My eyes just about rolled out of my head. "Blossomed?" By volume, those "conversations" make up a minority of a minority of a minority of what happens on Reddit.
I suspect that overall it's about as likely to be successful as religious attempts to sell the narrative that teen sex is wrong. Shame and guilt don't really ever teach the lesson that is intended, but those are the only tools the media truly has.
I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists (in real life or online). If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.
I really don't believe in sanitizing reality. I don't believe in intolerance for the intolerant. It's a nice, easy, euthanistic way to make our own little pure vision of the world.
It'd be like the regular news saying, you know what, crime is disgusting, it's repugnant, we're not going to tolerate it on the news. No more violence reporting.
Showing news of violence is not "giving a voice to violence", or terrorists. What would be the next step, stop misogynist musicians or filmmakers depicting violence, etc., other than in documentaries?
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer a world where people self moderated and would act decently, but I also fear a world which proscribes received behavior.
Are you comparing the internet to reality? Because the internet is not reality, the type of behavior you see on reddit and 4chan may reflect our nature, but it is enabled by anonymity and the complete lack of repercussions. If people behaved the way they do on these boards they would quickly be ostracized by society if not having the shit beaten out of them on a regular basis.
Applying some sort of freedom ideology to internet communities like reddit is not very useful in practice. We have to look at the shape of the internet and recognize that freedom on the internet is not the problem—after all cyberspace is unlimited, you can have infinite communities, and geography is irrelevant. All groups can find a place on the internet, and they will always be able to. We simply don't need to worry about that, and it's silly to wring our hands over the decision to moderate this or that community.
What we do need to worry about is the ability for formerly marginalized sociopaths to hurt other people from the safety of their basement dwelling. Whether it's unending bombardment of harassment or actual physical harm like swatting, we need to get a handle on this. Arguing that hate speech should not be moderated or restricted in any way is sort of like giving equal coverage to crackpot climate change deniers on basis of "fairness".
If people talked in public the way they do on those boards there might be consequences.
But if people behaved the way they do, they'd probably be voted into office.
We've just had the British Prime Minister give one of the most offensive and hate-filled conference speeches a lot of people have ever seen. His administration is full of people who are questionably sane.
The Chancellor has turned up in Parliament looking like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtXxYrp7mo
Cameron's colleagues have been directly implicated in starving dying people - some of whom can't walk or speak - to death by claiming they're "able to work" and so shouldn't receive any state aid.
You want physical harm? We've got as much of it as you can bear to read about.
So really, hate speech on Reddit is a non-issue compared to what goes on in supposedly serious politics.
And did I mention the Internet censorship and surveillance? Because we have that too.
In reality free speech isn't a panacea. There are too many crazy people in politics all over the world, and free speech on Reddit or elsewhere has done nothing to keep them out of power.
It's not the basement-dwelling sociopaths with twitchy keyboards you need to worry about - it's the professionals.
Besides, Cameron does plenty of stupid stuff as an adult anyway.
People who want to be civil and interact with other civil people have their subreddits, people who want to engage in uncivility also have their subreddits. I don't see the problem.
Here is what I have noticed. I like forums where people can voice opposing opinions even be unkind but not vile. But I accept that some forums do harbor people who like being vile, either as a persona or their true selves. I avoid those forums/groups/subreddits.
Also, at times some of the offensive people do have great knowledge in their area of expertise, but otherwise can be very offputting and vile. Despite that, I want to be able to have those voices. Certainly I don't want to have them sprinkled all over. So, for as long as they can exist in predictable places and can be sought out or avoided, I'm for that. If push came to shove, I'd have to allow it all over and just have to dig through the noise.
The reason is I don't want proscribed forums. The problems are group-think, shaming, socio-forming, brainwashing. And you can bring out examples of things we want to eradicate, say ideas about terrorism (killing and raping other people indiscriminately or discriminately, as it were) but the thing is there are slippery slopes, grey areas and social movements of the day. Ideas and preferences change over time. I want to allow all those voices, no matter how offensive to be expressed --I don't have to like those ideas. I'm sure I would have a very visceral reaction to most the monsters on hateful forums, but yet, I think there is value in not shutting that off.
That said, reddit has the authority, obviously, to do whatever they like with their platform.
Sure, any of us can point at high profile cases, but there's that old saying about anecdotes and data.
The problem with your entire last sentence is that it's full of value judgements, value judgements shaped by your experience as a human and your own knowledge and biases. One person's "hate speech" is another person's "spirited argument", one person's "disagreement" is another person's "harassment".
You might have a very clear definition of "hate speech" in your mind as you write those words, but I'd be willing to bet if you defined it here in the most clear and unambiguous language you possibly could, you'd find perfectly reasonable people disagreeing with it.
And therein is the problem - I'm on the side of that line that leaves people the hell alone in all but the most egregious of cases, because at the end of the day, it's all words on a screen.
I'm loath to live in a culture where people have to walk on eggshells so as to not offer the semblance of offense. I think it's childish and also hypocritical --as if we can expect no one to think or say anything that would ever offend anyone. They never try to be mean to an ex-lover, they would never think bad of someone who ignored them unwittingly, etc.
[1]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise...
There is a place for civil discourse and there is a place for people to be as ugly as they want to be or are. Else you're just pretending it does not exist or that you can wish it away.
This is like religious people thinking that if you only think pure thoughts all will be well in the world.
The same people who want to see crime-ridden neighborhoods bulldozed over to bring about the new society where everything is resplendescent, bright and tame and only the good people live and there is no Other. There are no drug abusers, misogynistic men, cruel women, or human traffickers.
I also find it curious that you're using the capital o Other. Is that a deliberately existentialist term?
Jokes aside, it seems that has been a growing awareness for the concept of "othering," as in emphasizing the difference between your ingroup (AKA Us, AKA people like you) and an outgroup (AKA Them). Unfortunately it has little to do with the relatively benign idea you might be thinking about.
But just because these issues are messy doesn't give us a license paper over their complexity with reductive founding-father-esque ideology. It's pretty clear to me that in aggregate freedom of speech on the internet is not suffering—people have unprecedented access to spread whatever thoughts they happen to have. Meanwhile an increasing number of people being hurt by internet bullying, harassment, and other anti-social behavior is growing by leaps and bounds in a way that society is not yet equipped to deal with.
People being cut off from any medium based on, not because someone was hurt in any tangible way, but because they were offended, is a crying shame, and that goes double when the medium plays at being precisely against that sort of thing.
Source on "anti-social behavior growing by leaps and bounds", and a definition would be nice, too. It seems to me words like "harassment" and "bulling" are being used as stand-ins for things as innocuous as simple incivility.
It depends where you do it - if you've ever been in a locker room or out drinking with the boys or the girls, all sorts of things are said and done that are extremely "inappropriate". Now, keeping that sort of thing off the front few pages of /r/all to me seems completely reasonable - banning it from the entire site (as was the plan) is something else entirely.
> All groups can find a place on the internet, and they will always be able to. We simply don't need to worry about that, and it's silly to wring our hands over the decision to moderate this or that community.
A lot of people liked reddit the way it was and didn't really feel like just finding another place on the infinite internet....why can't the SJW's and their ilk who came late to the party go find their own place? It's like renting an apartment beside a bar and then trying to get it shut down because of the noise.
Because their cause is evangelical in nature.
Were it just kept to Tumblr then they wouldn't have much with which to stoke the fires.
SJW's are specifically about pointing out to others where they are wrong/insensitive/racist/sexist/ableist/etc.. if they just kept to themselves then who would they persecute with their 'justice'?
Physical harm is a crime. Some speech is a tort. Very limited aspects of speech are a crime (doxing, some bullying) but aside from those forms, I think it's disingenuous to want to control people's thoughts, no matter how ridiculous.
Climate change deniers are laughably wrong, by the vast majority of accounts and evidence _however_ I would not want them silenced just because they are in the wrong on their opinion or facts. I do not agree with that.
