Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
I read some sports subredits. I read some culture subredits. I read some of the bigger basic entertaining but silly subreddits like /r/AskReddit and /r/TodayILearned. And, to be honest, I really haven't noticed much impact by these nefarious elements (or whatever you want to call them).
I'm sure others have had different experiences from me, but from my point of view whatever "crazy shit" is going down is mostly confined to certain sub-sections of the site that are easily avoided.
>“There have been unquestionably instances [where] moderators of other subreddits were targeted by users in The_Donald,” Reddit told Gizmodo, and the leaked chatlogs reveal the extent.
>Some moderators had been flooded with constant harassing messages. “One threatened to kill my fucking dog,” a moderator pleaded in the leaked Slack chat. A The_Donald user hacked r/politics and booted half of the moderation team, another told Gizmodo in an email.
>“We have had multiple moderators doxxed and sent death threats, we had one moderator who had his truck broken into and vandalized,” an r/politics mod told Gizmodo over Reddit private message.
Profanity, hate speech, bullying, harassment aren't protected by free speech. And you see PLENTY of it coming out of the_donald. You don't have to tolerate that shit, you have every right to shut it down. But no, lets degrade ourselves by trolling the trolls.
What a strategic waste.
non-edit: greglindahl below me makes an excellent point on my choice of vocabulary. I won't edit my post, I'll just concede that I chose poorly while trying to articulate my point.
Of course Reddit, being private, has the right to do whatever it wants. But it's important to realize where the lines are drawn for public discourse.
From a sunlight point of view, being able to make private messages public is quite effective, albeit a feature which should be disclosed in advance.
Trump got about 13,000,000 votes in the primary election, which is relevant because its though primary voters are more active in the political participation.
The point being, I'm not sure given current headlines and the recency of the US election, that the front page stats are out of line.
I could imagine someone seeing this if they stick to the default front page.
If people are on ranty subreddits they will hear ranty posts.
I'm happy with reddit. Its a pleasant diversion that I get to tune to my liking.
-- If the issue is doxxing, which was occurring to some degree in sites with cross-membership with r/the_donald, then enhanced auto moderation is needed. The tools are out there.
-- If the issue is so-called "hate speech" then give users the ability to filter content they find distasteful.
-- If the issue is click-bait to offensive or illegal content, then again, there are ample techniques and 3rd party resources for warning about, reporting, filtering and discouraging user click-through.
What concerns me is that Gizmodo and Reddit can only think in terms of banning speech. Combined with the recent pile-on over "fake news", I worry that expression on the internet is vulnerable to shill pollution, coercion and overly zealous social equality advocacy.
The irony of not applying innovative technology to problems at Reddit is thick, almost suffocating.
There are rules about mobbing other subs with garbage. No one would care If they kept to their own sub.
Plus, there wasn't a similar outcry when Correct The Record, swamped the site with its paid advocacy before the election.
Either you believe in free speech, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that good ideas will prevail in the end -- or you don't.
But they cross over into other subs and start interfering there. A small enough sub with a small team of moderators can find it difficult to deal with someone crashing their party.
> Plus, there wasn't a similar outcry when Correct The Record, swamped the site with its paid advocacy before the election.
I didn't see that, but I mostly visit non-political subs. And in any case, Person B doing something bad doesn't excuse Person A doing it.
> Either you believe in free speech, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that good ideas will prevail in the end -- or you don't.
But it can be hard to filter out the good ideas when they're buried under a hundred good ones; and an artificial UV light being beamed into your eyes isn't sunlight.
I don't believe the_donald constant spam (pre and post election) is based on legitimate interest.
I am very confident, and slightly embarrassed that Reddit hasn't been able to stop this, that the_Donald has been able to maintain it's presence with technical vote manipulation. I can detect it's effects, and I am shitty data scientist.
To associate this issue with free speech is a gross over statement of the problem. This is one of the most effective trolls in social media history.
> sunlight is the best disinfectant
What do you think that disinfectant looks like? It is rarely people changing ideas it is more often society excluding people. Which is what is happening here. You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. You don't have to give them anything but the right to speech which they can use on their own sites.
If you're not confronted with the best arguments of your adversaries, you won't understand, learn, or prevail.
The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash.
Edit: This user already had this debate in another thread and conceded, then brought it up here again.
Here are some comments from this user to show you what I mean: > It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump
> There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant
> You're not restricting thoughts or ideas you are simply not agreeing to promote it.
And finally, when he conceded it really is about free expression:
> Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago.
I don't appreciate the ad hominen attacks, and I'm not going to debate whether or not this is about free speech with this user.
