exists online today. We are continually investing in and iterating on new tools and policies to improve our internal capabilities," the Reddit spokesperson said.
What an idiot (Score:2)
Hiring moderators would either cost absurd amounts, or they'd have to moderate basically without looking. And then, anything the mods let be becomes officially approved by the company's official moderators.
Re:What an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Make it another income stream... Make mods PAY.
You want to run a sub? There's a recurring fee based on monthly readership and posting stats, divided between mods (to encourage having a good mod:post ratio).
You want to be a mod? Registration fee. We're going to need a credit card and valid government-issued photo ID.
Give each mod some advertising credit on subs they moderate based on their estimated work - posts read, complaints reviewed, etc.
It'll push corporate-funded moderation and censorship, turning the whole thing into a mix of product placement and banner ads, but who cares? You're not going to make it worse, and it'll look good for the IPO!
Re: (Score:2)
Make it another income stream... Make mods PAY.
get these freeloaders to actually put their hands into their pockets?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think you underestimate how much those mods sink their personal identity and ego into the job. Also, the point isn't to make the system work, it's to make it look like it could so you can cash out and leave someone else holding the bag.
Re:What an idiot (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe a couple of them, but for a lot of communities it's a pretty thankless job and they can't even get new people to volunteer
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a really good way to make your best users who fit your defined "ideal customer profile" to go somewhere else, immediately. And when your content producing users go away? So do the content-consuming users, because they follow the content.
Your idea would have Reddit dead in 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to pay attention to the news and the last line of my post. Other than that, great reply!
$0.25/hr in south Sudan is where the job will be (Score:4, Insightful)
$0.25/hr in south Sudan is where the job will be
Re: (Score:2)
$0.25/hr in south Sudan is where the job will be
Not really, we're somewhere between 2 months and 2 years from the vast majority of moderation being done by LLMs.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly,
There are really two approaches that scale in terms of online discussion. What facebook is doing, or some continuum of what Reddit is already doing with Reddit and Wikipedia on one end and Slashdot and 8chan on the other.
The users like one, the advertisers like the other right up until the users all leave because its boring.
I hate to say it but facebook probably gets it nearer to right in terms of striking some kind of balance between freedom to have an open discussion in semi-private groups while k
Re: (Score:1)
Boring if you're lucky, you might merely Digg your own grave.
Leaning on the "most sustainable and scalable model" is means leaning on userbase loyalty, which tends to suffer after actively shitting on them. I sure hope Reddit hasn't been doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
And then, anything the mods let be becomes officially approved by the company's official moderators
Section 230(c)(2) would protect them from liability for the content they leave up.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of... any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
Re: What an idiot (Score:2)
"And then, anything the mods let be becomes officially approved by the company's official moderators."
No, that's only true if they approve content, as opposed to removing content.
Re: (Score:2)
anything the mods let be becomes officially approved by the company's official moderators.
That is not how it works.
I M A G I N E (Score:3)
If i told you 20 years ago that forum software would IPO and it would be one of the biggest conversation topics in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If i told you 20 years ago that forum software would IPO and it would be one of the biggest conversation topics in the country.
Imagine it was 24 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The IPO isn't for forum software. It's for a platform with 70million daily active users. The software is irrelevant. Same with Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc, none of these companies had any value in the software itself.
Uh, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me you don't understand Section 230 without telling me.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
You got a few counterpoints:
-Reddit may face legal consequences in other nations
-There are limits to section 230, which may require reddit to do more
-Even putting aside legal consequences, there are commercial consequences. People don't want their ads showing up among hate speech.
-The actual point of discussion: Volunteers with authtority can "go rogue" and disrupt your platform and they have no skin in the game. The volunteers aren't aligned with the business objectives and any friction between those two worlds is a risk.