I am glad that reddit, for the most part, has not greatly changed their stand on speech. I understand they have commercial concerns and need to bow to those pressures, but I am glad they allow, by and large, the full spectrum of humanity and inhumanity.
2. And are you seriously pulling the "cyber bullying" card here?
3. Since when is this a discussion about swatting?
The case seems pretty clear to me. You are free to create any subreddit you see fit, and moderate it however you wish. Why should every existing subreddit be forced to conform to your personal sensitivities? Just go make your own subreddit.
Sadly, there is a loose but large movement of people who disagree that this is inevitable and tolerable. Lots of people think that human society can and should prevent the distribution of any expression that is considered to exceed some subjective threshold of tastelessness or offensiveness. This movement is, of course, an explicit and unabashed call for rigid suppression of free expression, and is something I oppose wholly.
And most people don't believe in hanging out with people they don't like.
You seem to be implying that it's more important for Reddit to represent unsavory people than it is for Reddit to hold onto a larger audience. I think that's ridiculous, because Reddit's purpose is not to be a safe haven for unsavory people, even if they "represent" reality. That might be an admirable goal for sociologists, but it doesn't have to be the goal of any website.
Let's look at something non-controversial like Doctor Who. There's /r/doctorwho, which allows posts like "My cat pretending to be Matt Smith" and "My girlfriend made me this bow-tie - look how cute it is on my cat!".
Then there's /r/gallifrey, which only allows posts about Doctor Who. Then there's a few others (/r/classicwho for episodes before the reboot).
Now, imagine if /r/DoctorWho banned criticism of Moffat. Obviously, all the Moffat haters would get banned, and go to /r/gallifrey. You'd suddenly have a large Moffat hating sub, and a large sub that couldn't understand why every other sub seemed to hate Moffat. These people wouldn't politely debate anything, because they'd get more upvotes and positive responses for attacking the other side than trying to be reasonable.
FWIW, I dislike Moffat, because I think Doctor Who works better in a more episodic format - long arcs don't work when the Tardis is in the mix. But that's not the kind of nuance you get when there's two subs that both have a bunker mentality, throwing bombs at the brainwashed idiots on the other side.
Anyway, reddit is not a "free speech" site. It's a site that lets mods do what they want, for their sub. It's architecture is not one that allows a free, civil discussion of ideas, so much as a place that encourages group-think. (And while you can blame the "SJWs", there were prominent "hate" subs, like Fat People Hate, that behaved the same way - it's just the way the site is designed and run).
Reddit really could create a code of conduct for mods - only ban people / delete posts enforce reddiquette (it's a pretty good guide). Some kind of appeals process could ensure a bit of consistency.
The problem with reddit is the vast number of warring subs who hate each other. To some extent, this is inevitable (some groups just don't like other groups), but the double standards (often on both sides of any debate) just encourages the level of vitriol.
Isn't that one of the problems we find with lots of people we don't like. They are bigots! They don't like anyone who isn't like them.
Yes, reddit surely may do as it pleases. That's their call to make. I'm simply voicing my preference with reason behind it. Facebook could lock out all selfidentifying males living in new York or all selfidentifying females in Uganda, that's their call. I'd be against it, but that's their call to make, sure.
Also, 2channel is at least one site which finds it important to allow unsavory communication large degrees of expression.
Then they shouldn't do that.
I don't subscribe to any of the "hate groups" on Reddit, frankly, I never really noticed it.
But I stopped visiting the site after all of this.
I don't want a sanitized watered down "approved" bull shit feed of news and opinion. Guess what, Reddit, has a mechanism built in to manage site behavior. Its called the Downvote.
In short, IMHO, reddit is a tool and tools don't have political statements to make.
Using your analogy, I'm not upset because I can walk into a hall called "coontown" and see racism; I'm upset because I walk into a hall called "videos" or "worldnews" and see people throwing around stereotypes of women and minorities with great prejudice behind their words. Since I've been using reddit for some time now there has been a very noticeable shift in the status quo when it comes to the level of discourse and the amount of hate speech that shows up, and I'm really not happy with it.
These subreddits are big enough that their userbases are converging toward a statistically-normal sampling of the world population. To the degree to which the world contains prejudiced people, so will large subreddits. To the degree to which the world contains groups that venerate prejudice, prejudiced comments on large subreddits will be upvoted.
The big difference between a large subreddit, and the world-at-large, is that the majority cannot hang the implicit threat of mob violence over a disliked minority. In the world-at-large, disliked minorities usually meet in secret because they fear what would happen if they were outspoken in the presence of the majority. On a subreddit, there is no such fear to throttle behavior. As long as that fact remains true, large open online communities will always be outspoken-minority cesspools.
How is this information relevant to the experience of the user? If we transplant your explanation to any other user experience, does it work?
"I don't go to Best Buy anymore. It's full of people shouting racist things, men talking about beating women, and general prejudice againt minorities."
"Well, that's how the world is, mostly."
Does that make you want to go back to Best Buy?
The more direct comparison, to me, would be a city that has drug dealers and homeless people. Every city has them, because they live at the fringes of everything large enough to be called a "city." It's not a matter of choosing to live in some other city (not shopping at Best Buy, in your terminology); the only option for avoiding the pitfalls of city life is to avoid cities altogether.
Telling your userbase that they shouldn't expect what they expect is rarely a successful strategy. Again, what does Reddit's unique position as an all-visible userbase have to do with the actual experience of the user? We can make excuses and explanations for why Reddit is the way it is, but that doesn't ultimately address the fact that Reddit, despite being massively popular now, also hosts content so horribly offensive that it risks alienating both common users and advertisers.
Your city analogy doesn't quite fit. People who live in a city are often 'stuck' there for far more important reasons (money, family, culture) than the reasons people stick to a website. And we know it's easy for a website with a massive userbase to collapse, because we've seen it many times over the years.
Fantastic, another tool for the perpetually offended to abuse en masse.
Doubly broken.
HN is not a free speech zone and does not even try to be one.
reddit, inc. executives have previously stated that reddit is a place for free speech.
You don't see how this is a problem for Reddit?
I'm concerned, instead, with the user attitude of attempting to move on to the "next big community" to avoid the problems with the last. If Reddit dies, and the thing after it dies, and the thing after that dies—I hope we eventually stop and look at what we're doing and realize that there's no point in this "grass is greener" pursuit of a utopian community, when these problems eventually face every community at scale. At some point, I hope we just sit down and try to maintain the community we've got (turning it into a society), rather than thinking that rebuilding it with slightly different rules but the same microcosm of people will help.
I think this is accomplished with the ability to create new Subreddits. To my mind, the best way to separate the nasty parts of Reddit with the profitable ones is heavy moderation for the defaults, free reign for the non-defaults, and charge money for access to private subreddits. If a particular subreddit draws too much controversy, force it private.
Do you really think the makeup of a large subreddit mirrors the real world? I would be my life savings that they are still predominantly white men on these subreddits.
So, why don't you create your own internet? You really could if you wanted to.
It seems like you feel entitled to the internet, whereas people on the other side can't feel entitled to generic subreddits?
What do you expect to happen when you start removing those halls where people can go talk freely about it?
It's not like the subscribers suddenly disappear when you ban a subreddit. They stay there, but without a place for the content they like they will take that same content to other places.
Yeah, well I'm upset because I walk into a hall called 'politics' and see people throwing around stereotypes about anyone who's not a coastal leftist with great prejudice behind their words.
I am, actually. I remember when one could actually have a somewhat decent political conversation in /r/politics. But, well, that's life.
Perhaps it helps to think of the subreddit labels as merely suggestions. Each community is what it is, despite its label.
Are you sure this isn't just a personal bias? None of this is new on reddit, the volume has increased, sure.. but so has the general userbase of the site.
problem solved and done so in a way that you have complete control over and doesn't impose yourself on others.
And that's fine, there's a widely-accepted and successful mechanism for doing that: creation of your own community which you can gatekeep as you see fit. If enough people agree with you, perhaps it'll even eclipse the original!
