FSTDT Forums
Community => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on August 23, 2015, 07:00:17 pm
-
I only recently found out about this. I decided to boycott Reddit in protest of the new direction the site was taking (turns out removing Chairwoman Pao didn't really change anything), and then I went on vacation. But on August 5, Reddit banned notoriously racist subreddit CoonTown, and quarantined several other controversial communities.
And I'm not happy. Don't get me wrong, CoonTown was fucking despicable, but this is setting off alarm bells. Offensive bile like what the spewed is the canary in the coal mine. There's a reason the ACLU defends the free speech rights of Neo-Nazis. Aaron Swartz is spinning in his grave.
-
Good for reddit, getting rid of the filth.
-
Good for reddit, getting rid of the filth.
If they really wanted to get rid of the filth, they'd go after SRS. Besides, CoonTown was essentially a containment board.
-
A privately owned company chose to purge horrible people off its service after they drove off the only woman keeping them there? Surely, free speech is dead!
-
A privately owned company chose to purge horrible people off its service after they drove off the only woman keeping them there? Surely, free speech is dead!
If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, then we don't believe in it at all.
And giving private companies the power to censor is really unwise.
-
Look, I'm the biggest advocate of free speech for the people we dislike. I'm all for a broad interpretation of the term as going beyond just what the government can do.
But not even I will say that free speech is impeded by failure to give a platform. Private companies always had the power to say "You can't use my service to say that", the only difference is that reddit built a reputation as the place where everyone had a platform.
Which is dangerous, because if you build the place where everyone can talk uncensored, you are going to disproportionately attract the sort of people that nobody else likes. Precisely because nobody else likes them. And now your platform is full of assholes and it gets the reputation as "the place with all the assholes" and you don't want that, because if you can go anywhere else, why would you go to the place with all the assholes?
I think places where everyone can say their piece, not matter how horrifying, are valuable. But being that place has heavy costs (which incidentally is why FQA is not one of them). Reddit has the right to not be that place.
-
Look, I'm the biggest advocate of free speech for the people we dislike. I'm all for a broad interpretation of the term as going beyond just what the government can do.
But not even I will say that free speech is impeded by failure to give a platform. Private companies always had the power to say "You can't use my service to say that", the only difference is that reddit built a reputation as the place where everyone had a platform.
Which is dangerous, because if you build the place where everyone can talk uncensored, you are going to disproportionately attract the sort of people that nobody else likes. Precisely because nobody else likes them. And now your platform is full of assholes and it gets the reputation as "the place with all the assholes" and you don't want that, because if you can go anywhere else, why would you go to the place with all the assholes?
I think places where everyone can say their piece, not matter how horrifying, are valuable. But being that place has heavy costs (which incidentally is why FQA is not one of them). Reddit has the right to not be that place.
But here's the question: where do you draw the line? I have zero sympathies for the racist assholes at CoonTown. I'm concerned because crackdowns on free speech never start with forms that are easy to defend. They gradually build up to them. If you'll remember, the Salem witch trials started with accusations against pariahs. After their initial success, they started going after pillars of the community. It may start with them banning racists, but where does it end? The exact wording they used was "subreddits that exist solely to annoy other redditors". Do you have any idea how much leeway that gives them?
Moreover, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Imagine there's a swing to the far right. Considering the resentment brewing against radflakes, it's entirely possible. Now, all of a sudden, those same weapons can be used to silence social justice advocates, feminists, and anybody calling for economic reform. This means there's pressure on Reddit to ban subreddits the new order dislikes. Even if Reddit refuses to be bullied, what's to stop them from just taking it over?
And yes, free speech is impeded if you don't have a platform. What good is the right to an attorney if you can't afford one? The freedom to speak your mind is meaningless if you're impeded from getting your voice out. Furthermore, in many cases, private entities don't do it because they made their own decisions. They did it because they were pressured, sometimes with the use of physical intimidation: see the cases of university debates that were shut down by hordes of angry protesters. Anyone who provides a free speech platform that allows voices to be heard by millions will be targeted and pressured into only allowing certain voices to be heard.
-
UP, I can sort of get behind what you're saying. However, would my right to say whatever I want trump Sigma's right to run the site the way he sees fit? Because that's what you're implying.
-
UP, I can sort of get behind what you're saying. However, would my right to say whatever I want trump Sigma's right to run the site the way he sees fit? Because that's what you're implying.
False equivalence. The problem with your comparison is that Reddit was intended to be
a) user-run
and
b) a bastion of free speech.
-
Yea, if you want to spout racist bile, you can just go to stormfront.
