Comment by nthcolumn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nthcolumn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Reddit is a business. I don't support businesses that facilitate child rape forums. You do. That's how we are different. Other businesses should not suffer for what Reddit does so I use the internet, on usenet other providers likewise, on reddit you all share the blame because you support the same business. I can't tell myself I'm only using this tiny part and those nasty people aren't anything to do with me because it's bullshit, or to provide an extreme example - I don't think you'd use 'just the comments section' of 'Playpen' and be guilt free (or free outside jail). I think you conveniently ignore the fact that there are inappropriate images of children on the site not because you believe in free speech for pedos, you simply don't care enough. And no I don't think pedo sites are a free speech issue - there are things we will not tolerate nazis, pedos, being two of them. I can't believe I even have to have this conversation. I said HN had not succumbed, I should have said '...yet'.

Absolutely absurd argument.

Do you use toll roads? They're a business. Criminals and even "child rapists" use them too. Can't believe you would further their ability to move about our society and evade law enforcement by willfully funding the infrastructure they use.

Get over yourself with your absolutist nonsense.

Note: I disagree with the previous poster's 'guilt by association' ideology for reasons you posted.

To be fair, I bet that Reddit would have an easier time than toll roads in identifying those criminals and banning them. With that said, however, I think that the issue is very foggy in who is guilty, and that Reddit is actually relatively accessible for law enforcement compared to other sites the criminals may be on.

For people who are truly guilty of it, their presence on Reddit may offer law enforcement a greater chance at apprehending them.

Would you tolerate the NYT or other large pre internet print medium publishing opinion pieces in favor of pedophilia? I don't think I would. The argument then becomes why should we tolerate such behavior post internet.

Yes, if it was noteworthy or somehow remarkable and written to the standard of the NYT, I would. There was a fantastic piece that toed this line on This American Life not too long ago (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/...). I'm generally in favor of people having a medium to say things I disagree with and even find distasteful. That's what I think of when I hear "free speech". It's a core American value.

I would also "tolerate" the opinion piece, in any medium, that argued against it. I think it's very easy to make a good argument against pedophilia so I'm not at all worried about some random NYT op-ed piece suddenly turning the societal norm. Just like I'm not too worried about someone writing an op-ed that argues for slavery again. Once 'we' thought these things were ~ok, now we know they're not, and we have a long list of very good reasons for that that are nearly impossible to overcome.

I don't understand the fear of ideas that censorship advocates have. What's so scary about someone being wrong and having an opportunity to learn as much? If you stifle every conversation on topics we as a society have long since covered, these ideas will grow and fester in the dark (say, on StormFront or whatever). It's OK to let them in the light every now and then so that we have an opportunity to educate those who might not have learned the lesson.

Your argument is more absurd. Toll roads don't have a mechanism to identify and stop the rapists.

Automatic license plate readers + warrant database + notify law enforcement that their fugitive is traveling x direction at y time.

Not so absurd as this already happens to some degree http://prospect.org/article/license-plate-tracking-increases...

Anyway, your point is moot as reddit complies with all applicable child pornography laws just like any other US based internet business AFAIK.

Not really sure what we're talking about here anymore. I'm trying to point out the absurdity of this dystopian future state where a bunch of vigilantes get to decide who is able to participate in society and use its infrastructure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com