You're right about the problem -- the problem at its root is that some people feel that having no standards that deprecate these off-topic discussions is equivalent to free speech which is equivalent to freedom, while others feel that some standards that keep people "polite" (for lack of a better word) and on-topic are useful to the discussion. You are not necessarily right about who created the problem. Why not say it's the people who want to be racist in the video forum who created the problem? Why don't they create their own community as you suggest? Because part of their desire is to spread their ideas -- they don't actually want to stay on-topic or primarily discuss video, they want to get a rise out of other people. It's engagement in bad faith, really.
It can be easily turned around, but it can't be reasonably turned around.
It's reasonable to expect someone to simply not participate in a community whose culture they don't agree with.
It is NOT reasonable to expect that community to be forced into the behavior that an individual, or a small number of individuals, disagrees with.
I can tell you right now I'm a huge fan of vim, but I stopped posting on /r/vim several years ago due to the behavior I saw from some posters there.
I don't post much oh /r/programming for much the same reason. Or /r/politics.
Your problem is in not understanding that reddit gives you the TOOLS to curate your own experience. It sounds like you haven't been putting much effort into it, and you've, understandably, been inundated with shit. Which is why so many of us DO curate our own experience.
You could show people random content, but that's both not PC from a business standpoint and would lead to the outright destruction of smaller communities.
If you don't like that, then perhaps you can unsubscribe from places where people don't want to put up with this kind of behaviour.
Seriously, though, I find this is rarely a debate worth having, and certainly not in the quip-centric, 3 sentences or less culture that makes up Internet discussion boards. I would much rather pursue systemic solutions to problems like this than embark on trying to convert anonymous strangers.
Good lord, no. 99% of the "intolerance and prejudice" is from out-and-out trolls. They're posting because they want to see a bunch of angry denunciations. Don't give them what they want.
I understand your issue is with the underlying platform and it's users, however, RES will allow you to setup filters by word- across all subs. I believe alienblue (the reddit client for iOS) allows for this functionality as well.
I've never viewed reddit as a community, but as a community of communities, and I've always chosen to be a part of specific communities, ignore others, and stay the hell away from yet others.
I don't go anywhere near /r/politics or /r/programming, for example. I just can't deal with the people in either. But I love me some /r/cpp and /r/startrek.
The default large communities were crap, not because of any "-ism" as the article states, but because people were just plain disagreeable, non-contributing assholes, up to and including the moderation staff. It's the YouTube comments problem, writ large.
Right, it's about selling ads. Reddit wants to keep its users (who want free speech) which sells ads. But Reddit also wants a PC site, which sells ads. Newspapers want to whip a popular whipping boy because it sells ads. They're all morally bankrupt: none of them care about the other or intolerance.
> I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists (in real life or online). If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.
You're welcome to unsubscribe from racist and sexist subreddits. You're also welcome to subscribe to TwoXChromosomes and other similar subreddits. I'm literally subscribed to 4 very specific interest subreddits that don't tolerate hate speech and I haven't encountered a comment that could be even construed as racist or sexist that I can remember since shortly after I created an account.
So let's stop pretending that this isn't about you not wanting to hang out with racists and sexists: that's easily within your power by using the services Reddit offers. Let's admit that this is about silencing racists and sexists.
I don't have any skin in this game (the subreddits I subscribe to could easily be replaced by going back to the bulletin boards I used in the early 2000s) so I really don't care if Reddit crashes and burns, or if they have free speech: it's just not a platform that I care about. But I do think it's a bit disingenuous for people to pretend this isn't a free speech issue.
Its up to the reader to decide what they want to read. Usually I skim over the bad comments and talk about what I want. Ignore the rest even if they PM you.
Many, many people think Tech has a sexism problem.
The logic you are applying to Reddit would in theory require you to leave HN as well. It would also apply to any venue that is commonly felt to have a sexism and/or racism problem.
Leaving because a subset of a given population is a "problem" is silly.
Have you considered that the issue you're looking at is not a tech industry issue but rather a country-specific issue? Most studies I've read about it seem to have been made in the US.
So...its a question of picking what part of a larger whole that you hang out in. Just like you don't hang out in the racist/etc parts of Reddit.
Sorry if that message was lost.
Then don't?
For example, some of my friends believe that spaces need to be made 'safe' for women, and that means you cannot make any joke that references rape. Some of my friends are dark humored rape survivors, and find spaces where they cannot make those comments unsafe. I am friends with both of them, and they are friends with each other, despite disagreeing vehemently on what and where those spaces are. When they are around each other, neither of them can consider the space they reside 'safe', and yet, they survive.
by "racists" and "sexists", do you mean these terms based on the beliefs of those described, or are you including things like, subconscious(?) biases, (which one might be trying to correct in oneself)?
It seems like it might be useful to have two different terms for the two concepts?
But maybe this is not a context where this would be a useful addition.
The desire for consequence-free speech is hypocritical in the extreme, as it requires that others refrain from speech in order that you may suffer no consequences for saying whatever you like.
People, on Reddit and elsewhere, are generally free to speak their minds. If their words produce an emotional state in their listeners, should the listeners be required to remain silent in order to avoid potentially causing the speaker to feel a sense of responsibility for their actions?
* Respect the right of the speaker to speak
* Take responsibility for their own prejudices and mental state
If someone on the internet is saying things you (the collective "you") don't like on a social network of any note, you're a button click or two away from never, ever seeing anything that person has to say ever again.
The problem is thus solved.
..unless the problem was not that someone was saying things you don't like and wished you didn't have to see that, but that they said something you didn't like and you want to retaliate in some way against the speaker.
1. Not go to the subs that have such speech, and only frequent subs that have enforced rules against such speech (of which there are many, and people are free to create their own)
2. If they feel a burning need to go to a sub that has speech they don't like, they're free to respond to that speech (unless that subs bans opposing speech, which is rare), vote on it, etc.
That's not a feasible solution because sooner or later, almost EVERY sub gets infected with that filth.
Reddit is not a nonprofit Free Speech machine. It's a business. So, yes, the emotional state of the listener -- in so far as that emotional state (positive or negative) is a determiner of traffic and therefore returns for investors -- is the responsiblity of the speaker (the website itself).
I thought by now we had shed our idealism about platforms and corporations. We've mocked Google's now-defunct "Don't Be Evil" for years. The idea that Facebook is just a way for distant friends to stay connected has been subsumed by the reality that it's actually a privacy nightmare. But the myth that Reddit exists as a bastion of free speech at all costs has somehow held firm. It's puzzling.
Even John Stuart Mill, one of the biggest proponents of free speech philosophy, was okay in limiting free speech when allowing it would harm or cause damage to others. SCOTUS has also explicitly stated that first amendment (gov censorship) rights do not apply to threats of violence.
The reddit execs have said as much through their communications, that they're okay with allowing hateful and biased communities so long as they're not targeting, damaging, or causing harm to individuals.
People are misinterpreting that as reddit being a "bastion of free speech" without fully understanding what free speech really is.
Burning flags and racist remarks are discomforting, yes, but sending an individual death threats and stalking them is harmful. Reddit admins asserted that the latter behavior was happening.
A lot of subreddits with the same idea as FatPeopleHate got swept up in their ban despite being run by different people and having never harassed anyone. A racist subreddit was banned out of some vague argument of being the focus of a lot of their time. (In other words, not for violating the rules.)
It feels very much like another instance of what intopieces just described, a transparent PR lie.
Except for that time where they attempted to dox the entirety of the Imgur staff which more or less precipitated their ban?
1: http://www.reaxxion.com/9552/reddit-and-imgur-staff-team-up-...
2: http://web.archive.org/web/20150610212104/https://imgur.com/...
And before you demand internal information, just imagine the witch hunt that would start if Reddit had released the evidence of such behavior. That would have caused even more harm, even against innocent bystanders.
The fact that they selectively banned communities based on their behavior and not their ideas proves they are for free speech, but it's not the "bastion of free speech" that some people interpret it as.
It was also pretty obvious that they were attaching the imgur staff.
That is why free speech proponents defend it so vehemently.