On the flip side, if they switch to in-house moderation, well, that was pretty much the road Digg chose and we saw how it worked out then.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Uh, no. (Score:4, Informative)
For the purposes of this discussion, it need only be "speech your advertisers don't want to be associated with". Advertisers don't care about even hypothetical nuance of "free speech" when it comes to how their ads are presented.
In this scenario, if you feel compelled to ask "is it hate speech?" then it's probably hate speech.
Funny, because Twitter/X seems to keep on truckin' (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Funny, because Twitter/X seems to keep on truck (Score:5, Insightful)
It did have a big backlash of advertisers. The estimates are that despite adding subscription revenue, they lost half their revenue, and projections and estimates for the future keep being adjusted downward. This is also with Musk making SpaceX and Tesla throw ad dollars at X for the sake of boosting X's situation.
They've also had a 10% decline in active users since Musk took over, exacerbating the advertising problem and imposing a bound on the theoretical potential for subscription revenue.
Even toward the "free speech" angle, there's signs of him penalizing speech he doesn't like, so it's more like "free speech so long as Elon likes it".
So QAnon type folks are happier with it, but most everyone else sees a degraded experience.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It did have a big backlash of advertisers.
... lol, yeah, and I'm sure "Mastodon" is going to take over any time now, right?
This is also with Musk making SpaceX and Tesla throw ad dollars at X for the sake of boosting X's situation.
More than likely it'll simply boost Tesla and SpaceX. X has a lot of eyeballs, or didn't you know?
The estimates are that despite adding subscription revenue, they lost half their revenue, and projections and estimates for the future keep being adjusted downward.
After firing 80% of the worthless dirty censorious fucks who worked there before censoring and pearl clutching for dear life, it sure looks like they are just fine and are going to keep their position, despite the lower revenue from disappointed corporate fascists. As I said, it's almost as if they have a billionaire sugar daddy, e
Re: (Score:2)
It did have a big backlash of advertisers.
... lol, yeah, and I'm sure "Mastodon" is going to take over any time now, right?
"Mastodon" isn't a social media company, you know, right?
It's a piece of microblogging software (written by Mastodon Gmbh), that one can install on their own server to host microblogging, optionally intercommunicating with other servers who do so.
Whether there is advertisement installed on any same server also running mastodon is entirely left at the discretion of the people who had said server deployed.
Some Mastodon servers decide to only rely on donations. Others might decide to rely on advertisement (Tru
Twitter/X (Score:2)
*Yawn* I know, but I don't really care. It's the "Canada" you were going to move to
Sorry I'm from the otherside of the Atlantic pond (a.k.a. an Evil Euro-Communist), so I didn't get your "Canada" joke.
Having fun mastodoning on your private server?
As a matter of fact, yes I do have a great time on the Fediverse.
I don't feel missing out on Xitter (I haven't used really used that crap in 2023).
A per your own source, it's 500million pairs of eyeballs.
Yeah, only 500M people? Garsh, you're right, it's nothing, they might as well shut down, the pikers, lol.
Yes, the real world doesn't much care about Xitter. Only a few tiny communities on it care. Do you how often serious largescale marketing and public communication campaign want to include "Xitter influencers"? Answer is never.
They are only interes
Moderation vs Censorship (Score:2)
*YAWN*
You sure yawn quite a lot.
Has your doctor checked you for sleep apnea?
Anyhow, have fun Mastodoning
Yup, thanks. You the same on your favorite platform.
and waiting for your billionaire political enemies to fail.
Nah, sorry.
Am busy having fun with my actual science job.
Not enough time left to pay much attention to eloquent idiots with too much money on their hands.
Come back when you want to defend censorship, and I'll be happy to slap you around for free.
I am sorry if you're unable to see the difference between moderation and censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.reuters.com/techno... [reuters.com]
"Monthly U.S. ad revenue at social media platform X has declined at least 55% year-over-year each month since billionaire Elon Musk bought the company formerly known as Twitter in October 2022, according to third-party data provided to Reuters."