That being said I can see you being upset at the website going back on its words, although there's not much you can do about it. I never use reddit because it looks dumb
It's possible that keeping racist subforums would hurt them economically.
Also I think you're making a false equivalence/slippery slope fallacy. Racist rhetoric can inspire violence or other ways to break the law. Economic reform typically doesn't. And I probably won't shed a tear if the bile SJWs get censored in reddit as well.
-
Yea, if you want to spout racist bile, you can just go to stormfront.
That being said I can see you being upset at the website going back on its words, although there's not much you can do about it. I never use reddit because it looks dumb
It's possible that keeping racist subforums would hurt them economically.
Also I think you're making a false equivalence/slippery slope fallacy. Racist rhetoric can inspire violence or other ways to break the law. Economic reform typically doesn't. And I probably won't shed a tear if the bile SJWs get censored in reddit as well.
And now Reddit is banning BDSM-related subreddits (https://archive.is/U3P4l). You were saying?
-
UP: Correct me if I'm wrong and I don't want to bring up the thing that shall not be named, but didn't you support boycotting media outlets who published things you didn't like?
-
UP: Correct me if I'm wrong and I don't want to bring up the thing that shall not be named, but didn't you support boycotting media outlets who published things you didn't like?
It's because they were pushing agendas and publishing lies. Journalism needs to be held to different standards than entertainment and the like.
-
Long post, forgive me if I dissect it a bit.
But here's the question: where do you draw the line?
Me personally, or Reddit? I personally, qua administrator of FQA, draw the line at homophobia, transphobia, racism and sexism because I think making a safe space for that here would make it a pretty unpleasant place for the current users. (I draw other lines, like doxxing, for other reasons, but I guess you get the general meaning). In other places I draw the line elsewhere; in my personal blog, if I still used it, I would be happy to discuss pretty much anything, because I only have to worry about myself.
I have no idea where Reddit draws the line, presumably at the point where they think they can best balance attracting users with free speech and not repelling them with assholes.
I cannot draw the line for Reddit. I don't use it too much, and I don't know what they think the best niche to occupy is. I think it's a shame they can't be the ultimate free speech place they got a reputation for, even with all the assholes that attracted, but it's really not my decision to make in any way.
I have zero sympathies for the racist assholes at CoonTown. I'm concerned because crackdowns on free speech never start with forms that are easy to defend. They gradually build up to them.
I agree! Hell, I've made this speech before, you don't have to sell me on the "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels" line. It's not the moral character of coontown that concerns me.
It may start with them banning racists, but where does it end? The exact wording they used was "subreddits that exist solely to annoy other redditors". Do you have any idea how much leeway that gives them?
A fair amount, in the "banning subreddits" area. Almost none beyond.
The absolute worst case scenario is that Reddit bans every subreddit and stops existing. And that will be sad, but it's not a witch burning. There really isn't much a path from "your subreddit no longer exists" to "and now it is legal to burn you for witchcraft".
Moreover, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Imagine there's a swing to the far right. Considering the resentment brewing against radflakes, it's entirely possible. Now, all of a sudden, those same weapons can be used to silence social justice advocates, feminists, and anybody calling for economic reform. This means there's pressure on Reddit to ban subreddits the new order dislikes. Even if Reddit refuses to be bullied, what's to stop them from just taking it over?
Suppose you are right, and in fact this happens, Reddit is entirely opposed to social justice and feminism and adorable puppies. OK. What now? Does Tumblr cease to exist? Does Wordpress? Does nobody now have an incentive to just build their own website to fill the obvious vacuum left?
Before free speech collapses for lack of platforms you need to go way, waaaay beyond just Reddit.
And yes, free speech is impeded if you don't have a platform. What good is the right to an attorney if you can't afford one?
Free speech is impeded if you don't have any platform, not if you don't have one in particular. And right now access to a platform is quite literally at an all time high, and the trend isn't really slowing. There's a hell of a long way to fall before lack of platforms is a problem, this was the point I was making the last time this came up (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6590.msg272964#msg272964).
Furthermore, in many cases, private entities don't do it because they made their own decisions. They did it because they were pressured, sometimes with the use of physical intimidation: see the cases of university debates that were shut down by hordes of angry protesters. Anyone who provides a free speech platform that allows voices to be heard by millions will be targeted and pressured into only allowing certain voices to be heard.
Yes, this is a problem, or the beginning of one. But it's a problem of the overall culture, and while I don't know how to fix it, it's not by fighting over Coontown, because in the end Reddit has the right to deny service to whoever they like if it's more convenient to them, and that's not a right I want lost either*.