Because it is a slippery slope and any ground you give up - that becomes the new normal.
Regardless, you've just moved the goalposts from "what is free speech" to "what is violent speech" which contributes nothing to the conversation but adds the specter of "danger", which throughout history has been mostly used by those who wish to curtail political speech under the guise of "safety".
HN is an open forum, may I not comment on discussion between two other members?
The SCOTUS and John Stuart Mill would limit the prohibition to actual harm and actual damage and actual threats. Being made to feel excluded from a community isn't harm, having your ethical lapses exposed isn't damage (or at least, it is not actionable), and being told your opinions suck is not a threat of violence.
> The reddit execs have said as much through their communications, that they're okay with allowing hateful and biased communities so long as they're not targeting, damaging, or causing harm to individuals.
That is a fair summary of their words. However, a fair summary of their actions is that they will allow those communities to exist until they become embarrassing for Reddit, and then the banhammer comes down.
The people who are asking for the offensive content to remain on the site are not asking for "free speech" because Reddit isn't free. They're asked for "sponsored speech" -- they want the people who pay for the servers (directly) to sponsor their hate speech, or the hate speech of others.
If this is how Reddit would like to run things, it should become a non-profit and operate on donations. I'm a member of three websites that feature message boards and operate like this. No ads, no data tracking, all funded by donations. The rules vary in strictness among them.
Don't be so eager to defend a corporation's right to be profitable. They also have to satisfy their customers/users.
The Pao blackouts were orchestrated by the moderators, a group whose influence I did fail to consider. They're essentially Reddit's paying users, insofar as they pay with their time. Advertisers pay the server cost, though, so I imagine that in an all out battle between the two, Reddit would switch to being completely closed. I understand the community aspect has a wide appeal, but I wonder how much of the revenue-generating userbase exploits that aspect. Are most users subscribed to communities they choose, or are most users subscribed only to the default subreddits?
>Don't be so eager to defend a corporation's right to be profitable.
I neither condemn nor defend. I'm only interested in getting a realistic view of how Reddit plans to proceed as a company and website. Part of that is analyzing who is making decisions and who is influencing those who make decisions.
With the advent of the internet, even the smallest minority has been given a voice. This has done great things for spreading information and ideas (e.g. Arab Spring), but it has also given a platform for spreading bias and hate as well. I'm not talking about name calling or childish acts, but threats of violence and damaging behavior.
This increased noise is easy to ignore until you become the focus of it, which is why private website owners are taking steps to protect individuals from harm over allowing a blank check for freedom of speech.
Man, OWS was a truly eye-opening event that really showed the power of the Oligarchy (The Fed) in the US.
So, while not much change actually happened from wither the Arab Spring or the OWS movements -- at least we know now where the common man stands. That information will really gel over time in the minds of all men and I think changes the world-view of most people in such a way that people now know what institutions are against humanity.
Speaking out against gay-marriage is intolerant. Threatening blacks or publicly shaming fat people is violent speech. Violent speech is not a problem because of the "emotional state of the listener". It is a problem because it creates an atmosphere of fear, and fear is a means of oppression. Sure, fear is an emotional state. But if I point a gun to your head, I think most would agree that society should place the blame on your emotional state in my gun-holding hand.
> which is why it is a narrative, not actual reporting
Except that this is actual reporting. I had never read anything (good or bad) about Reddit (wasn't interested) until I started visiting the site (which has lots of great stuff, too), and was amazed at what was going on there. Because most threats weren't aimed at me, I found it fascinating, but I could clearly see how it could really make others afraid.
> Shame and guilt don't really ever teach the lesson that is intended, but those are the only tools the media truly has.
Shaming those who create an atmosphere of fear is not a goal. The goal is to take that fear away. Besides, it seems like you're bemoaning the fact that some sort of speech is more effective than others. Maybe that's a lesson for those who call for free verbal-abuse-and-bullying to make better use of their speech? They should most certainly regard this as a lesson.
I don't dig generic jabs at fat people since it's in bad taste (calling out fat people that try to say being fat is healthy is another thing entirely) but I'm not sure how it's "violent".
To go off on a bit of a tangent: Don't get me wrong, I know the power words have since I was bullied for several years. I also understand how much of a struggle weight loss can be. But part of the reason that those words are so powerfully negative for a fat person is because of the shame they already feel for being obese, unhealthy and having no self control.
Besides the rare medical exception these people are in a bad place mentally and physically. Hiding external confirmation of what you already know about yourself doesn't do anything but reenforce the downward spiral of self destruction.
Are you tolerant of other peoples' religious beliefs? If so to what extent?
I find people are quick to defend certain religious beliefs and people's right to believe in them; but start drawing lines where religious beliefs don't mingle well with their own personal beliefs.
For example - a Jew's right to avoid pork and shellfish is respected but the right for an evangelical Christian to avoid people they see as ultimate sinners who could soil them and send them to hell for eternity is completely disregarded and not tolerated at all.
>It is a problem because it creates an atmosphere of fear
If I were a hell-fearing Christian I would be very understanding of being afraid of going to Hell and being afraid of anyone who might increase my chances of doing so.
The issue is you do not have a concept of sin or that your interpretation of the Bible (and thus sin) differs from theirs. From their religious perspective, you're in the wrong. You're a sinner - and a good Christian doesn't listen to sinners. That's how you go to Hell. From their perspective it's very logical to not want to go to Hell and to condemn sinners.
The issue stems from you not being tolerant or understanding of their religious beliefs.
What's my point here? It's that arguing between right or wrong will depend entirely on beliefs. You believe you are right so they must be intolerant - they believe they are right so you must be intolerant.
And if that were true, this could be an actual problem (don't think "soiling" is a thing in Christianity). In any case, no one who wants to tolerate anything means that it takes precedence over everything else. Some cultures allow murdering unfaithful women. Even the most tolerant of free societies would not tolerate that, yet that doesn't make it intolerant. Society doesn't operate according to boolean logic and values have relative importance.
> The issue stems from you not being tolerant or understanding of their religious beliefs.
But I am tolerant of their expressing their beliefs. I'm all for Reddit allowing intolerance. I'm against it allowing mobs of intimidation.
> It's that arguing between right or wrong will depend entirely on beliefs.
Except I'm not arguing about right or wrong. I'm arguing about building an effective community (or a society) that can function well, given the composition of its members.
If someone feels uncomfortable in a community where threats of rape are not acceptable and would rather spend time in a community that enjoys bullying and threats, it stands to reason that they should form a separate community and not spend time with the 99.9% of people who feel different.
The right for evangelican Christians to avoid people they see as sinners is respected just as much as the right for Jews to avoid pork and shellfish is; nobody forces a Jewish person to eat pork, and nobody forces evangelical Christians to interact with sinners.
The right of evangelical Christians to enforce their beliefs on others, i.e. by making it illegal for homosexuals to get married, is a very different right, and you haven't made an argument for why that right should be respected at all; should Jews be allowed to shut down a restaurant just because that restaurant happens to serve pork or shellfish?
That's because I don't think it should be. You're entirely missing the point of my argument and why arguing from morals and right/wrong is completely pointless. You're arguing about enforcing beliefs - I'm arguing about what is and isn't immoral and how people treat behaviors they deem to be moral or immoral. It's only immoral when you don't agree with it. If you thought homosexuality was a sin and marriage should be banned defending the cause is moral. Enforcing beliefs would be impossible because everyone has their own beliefs and there would be contradictions everywhere.
I'll use a different example, since people are missing my point entirely.
A despised terrorist to one group of people is a glorified hero to another. The only difference is which group you belong to.
It's all a matter of perspective and shouting down about how immoral or intolerant they are being will change nothing from their perspective because you are in the wrong. Not them.
Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. It's a sin to tolerate such a presence. You are asking them to sin and go to hell. I can easily understand why they might not so willing to sin and go to hell, no matter how politely you ask.