Unless things have changed significantly since October Musk is running X into the ground. Feel free to keep trying to put a positive spin on it though! Never mind that even Musk knows X is having problems https://www.reuters.com/techn [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He'll need to do one hell of a turn around in terms of the company's fortunes before he'll be able to do that. Even he knows he over payed for Twitter when he bought it, hence him trying to back out, and Twitter is bringing in fat less money now than when he bought it.
It is funny what a fan boy for Musk you are though. So much so that you're claiming I must be an ex Twitter employee if I dare question his wisdom. So much so that you're denying clear fiscal realities in his performance as head of Twitter. So
Re: (Score:2)
This is some deusional nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, looks like it. It'll probably still happen, though, since they appear to be marching toward profitability.
What are you basing that on? While I havent seen much recently everything I've seen has shown X is far worse off financially since being acquired.
Cite a decent source though, I dont care about your personal opinions.
Either way, Elon's fortunes or relative merits aren't that interesting to me.
HAHAHAHAHAHA....hahahahaha.....haha.... ahem... excuse me... Yes, you clearly dont care about Elon Musk at all.
A fanboy who calls Musk a hypocrite and a censor and doesn't care if he fails? You have some funny definitions, but okay, sure, kid.
Oh, so you're going to talk about Musk some more?
So you mean I should have incorporated two things you never said to me prior to this into what I told you? Okay, sure, kid.
It's just that your such a little whiner that I thought maybe you were one of the people crying in the bathroom before getting fired. [businessinsider.com] It certainly suits your personality but perhaps you sobbed at home, instead. After all you'd have to get hired to get fired.
Please, quote
Re: (Score:2)
I know, I know, if you take away all the name calling, rabid identity politics, and most importantly Elon Musk, you're a hallow shell of a human being who cant even support his own claims.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take that as confirmation of what I've said. Thanks and I'm out, retarded children arent as funny when they're quite.
Re: (Score:2)
Fidelity has marked down their stake by over 70% [axios.com].
That's not a great sign if you're a company that "kept runnin, no sweat" as the OP contends.
Another not-great sign: when you are having a fire sale of all your office furniture and shit [businessinsider.com] after laying off 4-out-of-5 people in the company.
Re: (Score:2)
corporate fascists
the fascist government-corporate partnership Mussolini would have been proud
I don't think you really understand the person you're supporting if you think he is fighting AGAINST corporate fascism.
He loves government handouts [businessinsider.com] as long as the money goes to his businesses and not society.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Removing dick pics from Twitter was not "censorship" you brainless twit.
Re: (Score:2)
... lol, yeah, and I'm sure "Mastodon" is going to take over any time now, right?
No why would it. Can you not imagine a world where advertisers decide to not spend money on social networks, and users decide to not post somewhere? There's no compulsion for a service, it's the act of the service itself that drives addiction. The death of Twitter doesn't not mean the guaranteed rise of an alternative. People will move on with their lives unless the alternative exists to provide the same level of service they are accustomed to on their previous platform. And Mastodon (not sure why you put
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the guy who bangs on about free speech, but has no problem banning the kid who set up a bot to tweet PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECORDS of Elon's private jet movements is a "free speech warrior" who is fighting against "corporate fascists" ?
Holy shit dude, time to take a step back and order a couple pounds of objectivity from Amazon. Pony up for same-day shipping; two-day simply won't do.
Re: (Score:1)
Holy shit dude, time to take a step back
Hahah "whoa whoa whoa" eh? You're having some pretty severe cognitive dissonance eh? You sound angry.
So what? A rich guy conveniently and very hypocritically uses his power to shut down a probably-legal stalker (using public records, quite true) and that's somehow equivalent to the massive government censorship and interference in millions of posts and the public's discourse? We need to talk about setting priorities. Who needs objectivity again, genius?