In the general case also no because a private platform not promoting someones speech isn't a free speech issue.
Like I said I can see you argued this same argument with people in the other thread and then quickly conceded it.
> The idea that the other side has a valid opinion just because they won is stupid. A lot of believes don't deserve any respect at all.
> You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech.
> There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. > The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash.
Conceding your argument in the other thread:
> Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago.
Let's take a step back. What you responded to was this:
> I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this deba
That is about reddit being about free speech.
You said:
> There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant.
I said:
> Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech.
And you said:
> No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore.
You are trying to redefine the words "Free speech" to have a specific meaning that is taken out of context (the context was plainly a discussion about reddit allowing both sides of the debate, not about government retaliation--your argument against that was today's foremost argument against free speech: that the world already has too much hate speech), and I do not find that argument constructive because (a) free speech being defined as speech without censorship is a perfectly correct definition (it is not necessary for their to be a direct or indirect government actor as you seem to believe--this is why I said it was ignorant), and (b) this is not a direct rebuttal but instead what it does is redirect the debate to be about what exactly free speech is which I do not find that useful in contributing to the conversation thread.
This same general idea proceeded in another thread then you conceded in the other thread that the issue was reddit "stopped being about free speech," so there, you use that language with the same definition yourself, substantiating point (a).
Teach our side of the isle.. don't engage with idiots.. engage only with well formed arguments. We could learn something and become better people rather than becoming reactionary because we're unequipped to deal with alternate views. In the end, it's really not that hard to ignore the worst of it on Reddit, it would be even easier if people on our side didn't freak out about every tidbit.
That's a very strange defense of a subreddit that had an explicit policy of banning any and all dissenting opinion. Or the vote brigading. Or doxxing, death threats, vandalism, or assault.
T_D was the very antithesis of what you're advocating for throughout this whole thread.
I mean, technically, you do.
Regardless, reddit claims to be about free speech and still censors. So... irony?
Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago.
It reads to me like they're critiquing the behavior of the people running the subreddit, as opposed to their opinions. As I don't use Reddit much, could you add some context? For example, are the objectionable behaviors described int he article actually common across the political spectrum, or common in every election season? I would certainly accept your claim if bias if I knew that such behavior was widespread but only one flavor of it were being called out.
But I've never seen anywhere that HN claims to be about free speech. Reddit claimed that title for a long time, even when they were clearly censoring things. Feel free to tell people to fuck off. There's nothing wrong with doing that on your private site. But don't turn around and tell people you are a free-speech site while doing so.
universal service obligations are not enshrined everywhere.
"Free speech" as enshrined in the US Constitution is designed to prevent the government from making laws against free expression. Any interpretation applying "free speech protections" to private entities hosting other private entities on their private property is either ideological, or an intense misunderstanding of the law.
This is the way that free speech has always worked in the US; if you own a printing press, you can print what you like.
Do you think it should have been unlawful for Reddit to ban Coontown? What would you think to be an appropriate punishment for this proposed crime? A fine? Jail time?
Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources.
There are many things we all rely on to compete and succeed. We need to drink water, and we need to be able to trust that the water is safe to drink. If a private company is in charge of water, they should be heavily regulated for that very reason. While you won't die without search engines, you obviously need to use them to reasonably compete for economic survival.
Google has a majority market share, while Bing and Yahoo trail behind, but they could all easily collaborated with or without government to censor, and it would have extreme consequences for the possibility of free expression, giving these corporations a lot of power. Do we want private corporations to have this much power over free expression?
They can also do this without announcing to you that they are currently filtering search results for political reasons (I would be most people don't realize they are already doing this).
Some plazas are larger than all but the largest private gathering places.
I'm not sure what anyone expects to gain by doubling down on the goodthink echo chamber that's just lost them an election. Emotional comfort, perhaps? I'm not without sympathy for the need - but that's a private matter. Governance in the US is public, and refusing to engage in the process merely cedes the field. Demonizing one's political opponents not only cedes the field but energizes them with just resentment, and I should think the events of this past month should suffice anyone as a lesson in why that might not be the best of all available tactics - but perhaps I extend more credit than due.
The rise of neonazism in the US is real. To claim otherwise, to imply that it is an "arrant falsehood," is to be purposefully ignorant.
For clarity, that quote is referring to journalists and the media. Not Jews, as some have been heavily implying.
I'd like to remind people here that this is exactly Trump's playbook. You infuriate people, they are eager to take you out of context or extrapolate wildly, then curious passersby figure your accusers are not credible.
It's not a high moral ground tactic, but it sure works.