But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Unless there's been a movement to ban homosexuals from doing things like being in public spaces; I'm not currently aware of any such movement, although I admit that I'm not really up on such things. If somebody doesn't want to be in the presence of a homosexual, then they can arrange their life in such a way that they never need to do that, and I don't think anybody is really going to force them to do something like travel to San Francisco to watch a pride parade.
edit: I guess I'm not sure what your argument is, because you say that you're not talking about enforcing beliefs and then you say that evangelical christians are forced to interact with homosexuals.
>Speaking out against gay-marriage is [against my] beliefs
>Promoting gay marriage is intolerant [to Christian beliefs]
Allowing gays to marry - regardless if Christians have to be around these gays or not is against their beliefs. Not being respective of their beliefs is intolerant (this is a must, and intolerance is not necessarily a bad thing any more than tolerance is a good thing)
I tried to be as succinct as possible.
E:
I feel this is a necessary disclaimer after re-reading this response, lest I offend any Christians who are tolerant of homosexuals... Not all Christians...there are too many branches and sub-branches with different opinions, I use it as a blanket term for the specific (and known to exist) branches that are intolerant of homosexuals and hope it is taken as such for the sake of communication.
Laws exist saying that public businesses must serve all customers without discrimination, there has been a lot of controversy over, for example, a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couples wedding.
This is an example where government enforced capitalism has been enshrined in law and it is a good thing. Discrimination distorts the market in horrible ways, American history has plenty of examples of stores discriminating meaning other stores pop up providing substandard non-competitive service to a population.
>This is an example where government enforced capitalism has been enshrined in law and it is a good thing.
No, it's a government-enforced liability, it has nothing to do with capitalism (if anything, it's borderline anti-capitalistic). The fact that the second store serving the disenfranchised is substandard or non-competitive has nothing to do with the fact that the original store would not serve some population. A third store could also service those disenfranchised by the first and unsatisfied by the second. That's capitalism. Now if there's some kind of regulation limiting the number of stores, that's anti-capitalistic government action (a government-sanctioned oligopoly of sorts).
Let's say the baker decides to close their business rather than be forced to serve some group of people. Is that baker still obligated to make that cake? Why? What if the baker moves their business to a region that allows personal biases, is the baker obligated to bake that cake?
Your example is more akin to stores requiring patrons to wear shirt and shoes to receive service. Potential customers are being discriminated against here for an arbitrary reason based on some ideal of what is considered public decency. Do you think that a Muslim store requiring female customers to wear a burqa is discriminatory, or are they practicing freedom of religion? Does the government forcing the Muslim store to allow female customers without a burqa violate the first amendment?
A better example is a wedding planner or a marriage counselor. At some point, the freedom of speech and freedom of association comes into play and cannot be disentangled from the services provided. Saying a marriage counselor has to help save marriages or close up shop is to ban people with certain beliefs from certain occupations.
On the other hand, you're implicitly banning a certain class of people from owning a certain kind of business. I'm not sure why that's the most tolerant option.
Do you disagree? I'm not arguing that it's completely tolerant, but unfortunately we have a case where one person completely refuses to tolerate the mere existence of another so I think it's clear that one hundred percent toleration is off the table. Since one person is choosing to be intolerant and the other isn't, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to place restrictions on the person making the choice; if they feel that the inconveniences are too much, they're obviously welcome to rethink their choice. You can't really ask that of a gay person.
If there are any Christians who actually believe this, then they clearly have not read their gospels. Jesus, in word and deed, emphasized being around people who are sinners. The only people he ever pushed away were those who were abusing religion for their own gain.
And entrance to Hell is not gained by being around or talking to sinners. If this were true, Christianity would have died out because its members would not have been able to talk to anyone outside the group, and therefore would have had zero converts. The reasons for going to Hell vary based on what part of the Bible you read or what theologian you favor, but all the reasons can basically be summed up as the individual rejecting God in some way. People aren't sent to Hell just because they picked up cooties from some random sinner.
In short, your example is incredibly ridiculous and has no theological basis. Yes, some Christians separate themselves from the world. Some enjoy playing the "holier than thou" game. Even for people like that, none of them would think they were in danger of eternal damnation for spending time around a gay person.
That's really beside the point, isn't it? If they believe something, however wrong it is in your eyes, it's still what they believe. Of course there's no reason to accommodate people whose beliefs actively affect someone else, but people have a right to refuse associations for any reason.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
In any case, the ideal of free speech originated in the desire to share novel ideas and speak truth to power. It's sad to see the same term used to justify tolerating bullying by angry mobs.
Call it what it is: People saying mean things on the internet.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document...
> She describes how the effects of the harassment she has received have been life-changing. Her personality has changed long-term. She describes panic and fear and horror. She feared the abusers would find her and carry out the threats. She felt hunted. She remembers feeling terror every time the doorbell rang. She has had to spend substantial time and money ensuring she is as untrackable as possible. She gives a detailed and personal account of the physical effects of the fear on her. The emails from Sorley and Nimmo (she says) are imprinted on her mind – “I don’t think I will ever be free of them”. It is a moving, detailed, and entirely understandable account of the effect of these crimes on her.
> These offences have caused serious and entirely predictable harm to her.
> The effect on Stella Creasy has also been substantial. She became concerned for her safety to the extent that she had to alter her behaviour. She had a panic button installed in her home. She describes the effect of the crimes on her public duties, on her staff, and on her family. Again the offences have caused serious and entirely predictable harm to her.
Most people on the receiving reading words on a screen do not react this way. I wonder why? Perhaps Criado-Perez is an exceptionally sensitive individual.
Hm, reading further:
The messages were posted on a number of different sites, and continued after being blocked and or warned.
This goes well beyond "saying mean things on the internet" at that point, and is also well beyond the level of what this conversation is about. The behavior described in your link is nothing short of stalking. Something which is rightly already against the law.
(And I think you know that, and I think your accusation of "lying" is especially troublesome in that regard)
We're not talking about stalking and actively attempting to make someone else afraid for their life.
What actually happened to her?
She was intimidated.
It is important to understand that those who have power rarely need to exert it over others physically. Intimidation is enough, and is common in nature, too. Any sort of physical struggle bears a lot of risk for both sides involved (even if it's leopard vs. gazelle), so animals try to avoid violence by communicating their strength both to rivals in their own group as well as to potential prey or predators. It is called signalling[1].
Obviously, being intimidated is not the same as being killed or wounded, but that doesn't mean that this form of signalling is not very real or not a very common form of exerting power over others, in humans as in other species.
Intimidation is very common in man and in nature, and its goal is to save the intimidator's the chance of injury and the intimidatee's life -- if they learn their place. If it weren't very real, animals wouldn't have spend so much energy on it[2].
I also, again, must take issue with the use of "free speech" in this context. It is not at all clear that it even applies to every sequence of letters a person types or every utterance a person makes. At its very core -- or consensus -- free speech means the freedom to express all ideas and opinions without fear of arrest. It is not at all clear that "I would like to rape Ellen Pao" is either an idea or an opinion, and therefore I don't mind discussing whether we should allow such things to be said, but I do mind including them under the umbrella of "free speech" (my objection is not on principal grounds but on aesthetic grounds).
I do believe that every person should have the right to freely express his or her ideas in public without fear of arrest, and I think that this value is rather high in priority. But I agree with all other free societies (including the US[1]), which think that this freedom does not apply (and I'm not talking about various exceptions to that freedom based on offense) to certain combinations of words that constitute neither ideas nor opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
I'm not sure how you define "system of ethics", but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. I'd be surprised if you've never heard of anarcho-capitalism, that is the first such system that comes to mind.
Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint).
In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values).
The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.
> ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely.
It has been several years since I last gave this a lot of thought, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I only remember one universal principle in anarcho-capitalism: aggression is immoral. From that single precept every other value is derived - property rights, self ownership, etc. As I said, it has been a while, but I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency. So do you have a contradiction that you can point to?
> ...am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"?
Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy.
> This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values).
An anarchic system that has laws is not an anarchic system... maybe this is another hint at the point of confusion. Anarcho-capitalism is not really a form of governance, it is a philosophy that informs thinking related to interaction between individuals. It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice - you decide if you want to do business with murders or those who consort with murders.