Re: (Score:3)
Musk bans people all the time. He's such a crybaby that he disabled community notes on his own account.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're just going to hand-waive away the "free speech warrior" censoring speech he personally doesn't like, and has eliminated the function that is meant to correct misinformation on his own account, (which he reposts quite frequently) while continuing to disingenuously bleat on about free speech and being anti-censorship.
Nah, you're not a hypocrite at all.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're just going to hand-waive away the "free speech warrior" censoring speech he personally doesn't like
Nope. I've called it censorship, suppression, etc.. It's definitely hypocritical. I just don't think what he's done, for obviously venal and self-serving reasons, is anywhere near the scale, severity, or negative impact on public trust that resulted from censoring millions of people (during CV19) at the government's behest. Elon is not one of my elected representatives who failed to represent me. He's just a spoiled rich guy who occasionally does good and bad things like most humans.
while continuing to disingenuously bleat on about free speech and being anti-censorship.
Just because you are hyp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey do you pay for a blue checkmark by any chance? Seems right up your alley
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, you seem to have totally missed the part where Twitter is now internally valued at less than 30% of what they were when Musk bought it. [axios.com]
Do you think that's because they're still cranking all the advertising revenue they used to be, previous to posting hateful screeds from antisemites, white nationalists, "christian" nationalists, etc.?
It turns out that large corporations with images to maintain don't like that hateful shit next to their advertising. I mean, who could have predicted that, when they al
Re: (Score:1)
Just curious, did you rage quit to Mastodon? How's that working out?
posting hateful screeds from antisemites, white nationalists, "christian" nationalists, etc.?
Oh noes! Free speech strikes again! Couldn't possibly go have a debate with them, right? We're better off just censoring & executing them, eh, Comrade? Should we start buil
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, you think that egomaniac cares about free speech. A sucker born every minute.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
But do you? There is for whatever reason a common meme these days that attempting to moderate your content creates responsibility for that content. As a matter of fact the provider must demonstrate a good faith effort to control 3rd part content posted on their platform. So quite the opposite. Something by the way, Reddit just barely demonstrates today.
I'm sure you know better than me and Reddit's legal team though.
Allowing the site to get further shitty will of course impact shareholders and of course
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit has a better user experience and a better public conversation than every single one of those sites you just listed, including this one. That's why millions of people use it.
Calling Something awful a "great forum" certainly puts you in a box.
Twitter / X (Score:2)
The Reddit model of allowing people to create and rule their own echo chambers is perfectly sustainable, whereas it would be destroyed if mods were paid to enforce a uniform corporate standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter did just the opposite and hasn't run into any regulatory hurdles I can see.
Twitter is no longer a public company. With that said, it really shouldn't matter. The idea that a public company needs to "censor more" because of "regulatory requirements" sounds like it should be a first amendment issue (at least in the US, YMMV for other jurisdictions).
Re: (Score:2)
you do understand that private business (and individuals) CAN censor speech, right? The 1st amendment is protection ONLY from the government.
Yes, I understand that perfectly, which is why I said what I said. Here, let me repeat myself:
The idea that a public company needs to "censor more" because of "regulatory requirements" sounds like it should be a first amendment issue (at least in the US, YMMV for other jurisdictions).
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see how it shakes out, eh?
chill morpheus they can never /mute our gobs
Re: (Score:2)
You censorious censorship-lovers love to say this with as many caps and exclamation points as you can.
Not so much censorship lovers as people who respect the first amendment rights of website owners. No one should be forced to host content they don't want to.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is completely free to fire his moderators which has turned X into even more of a cesspool then it was before thus scaring away advertising revenue. Musk is free to do this to Twitter just as Twitter before Musk was free to pick and chose what it hosted thus creating a platform more advertisers were interested in advertising on. It's a free country and everything is working as it should.
That doesn't change the fact that it's pretty clear that Musk is making bad decisions if he ever wants his Twitter pur
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that tells me you're going to cry some salty tears when he sells Twitter for a profit. Keep self-deceiving, though.