This absolutely false. The word "zombie" is what people go to when they think of a mindless being. The word "golem" is what a nazi would say as a dogwhistle to let people know he's down with hating (((Jews))).
We Jews said we would never forget, and we haven't.
You're probably not aware fnovd, then many of the attendees were themselves Jewish, including those of 'Heiling' fame.
http://www.thewrap.com/tila-tequila-jewish-friends-nazi-sieg...
These people are trolling. This is classic trolling. They know this causes people to react and how the media works. For instance The Atlantic in their video on the NPI conference showed apparently 'dozens' of people doing the 'Heil' salute, but if you examine the footage closely you'll notice Richard Spencer is in fact holding up a water glass in one hand and the camera is being positioned multiple times in such a way to make the same three people look like six or nine people. There are classic camera tricks in that video actually to form your opinion (e.g. selective blurring), I'm sure you'll see them too if you go and look.
This is also trolling with a purpose in order to attract the right enemies.
As I said, this is not the high moral ground. Nonetheless they are not Nazis. You'll need more than some Jewish boys and an Asian pornstar for that to have merit.
The people I know who claim "alt-right" are not. They're young and full of piss and vinegar. They're also largely quite intelligent and not less well supplied with humanity than anyone else their age. They were quite receptive to the idea that nothing in the world is simple, and that demonizing any group of people en masse is a cheap, lazy, stupid shortcut past a lot of hard thought and the careful application of empathy toward the acknowledgement that compromise and negotiation are necessary toward any modus vivendi that's satisfactory to everyone, or as nearly so as can be managed in the imperfect world we inhabit.
I've been at this for a year now, more or less. It's been slow, difficult, complex, and anything but heroic, as teaching always is. But I'd capitalized on a couple of early successes, favorably impressing some of those among this group who are themselves generally looked up to by most others, and I was having a real effect. I had them thinking, or starting to - critically analyzing the contradictions between the left's claims and its behavior, and distinguishing the desirability of a lot of progressive goals from the counterproductive ways in which the modern progressive movement operates. I had them getting toward ready to start using the brains and the hearts God gave them to work toward a genuinely better world - for everyone - rather than the mirage of the progressive millennium whose pursuit has brought us to the pretty pass whereat we stand.
Of course, that was before the whole godforsaken world started calling them Nazis, sight unseen. How the hell am I supposed to compete with that? They're good kids, but they're kids. If you think it's easy, over a purely textual medium, to outdo "fuck you, you're not my dad", then by all means I invite you to try. And if you want to write them off, fine. That's easy and it's comfortable and it feels good. I get that. I don't even blame you, although I'd like to, because that would be easy too. But I am going to tell you you're making a mistake.
Not that it matters, at this point. In the last few weeks, I've seen my influence go from considerable to just about none. They aren't listening to me any more, because there's nothing in the world as exciting as to fight against injustice - which is exactly how they see it, and considering the way I'm seeing them slandered I don't even think they're wrong. Certainly one bookish old homosexual who counsels analysis and empathy over rash action can't live up to that! So they're going to go their way, and you are going to go yours, and I guess I've wasted a year's worth of the hard work with which the actual left, for whom I hold no love, can't be bothered. Perhaps I should have done better, but for the life of me I can't see how. There's only so much shit you can expect people to eat, and the left long ago passed that mark with those whom it makes its enemies. Little wonder they're starting to sick it up now, and we all have to live with the mess.
(And I see the post's been flagged, which means even the time I've spent writing this comment was wasted, because no one will see it. So it goes. May God and history judge us all more kindly than we deserve.)
Actually read some of the material and see if 'it checks out' that we're all nazis. Scott Alexander has a essay called 'Reactionary Philosophy in a Planet sized nutshell' which is a good synopsis.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...
Scott is definitely not a reactionary of any kind, so this is a neutral take.
Otherwise we can just call each other names and strawman each other all day.
Please don't come out with "I don't need no... or somebody on the internet said...". That is just lazy. I don't imagine all socialists subscribe to SJWism, since a lot of them are vehemently against it. Same goes here.
Is there a post on r/The_Donald that stands out to you as being hate speech?
looks like hate speech to me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5fltt9/amy_schu...
To save others the trouble, the title of the post is "Amy Schumer And Lena Dunham Are Finally Leaving The Country" and the image is of two orca whales being prepared for transport. The very non-coded message is that these two women are "as fat as whales" and furthermore that they deserve to be derided based on physical appearance because of their expressed political opinions.
I'm no lawyer, but I think that's treading awfully close to "hate speech".
Of all the principles we've ever espoused in this country, we have perhaps been most consistent in our national conviction that the answer to wrong speech is right speech - not less speech but more speech.