I am very interested to hear about any logical inconsistencies you've found, because absent that your first two paragraphs are totally wrong.
While I'm very fond of anarchism (not its libertarian interpretations), I've always find its libertarian forms completely inconsistent (and very, very restrictive and far from free) under a guise of consistency (and freedom). The key is that everything can look consistent if you ignore the facts. It's ethics for spherical cows, and it's not simple but simplistic. Every ethics begins that way, but then there are lots of complications that stem from how the world works. Libertarian anarchism stops there, at the logic stage. It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world.
The main issue is what constitutes aggression. A clever teenager could say, "let's draw the line at physical harm!" but an educated scientist knows that physical aggression is rare, and is only used in those circumstances where common aggression fails. Common aggression works by intimidation (as I've shown -- even in the animal kingdom) and emergent social forces (like economics). You can only draw those arbitrary lines if you choose not to study aggression. If you choose not to learn something, then everything seems simple and consistent because it remains a Platonic ideal. Once you study aggression and see how it really works you realize that preventing aggression requires a very intricate ethics.
Which is why I'm for anarchism without false and arbitrary restrictions on aggression (which only serve to increase it in its common forms), or an intricate system of ethics and law that serves to really reduce aggression, but is a far cry from anarchy.
Just to very quickly explain the difference, in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression. If it isn't, there's no balance in the system. The rich can inflict economic aggression without fear of reprecussion. Once you add "no-agression" to anarchy, you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system.
> Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy.
I used the word "allowed" loosely in this case, to mean a combination of ethics and a possible enforcement structure. The belief that only a central authority grants permission is a common mistake among libertarians, that, as I said, stop at the logical reasoning stage and don't examine the facts. Centralized government is a recent invention, at least in the Western world -- 400 years or so (that the Roman Empire appears to us like a central authority is an anachronism based on extrapolation from what we know). Yet enforcement has existed throughout human history in much more diffuse ways.
Now, back to the example. So you say it's OK to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you". Fine. Now what happens when I deny evolution? If I know you'll never stab me then there must be some enforcement at play. But that means that I know your threat to be empty to begin with, and so no intimidation took place. In the real world, that's not the case. The possibility that you will stab me is always on the table. If so, stabbing me for denying evolution is most certainly a restriction of my free speech. And if that option exists, intimidating me with the threat also restricts my free speech.
> It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice
Because that's how human society existed until not too long ago, it isn't some thought exercise, and we know how that looks in practice. That is a form of governance, but without a central authority.
> your first two paragraphs are totally wrong
No, they are not. Your confusion stems from the anachronistic conflation of laws with a central state. Laws are rules based on ethics with some enforcement mechanism. That enforcement can be excommunication. In fact, that was the primary form of enforcement until not long ago. A highly distributed system of justice was the norm (again, at least in the West; I haven't studied the history of Asia).
Ok, so to be clear, you don't have a logical inconsistency to point to? Your complaint is purely utilitarian? Well, I don't really have much to say about that except that such a perspective only ever serves those presently in power.
> The main issue is what constitutes aggression.
The initiation of force, force strictly related to property rights (derived from universal preference, not state fiat). But before you equate my views to that of an adolescent again, let me first say that you've consistently redefined words. You've indicated that english isn't your native language, which could explain it - despite your command of the language otherwise, except for the fact that all your redefinitions shift the meaning to a very broad definition that supports your position. That is what kicked the whole thread off, your redefinition of violence to include spoken word - and you've done it several more times here: aggression has been redefined to include economics, laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree, one's own fears (rational or otherwise) and choices as a consequence constitute restriction by some other party.
If your political opinions are so informed by nature, I don't understand how you could possibly think any system could exist where individuals enjoy the total absence of any outside stimuli that may cause them discomfort or hinder them in living out their every fantasy. Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings.
> ...in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression.
Well, that is really no different than the way things are now. I believe you are pointing to a lack of monopoly on force, which does nothing to change the net amount of bad things that can happen to you - just the likelihood of total personal destruction as delivered by the state.
> ...you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system.
Consider for a moment the sort of world that we'd live in if aggression was redefined to your liking. The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists. Economics would grind to a halt as VCs are shuttered for all the human rights violations perpetrated in not funding everybody who approaches them. Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number. You'll find no freedom if you live at the mercy of somebody else's emotional interpretations, but you'll certainly find consistency and equality: constant misery for everybody.
No, there is a logical inconsistency, but it can't be uncovered by looking at a statement in isolation. It's like saying that the statement A /\ B has no contradiction, but if you look at the definition of B and see that it's defined as ~A, then the contradiction is apparent. My example contains such a contradiction.
> aggression has been redefined to include economics
No. Aggression is defined (at least in the dictionary I have in front of me) as: "hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront". Nowhere does it say that aggression means a physical attack. I do not define aggression to include economics. I state that if you study the world (I studied history in graduate school) and learn how aggression works, you see that it often works through economics (sometimes through religion, sometimes through other social forces). If you say that your ethics include just a prohibition of physical aggression then I say that 1. it still leads to contradiction in my example, and 2. it is completely arbitrary. After all, you've chosen those values to achieve a purpose -- say freedom -- and you correctly note that aggression restricts freedom. But then you make the factual error -- that can only be confirmed through empirical observation, not logic -- that it is physical aggression that restricts freedom, and that's false.
If you actually want to learn about aggression rather than believe in some system that seems logical to you but is actually intended for spherical cows, you can start here: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/social-psychology-prin...
How do you know that it's a good place to learn? Well, because it was written by people who have actually studied the subject rather than people who speculate on it, and therefore, while it may be wrong, it is probably a better source than that of people who want to prescribe ideas without learning how the system really works beforehand (i.e. they prefer their own imagined explanation to how the system works, which they take great care not to accidentally verify in the real world).
> laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree
I'm sorry, but it is you who are unfamiliar with some definitions (I spent years of my life studying these things). My dictionary says: "Law: the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties". You see government mentioned? Decree? A law is rule + enforcement accepted by a community. That's the only definition.
> Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings.
You're making the same mistake. You want my statements to include redefinition of words (because you believe that that's what people of liberal or anarchic (as opposed to libertarian-anarchic) views or something do. But it's not really what I'm doing. If you want to argue with me you must first try to understand what it is that I'm saying, not misunderstand it based on what you'd want me to be saying.
> I believe you are pointing to a lack of monopoly on force, which does nothing to change the net amount of bad things that can happen to you
Ah, but if you want to limit the amount of "bad things" you must first study how "bad things" happen. As someone who has studied it, I can tell you that more bad things are caused by intimidation than by a release of violence. I'll gladly argue over facts with you, but we should at least be talking out of some knowledge and not a "feeling" that bad things happen because of physical violence.
Anarchy and the sanctity of private property can't go together. A system where the poor are not allowed to steal from the rich (because private property) but the rich are allowed to starve the poor as long as they don't do it through physical violence (i.e. they're allowed to do it the way this has actually been done in history) is not a free system. In a real anarchy, if the rich starve the poor, the poor will gang up and kill the rich. Only in such a system you can have true freedom. Otherwise, your "anarchic" society will quickly devolve into a system of masters and slaves (with no physical coercion!) We know that because that actually happened, and in quite a few distinct societies (including Europe).
> aggression was redefined to your liking
You mean that if aggression was defined the way you think it is
> The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists.
What? Arrested? I'm an anarchist! And short of that, a social-democrat! Neither anarchists nor social democrats advocate the arrest of people who threaten rape online. We just don't think communities should tolerate them.
> Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number...
Look, study some history instead of making these Glen Beckian sci-fi fantasies. Pretty much every legal or political system you can think of has been tried somewhere more-or-less. I'm not saying we know how things will turn out -- far from it -- but we can at least make a few informed bets or knowledgeable comparisons. Your projections are similar to someone who'd try to create a model of the physical universe, but who's simply unaware of the electromagnetic force. There's a gap of information here, and without information you can't build a model.