It's funny that you keep implying this is something I'm super passionate about when you're the one wildly pitching a fit and making digs at me personally because I informed you of what free speech actually means (content hosters have free speech rights too) and later on dared to give an objective critique of Musk's term at Twitter that can be easily confirmed by spending 5 minutes on Google..
You have it down to an art. Keep telling yourself that mean ol' Elon is going to fail and Twitter/X is going away "because advertisers" (except for those who spent 4 billion dollars on ads with X in 2023).
Yes, "because advertisers". You know, where Twitter gets virtually all of its revenue from. Feel free to minimize adv
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, hehe, okay, well color me informed, then! I'll just keep insisting that government partnership with private companies for the purpose of censorship is fascism.
For that to be true Twitter would have had to have been forced which would mean penalties. There were no penalties, never mind that Twitter could have taken the fed to court and easily won if they were being forced to censor stuff.
I am? Okay, great, I'll make a note that's what this is, lol.
"lol", indeed.
Okay, feeling free. When the richest guy in the world buys a company, it stands to reason his wealth is going to smooth over any profitability issues.
There are two ways this ends. Musk either turns the company massively around or he gets tired of spending his own money propping it up and sells for a loss. Given his recent on air melt down where he told advertisers to go fuck themselves https://www.theverge.com/202 [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's tiresome being wrong. You're constantly on your back foot.
Hahahahaha. Man you dont even have a leg to stand on anymore. I've asked you to support your claims and you dont because you know you cant so all you have left is shit talking.
You're not even good at shit talking either. I mean, why not tell me a 4th time that I have friends that got laid off at Twitter? Maybe if you keep repeating the same dumbshit line over and over again like a retarded parrot I'll finally feel burned, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I be mad? Being taunted by a mongoloid isn't insulting, it's funny.
The bigger problem (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a right wing meme that basically went like this.. and it was accurate:
"We're sorry, r/TheDonald was banned for racisms, can we interest you in one of our many rape porn forums instead?"
What these corporations allow is often very telling.
Re: (Score:1)
The real question is why so many racists gravitate towards Trump and republicans in general.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I forgot republicans love to play the victim.
We're being discriminated against for being conservative!
No, you're simply being assholes and doxxing people and making threats.
Not getting around my point (Score:1)
Thank you for that, Captain Obvious. As I said:
Let me break it down: Reddit no permit doxx. Reddit allow rape pr0n. No see why rape pr0n not just as bad as doxx.
Or...you could pay yor current moderators (Score:2)
I know, crazy thought - more reward for the folks who actually make your site usable.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, crazy thought
heres a mad one for ya, go and pay for your own server, advertising and customer support teams....
Revenue != profit (Score:2)
"It's like relying on unpaid labor when the company has nearly a billion dollars in revenue,"
But it's yet to turn a profit. If a company doesn't make money, it'd better rely on unpaid labor if the laborer are stupid enough to work for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know how business works today:
1) Find investors to throw money at you
2) Claim great success
3) Cash out that golden parachute before it all falls apart
There's content moderation on Reddit? (Score:2)
We need government driven censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
That's all it amounts to. The government pressures banks, wall street, who pressure forum censorship.
Follow the money. Nobody really cares about terrorism or whatever is the hot button. They care about speech that impacts markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the money. Nobody really cares about terrorism or whatever is the hot button. They care about speech that impacts markets.
I hear this "follow the money" talking point a lot. How about you follow the money and tell is where it leads? Does it involve George Soros?
AI mods (Score:2)
The first layer of modding will be AI. The second layer will be AI. The third layer will be human, cheap or free, and uninterested. This is how yahoo and other major platforms already operate.
No thanks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm an analyst in content moderation. I think your company needs more investment in content moderation".
Conflict of interest? No, neverhöörd.
No. He's not and the quote is made up by you.