That is, until recently. We've lately seen the rise of a strain of thought in which not only is it acceptable to answer mere words - however cruel - with the full and mighty force of law, but to suggest such a course might reasonably inspire trepidation is itself worthy at best of contempt, and the many examples in history of why such trepidation might be justified are ignored in unseemly haste to crush those who speak in a fashion deemed insufficiently satisfactory.
In such a strain of thought, the problem with McCarthyism is not McCarthyism in its own right, but rather that the direction in which it was pointed was wrong - the weapon should not be put down and never picked up again, but merely wielded against a different target than last time.
Is that really the lesson to draw from such an unsavory example? Is there really any practical benefit in such a lesson for the causes such a strain of thought claims so loudly to espouse? The left has fought to silence its opponents for decades, more or less by whatever means fell to hand. The result thus produced, this very month, is remarkable, but not for its loveliness. It will not grow more lovely with time. Does it really seem likely that the tactics which have brought us to such a strait are blameless, and that only more energy is required?
In Ireland we have foolishly installed laws that made criticism of Mohammad or Jesus illegal.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/apr/11/why...
I don't enjoy their humour but I think this would prevent something like Charlie Hebdo from operating in my country.
How about caricature of public figures? Note that they do not have to be tasteful or respectful. Just look at bankers depicted as pigs.
I am neither american nor a lawyer, but as I understand it hate speech has a fairly narrow definition over there. It requires imminent danger of inciting violence. Merely expressing racist or other kinds of -ist viewpoints is not hate speech.
That said, the very colloquialism they use to refer to the opposition ("cuck") is merely a shortened form of a term ("cuckold") with a very long history of being a base insult with rather heavy connotations of misogyny.
(i.e. Being "cuckolded", a man whose female partner has exhibited infidelity, is taken as a sign of weakness whereas being a woman whose male partner sleeps around is just de rigueur to the point there's not even a special term for it.)
Of course it being a sexul insult it is practically unavoidable that values and the female partner are indirectly involved in how the insult works. Well, technically homosexual couples can also cuck each other, and I have seen the term occasionally used in discussion about homosexual manga. So it really is not about the female.
Hell, even the fairly juvenile "ur mom" is more negative towards females than "cuck".
When women are attacked you will notice. Slut and whale are still the go-to insults.
So please do not shoehorn gender issues into everything. Sure, some assumptions are encoded into it. But it's a goddamn insult, not some friendly disagreement in a debate club. Please adjust your context sensitivity.
There was an article complaining about the main stream media for criticizing Trump's saying that flag burners should have their citizenship revoked and be jailed, when Hillary Clinton said exactly the same thing in 2005, and citing the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which Clinton co-sponsored.
I'd never heard of that, so took a look at it. It did indeed make flag burning illegal (possible fine and jail time, no stripping of citizenship)--in two specific circumstances.
1. When the primary purpose and intent was to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, or
2. When the flag was stolen from the US or from US lands. E.g., if you stole the flag from a government building and burned it, that flag burning would be illegal. Bringing your own flag to burn, fine (unless the primary purpose and intent was to produce imminent violence).
I posted that information, and noted that this seemed to be written to try to stay within the bounds of allowed restriction on speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). I noted that this was not anywhere near "exactly" the same as what Trump said, which appeared to be just blatantly unconstitutional. That earned the ban.
I asked the moderator that banned me what rule I had violated, since it was not at all apparent to me. Here are their rules:
• Do not violate Sitewide Content Policy
• No Trolling/Concern Trolling
• No Racism/Anti-Semitism
• No Releasing Personal Information or Doxxing
• No Vote Manipulation, Brigading, or Asking for Votes
• No Dissenters/SJWs, this is a pro-Trump subreddit
• No Posts About Being Banned From or Linking To Other Subreddits
• Ban appeals, suggestions, concerns (including sticky choices) go to modmail
• No Posts About Trump Assassination Threats (Send screenshots + Archive.is link to the FBI).
• Please do not behave in a way outside of the subreddit that would reflect poorly on it.
The moderator's answer: "The President Elect's.". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, and cannot ask because he slapped a 72 hour ban on messaging the moderators on me.
I frankly don't know what to make of /r/The_Donald. I've occasionally seen substantive discussion of Trump's proposed policies on there, including criticism, that was up voted and the critics were not banned. But it also seems to be full of complete and utter idiocy. I can't tell if it was supposed to be a serious group that got taken over by the trolls and idiots, or if it was supposed to be a trolling joke group from the start, and the substantive discussion was just from people who had not figured that out yet.