Did it? Or did it originate from the idea that it is immoral to react violently to noises coming out of somebody's face hole? By violence I mean real violence, not verbal violence, the kind of violence that a free society uses to control the activities of its members... hmm - that doesn't sound right at all.
Is not a thing, you mean verbal abuse. equating verbal abuse with physical abuse doesn't make your point genuine, what it does is cause those of us who employ critical thinking to disregard your opinions as those of an unreasonable person.
Words can be important, but you cannot try to manipulate language in order to alter reality without alienating a lot of people from your cause.
Right. Sorry, English is not my native language. In my native language, verbal abuse is called verbal violence.
> what it does is cause those of us who employ critical thinking to disregard your opinions as those of an unreasonable person.
It really doesn't.
Googling the term pulls up a few the wiki article for verbal abuse, but even that article makes no mention of violence. The closes you can find are a few blog opinion pieces where people are doing exactly what you're doing, attempting to equate verbal abuse with physical violence.
I would be interested in learning more.
As for your response, you don't get to tell me how I react to people. Blunt, but true.
Well, pull up Google translate and see which languages translate "verbal abuse" as "verbal violence". There are more than one, but I'm sure the process would be very educational.
> exactly what you're doing, attempting to equate verbal abuse with physical violence.
I never did such thing just as I don't equate murder with theft when I call them both crimes, or 53 with 75 if I call them both positive integers. Equating means putting things on the same level, not in the same category. I'm not even sure I did that. I may have only made an analogy, which is a rhetorical device using comparison to draw attention to specific properties with similar function in different categories in order to assist in understanding or viewing a subject from a certain perspective.
> As for your response, you don't get to tell me how I react to people. Blunt, but true.
I didn't. Blunt, but true.
----------------------
P.S.
Your reaction, however, perhaps ironically, raises a difference between physical and verbal abuse (although, just to make sure -- I've never said there wasn't any), which is people who are victims of physical abuse usually know it, but those who are victims of verbal abuse may not. This opens the door to some very interesting discussions no only on the nature of humiliation (e.g. most people would agree that humiliation causes harm even if the humiliated is not aware of the humiliation if there are spectators), but also on the very core of ethics (and in particular ethical naturalism vs. non-naturalism and phenomenology).
You're unreasonable and not to be trusted on this issue.
If, however, you were referring to my use of the term "verbal violence" as opposed to "verbal abuse", it's nothing other than a linguistic mistake on my part. Verbal violence is how verbal abuse is called in my native language.
Ah, ok. Verbal abuse is a sensible term to me, whereas verbal violence is not.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"
And it is funny (and perhaps even ironic) you should bring up that nursery rhyme. One of the very first things you learn when you study history is that in order to know the state of certain societies, read what they legislated, wanted to legislate, or warned against. No one legislates or warns against things that don't happen. The reason that is a nursery rhyme, rather than, say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but bubbles never hurt me", is precisely because words do hurt.
But a much more profound thing to understand is that those who have power rarely need to exert it physically over others. Intimidation is enough, and is common in nature, too. Any sort of physical struggle bears a lot of risk for both sides involved (even if it's leopard vs. gazelle), so animals try to avoid violence by communicating their strength both to rivals in their own team as well as to potential prey or predators. It is called signalling (you can read about it here [1] and here [2]). Signalling is a very real thing in most (advanced) animals.
Obviously, being intimidated is not the same as being killed, but that doesn't mean it's not very real.
Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so.
In the case of physical abuse, the intuitive presumption is that coercion dominates any voluntary component.
That is factually wrong. People are abused in school and in their workplace. Of course, they could choose to change schools or workplace, but the existence of the abuse is a severe, coercive, limitation of their freedom.
Most common form of coercions work in non-physically-violent ways, both in human and animal societies. Coercion is not binary, and bodily harm is not the only coercive force. Not recognizing that is simply ignorance of both human psychology and sociology as well as zoology. It's a little like saying, "in physics, the only force that matters is the electromagnetic force!"
I understand that you're making an assertion of value, but values should (I believe) at least be somewhat based on fact. If an experiment were to show that physical force coerced 100% of people to do something, and intimidation coerced 80% of people, you could not say that intimidation is not coercion. You could say that intimidation is a strong coercive force, but one that is weaker than physical violence, and with that I -- and everyone else -- would agree. My point is that the effect of intimidation on people is a matter of empirical observation -- not an assertion of value -- that yields clear results, even if the effect size is less than 100%.
WTF please get over yourself.
This hardly matters when that content makes the front page of the site and is given positive votes continually. Every time someone complains about the offensive content in a "default" subreddit, the refrain goes like this: "That's just because it's a default man. You gotta unsub from the defaults and pick your own."
Let's consider that for a minute. The standard view of your website, the view that is presented to any new member, is so clogged with terrible content that the active members recommend you change it immediately.
When we buy phones and computers like this, we call it bloatware; we nuke the entire filesystem and start over. But when it's actual people generating content that most agree is worthless and often offensive: "well that's just a minority of a minority." Nonsense.
I do think Reddit needs to revist its moderation system, goals, and philosophy. But not on account of the points you raise.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28jfk4/content...
This is precisely the issue with "bad" stuff. It draws better attention to itself than the good stuff does. All the more reason for Reddit to get control of it if they want to inspire user growth and maintain ad revenue.
If they were to start "doing something about it", it'd likely not affect me in the least.
Is this something to still actively fight and change? Yes. But you yourself pointed out that reddit isn't making the content, nor are they encouraging it. What if the solution is MORE connected free speech, not less? The more representative a user base reddit gets, the less bigoted they'll be. I'm more worried about secretive and niche networks of extremists.
I also think its probably impossible to make a site that appeals to high school and college age males very sophisticated. Their identity politics will rule and that means lots of misogyny, racist humor, 'bro' culture, and anti-US politics with a serving of a worship of oppressive autocratic regimes. Fixing reddit may not be possible and shuffling subs around isn't helping much. No one wants to say this, but young people are kinda terrible. I know I was a worse person at that age.
I think the world, and especially the corporate world is struggling with the idea that people hold disgusting, ignorant, or hateful opinions and that we're not nearly as nice as we believe ourselves to be. But of course I don't hold any opinions like that -- obviously I'm better than those people.
There isn't a minority group of hateful people who have are expressing their hateful opinions on social media -- it's that each person's hateful opinions are a minority of their total opinions which are expressed in proportional frequency.
Reddit may have hotrrible offensive comments but they will often be razor sharp and highly effective at winning arguments. That makes it endlessly interesting.
Of course HN has this to a lesser degree. I live in fear of being accused of "anecodotal". Looking at this comment that is ironic.
Shout something long enough and hard enough, and people will widely begin to believe it. Wired doing what they just did here is at least part of the reason that perception exists. Certain rabble-rousers within the community itself are another.
It's an accusation. A smear. For it to be otherwise, there'd need to be proof, something sorely lacking from this meme.
EDIT: Honestly, looking at everything that happened a few months ago with the blackouts and multiple events surrounding Ellen Pao, it's nothing but embarrasing how vocal some communities can be that cause many people there for good reasons to be silenced and unheard.
You can also just do what everyone on reddit does: label them a SJW, a term with near-limitless utility on reddit, and dismiss them. Anyone with a mind toward social issues will be labeled a SJW in short order, and for some reason that particular accusation resonates with much of the reddit community. This is all just my experience, of course.
Well duh, hence why fatpeoplehate got banned and shitredditsays stays because they're pretty much the same subreddit, except the latter actually breaks the rules.
Except for that time that fatpeoplehate doxxed the staff at Imgur on reddit when Imgur no longer tolerated FPH posting images of fat people to laugh at on their servers.
Context is important.
That is an excellent argument for not including those subreddits in the default home page (for users who are not logged in) or /r/all.
But you can find offensive things, or things you don't want your children to see, on just about any site (also, yes, your teens know about redtube).
The Southern Poverty Law Center might as well classify the air we breath to be racist because it is used as a platform for transmitting ideas.