Re: (Score:3)
Apart from anything else, what happens if it turns out they're innocent? At least if someone is in prison, there's release and reparations from wrongful prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. If you kill someone and then find out later you got the wrong guy, not much you can do.
Beyond that there's a rather ancient legal principle that the punishment should fit the crime. While I want every child rapist severely punished, the fact is the child is still alive, and thus the principle is broken. If we can ex
Re: (Score:1)
Apart from anything else, what happens if it turns out they're innocent?
kill the judge that got it wrong. nowhere near enough judge killing in todays society
Beyond that there's a rather ancient legal principle that the punishment should fit the crime
turns out the old way of doing things is crap
If we can execute child rapists, are there are other non-lethal crimes that we should consider executing people for?
thats a good idea
How about rape of adults? How about defrauding old age pensioners? How about theft over a million dollars? How about theft of any kind?
jesus, i didnt have the gaul to even consider it
The Mosaic Code requires men who practice homosexual intercourse are to be killed, adulterers are to be killed, blasphemers, witches, rude children, death death death.
you truly are the king of kings
Re: (Score:2)
I'm telling once you abandon the principle of retributivism, then anything can become a capital crime. It just simply becomes a system of revenge, and worse, where revenge is defined as whatever outrages the mob the most.
Re: (Score:2)
Originally, laws were ways of codifying what everyone agreed was an acceptable form of vengeance for being wronged.
We have had a few years to think about things. Now we can say things like, "Maybe we should try to reverse the harm to the victim" or "The goal is a safe and happy society for all".
With that in mind, you can say that a sentence should A) protect the innocent, B) where deterrents work, be a deterrent, C) rehabilitate the criminal into a productive member of society.
If someone is found dangerous
Re: (Score:1)
If someone is found dangerous and not capable of being made safe any other way... capital punishment remains a logical sentence.
Indeed, People who fuck babies deserve to die.
Re: (Score:1)
It just simply becomes a system of revenge, and worse, where revenge is defined as whatever outrages the mob the most
well duh.... what else has it ever been?
Re: (Score:2)
kill the judge that got it wrong. nowhere near enough judge killing in todays society
Yeah that would work well, convict someone of being a pedophile, immediate deaf sentence, if the judge is wrong then they get killed. All I can see is no judge ever convicting someone of being a pedophile. Yeah I know its probably a jury trial but then are you going give the death sentence to the jury?
Re: (Score:2)
It's gall not Gaul you stupid fuck.
https://grammarist.com/homopho... [grammarist.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm getting a clear sense of why you were given the boot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it's the way in which you express your opinions that was viewed as problematic. But you seemed to make a concerted effort, as part of what you deemed a protest, to erase the actual posts.
Re: (Score:1)
And I've been chastising reddit admins in my daily appeals ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed you didn't include killing babies in that list.
Re: (Score:2)
Your use of language tells a slightly different story - you come across as mindlessly bloodthirsty. I tend to agree that dangerous people with no hope of rehabilitation are probably better off executed, but if that's your first choice and not your regrettable last one out of perceived necessity... You should think about it some more.
Having said that, censor-and-ban is a way of creating a false sense of consensus to push a particular belief, and that is inappropriate for any forum pretending to have open di
Re: (Score:1)
Punishment does not deter crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Even murderers could be useful on the battlefield one day.
The only purpose fit for a pedo is becoming a corpse.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who objects to this judicial reform either doesn't have kids, or is fucking their kids
Nice attempt to shut people who object down, Any one who doesn't object to killing witches must be a witch.
Let me do the same to you, anyone who objects so strongly is over compensating, just like people who objected to gay people turned out to be gay.
In reality I don't know you, and you don't know me I have no idea about who you are attracted to and vice versa. You clearly have strong opinions on the matter, I personally disagree I don't think we should kill anyone unless there is no practical alternative.
Re: (Score:1)
if you want pedophiles to continue existing maybe you should hire one to look after your kids.
people who fuck kids deserve to die horribly.
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.