I still think we really need to create a distributed open reddit alternative based off of ipfs or something similar. Ideally all posts would be treated the same at a low level but different curation sites could be built on top. Users that wanted to be 'protected' from 'offensive' material could be while users that value free speech could look at unfiltered views.
There's a lot of hatred all over the internet. There doesn't have to be.
Ultimately I think it's probably a good thing that people can express these hateful ideas online, instead of being forced to bottle them up where they can't be addressed. You don't win the battle against bad ideas by shouting people down, muzzling them, or driving them away. You win it by engaging them and consistently showing them they are wrong over time.
Racists and sexists are human beings with human thoughts and human feelings just like every other human. People need to start looking beyond their own personal "ick" factor if this is to ever be dealt with.
Racism isn't a reasonable position, showing someone how and why they're wrong isn't going to do anything. Showing someone that spouting that junk isn't socially acceptable anywhere is how you'll end those attitudes.
People are social creatures long before they're rational ones--use social tools, not logical ones.
I disagree. Attacking people for their views (for example, calling them a racist or down voting them to hell) is how you reinforce existing negative attitudes, not end them.
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to present some anecdata. I remember entering into a comment thread on HN using a throwaway in which hacker culture was being attacked as being inherently misogynistic. The statements being espoused seemed extremely overblown based on my experience. It also seemed ridiculous to throw an entire culture under the bus because specific elements of it may be bad. When I voiced these opinions I was immediately attacked by someone who didn't even know me, who implied that I was a misogynist by not agreeing with their position. This shifted the discussion away from being about ideas to being about my personal character, so my internal reaction was something along the lines of "well fuck you and your stupid ideas then" and I left the thread. Any chance for productive dialogue was immediately over, and I left with a highly negative view of feminism and a bias against feminists which I didn't have when I entered the thread.
Fast forward a few months and I was hanging out with a good friend of mine who is a female developer. Sexism in the workplace somehow came up in conversation, and I again stated that the opinions being voiced by some of these women seemed like bullshit (using stronger terms than my first statement). She calmly said she could see how I would think so given my experience, but that it was indeed as bad as it sounded. We continued the conversation, and I came away with my mind changed. This would never have happened had she not engaged me in dialogue, and I would likely still harbor a subtle or overt bias against feminists to this day.
What do you mean by reasonable? Logical? Acceptable? Natural? Normal? Understandable?
I'd argue a lot of the low level racism and sexism we see on Reddit is entirely natural.
It's natural for a woman who has been sexually abused to be a little bit sexist towards men.
It's natural for a man who has his kids taken away from him by his ex-wife to be a bit bitter towards women.
It's totally understandable that a Chinese kid who has been heavily bullied for years by black kids at his school will have reservations about black people in general. Etc etc etc.
Sure I'd love a world where I could really help change someone's mind but it is often easier and safer to just ignore those people as putting effort into trying to "help" them doesn't really offer me anything besides more abuse.
What's more, you can't do anything about the fact that this can happen without making some very ugly sacrifices.
What we're doing now does. not. work.
I'm all for trying to help people understand the reaction to their comments but it also sidetracks every conversation and there seems to be an endless supply of people making ignorant comments.
We could stop it all. But history has shown that the cure is worse than the disease, so we don't. And the imperfect attempts will frequently increase the levels of crime.
I'm all for ambition, but people with ambition to suppress or oppress others based on a value judgement for the greater good make me nervous in general.
Didn't we all learn in school that the one thing you didn't do to bullies was listen to them?
Reddit is going to lose far more people trying to police out non-PC stuff than they will ever gain from it. And when people move on they do so quickly and in large numbers.
I also think the article is pretty misguided in saying that somehow wealthy white men are treated better on the site. First of all, unless you tell people who you are, nobody knows. Secondly, the idea that revealing your wealthy white dude status would lead to better treatment on Reddit it laughable to anybody who's used the site for more than a few minutes.
Imagine you have several subscriptions to a bunch of different print magazines. Every couple days a new magazine shows up. Stuff like Scientific American, The Economist, Better Homes and Gardens, National Geographic, TV Guide, Rolling Stone, Cat Fancy, etc. All fine and good. Except sometimes, maybe once every quarter per magazine, maybe less often even, there's some really weird stuff in your magazines. There's a 10 page article praising the KKK in your copy of Rolling Stone. Or there's a thing about how the jews did 9/11. Or the ads in Cat Fancy are all relentlessly making fun of fat people. Or there's an insert in the October edition of Scientific American that's actually a personal letter to you that is filled with hate and vitriol and ends with a plea for you to commit suicide.
Who would put up with that? They wouldn't. But that's what people have been asked to deal with on sites like reddit, and it's beyond a reasonable level. How much shit is acceptable in your drinking water? Just a tiny bit? How about just 1 hour a year where the tap pours out 50/50 shit & water? Is that acceptable? No, it's not. There's far too much shit in the drinking water at reddit, the fact that the drinking water is not, in fact, mostly shit is not a defense.
EDIT: That said, I think better moderation tools and stronger firewalls between subs would be a huge improvement. The existence of /r/fph absolutely shouldn't spill over into /r/worldnews or wherever.
And in comparison to all of that I'd say reddit is worse. I like many things about reddit, it's got plenty of good parts. But there are fundamental weaknesses in the design and administration of the site which mean that it's difficult to avoid incredibly terrible interactions with assholes on a regular basis.
And, if you've got stats, would you mind sharing what percentage of Reddit activity/traffic is porn?
The same could be said about both of those sites. Main subs have their share of filth but it's not only those things. There are some very racist and morally challenged subs but I wouldn't conclude all of reddit is like that.
Right, because the rest of them are just non-sequitur memers fishing for upvotes. Such meltdown. Very epic.
---
Unfortunately it doesn't matter if it's a minority of all the content on Reddit if it's what's on the frontpage 24/7 since that's what everyone is going to be looking at. Yay feedback loop!
Example, the ban you're talking about, communities which had the same idea, with different staff, that had existed before that one had, were also caught up in the ban. In other words, they were banned despite not breaking any stated rules.
Another example: A racist subreddit, not getting banned because of harassment, not for breaking rules, but because they were a frequent target of admin attention.
Another another example: Colluding with the governments of other non-US countries to censor content at those governments' request.
It's their website, they can run it as they please, but I wish Ohanian and Huffman would stop playing lip service to "free speech" and "open discussion" (something that up until recently, they did loudly and often) if that's not the goal they intend to live by. Actions speak a lot louder than words.
Most of the posts I saw were responses to fat-acceptance bloggers and their postings on their blogs. Obviously these blogs were created to foster discussion and that was happening. When the discussion wasn't positive, they got upset.
Obviously, it's a private website and they can do what they want with it. But it never was a place for "free speech." If you didn't go along with Reddit groupthink (which is an odd mix of socialism "college should be free" "Koch Brothers are Evil" and libertarianism "Go Uber!" "Open Access to the Internet") you would be quickly down voted away.
- Creepshots of people taken and published without the subject's permission in order to harass them.
- Pictures taken from people's friends-only Facebook albums stolen and published on Reddit for harassment purposes in violation of the privacy settings chosen by the original uploader.
Both are harassment, and the latter is a gratuitous copyright violation. The former probably also falls afoul of laws against using people's likenesses without permission.
Oh, and once imgur began removing their images for TOS violations, they began acting like a pack of wild monkeys flinging their feces: they began targeting individual imgur staff members for harassment, and multiple people began inciting DDoS attacks against imgur.
Reddit admins have been cracking down on witch hunts for quite some time, and DDoS attacks are highly illegal.
They dug their own graves and deserved to be banned.
Also the reddit user "harassment" wasn't in one direction. Plenty of FPH members got hate PM's and 0-reason bans to other subreddits for their participation at fatpeoplehate, regardless of what content they have posted or commented.
If you were to start banning subreddits based on this behavior you'd be banning pretty much every single meta sub on the site, SRD, SRS - they'd all have to go under such a policy.
4/25 posts were "/r/blackpeopletweeter"
how inclusive.