This is not a battle you can win on the object level, only on the meta level, if that makes any sense. Because you can't argue that any individual has the specific duty to provide the platform, even if everyone agrees that someone must. You have to establish a general culture of acceptance of weird, ridiculous, and horrifying ideas, so that you're sure that platforms will continue to exist.
And you have to focus on telling people force is absolutely the wrong way to go about this, which you'd think they would have gotten by now but evidently not.
*In the case of Reddit, that is. The right to deny service is more complicated if you are, say, a doctor.
-
The media you were talking about was entertainment media. Censoring Media seems much more of a problem than censoring entertainment. Besides which due to the internet and the fact that it is easier than ever in history to get a forum to spout your views, I don't think this is a problem. Its not like back before the printing press when you could literally wipe out an idea by destroying the book it was from. Or after when you could shut down a printer. The only way to actually deny free speech is with some serious effort, ala China.
-
The way I look at it, just because Reddit and private platforms have the right to censor things doesn't mean that it's a good idea that they do. IMO, the only time when censoring speech is necessary is when the speech itself is harmful (like that reddit that encouraged people to rape while giving them ways to get away with it). However, if the speech is just offensive, why ban it? Especially if it's a contained subreddit. It does not represent reddit as a whole and it's mere existence does not is not a threat to the welfare and liberty of others.
-
Sigma consider yourself liked.
-
Going back to the platform thing for a second. Feel free to correct me, but I don't remember seeing a right of platform. Street corners seemed to work for the wackos in my neighborhood. Also, I don't entrepreneurs seeing anything about that people have to listen. If you've got a shitty message and crappy presentation, then you're free to shoot to the heavens as people walk by. If anyone stops to laugh, then the rights that let you stand on the street corner spouting your particular brand of nonsense allows them to laugh at you. A private company, server, whatever the hell Reddit is, has no obligation to provide you a platform. And most businesses are not government. They're businesses. Citizens United aside, businesses exist solely to turn a profit. They make a product or provide a service and sell that. If having a blatantly racist subwhatever is going to hurt those profits, they're well within their rights to stop that. You'll have to show something more to convince me there's a freedom of speech issue here.
-
Look, I'm the biggest advocate of free speech for the people we dislike. I'm all for a broad interpretation of the term as going beyond just what the government can do.
But not even I will say that free speech is impeded by failure to give a platform. Private companies always had the power to say "You can't use my service to say that", the only difference is that reddit built a reputation as the place where everyone had a platform.
Which is dangerous, because if you build the place where everyone can talk uncensored, you are going to disproportionately attract the sort of people that nobody else likes. Precisely because nobody else likes them. And now your platform is full of assholes and it gets the reputation as "the place with all the assholes" and you don't want that, because if you can go anywhere else, why would you go to the place with all the assholes?
I think places where everyone can say their piece, not matter how horrifying, are valuable. But being that place has heavy costs (which incidentally is why FQA is not one of them). Reddit has the right to not be that place.
But here's the question: where do you draw the line? I have zero sympathies for the racist assholes at CoonTown. I'm concerned because crackdowns on free speech never start with forms that are easy to defend. They gradually build up to them. If you'll remember, the Salem witch trials started with accusations against pariahs. After their initial success, they started going after pillars of the community. It may start with them banning racists, but where does it end? The exact wording they used was "subreddits that exist solely to annoy other redditors". Do you have any idea how much leeway that gives them?
Moreover, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Imagine there's a swing to the far right. Considering the resentment brewing against radflakes, it's entirely possible. Now, all of a sudden, those same weapons can be used to silence social justice advocates, feminists, and anybody calling for economic reform. This means there's pressure on Reddit to ban subreddits the new order dislikes. Even if Reddit refuses to be bullied, what's to stop them from just taking it over?
And yes, free speech is impeded if you don't have a platform. What good is the right to an attorney if you can't afford one? The freedom to speak your mind is meaningless if you're impeded from getting your voice out. Furthermore, in many cases, private entities don't do it because they made their own decisions. They did it because they were pressured, sometimes with the use of physical intimidation: see the cases of university debates that were shut down by hordes of angry protesters. Anyone who provides a free speech platform that allows voices to be heard by millions will be targeted and pressured into only allowing certain voices to be heard.
I agree. That said, if hate speech explicitly promotes violence, it should be banned.....that whole "Don't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater" thing. However, if most of these sites were otherwise harmless then, yes, you have every right to be concerned.
That should be the criteria involving banning and censoring stuff in a free, open, democratic society, ban only in "Yelling FIRE" situations, otherwise, let let it be no matter how stupid or inflammatory it is.
-
Look, I'm the biggest advocate of free speech for the people we dislike. I'm all for a broad interpretation of the term as going beyond just what the government can do.
But not even I will say that free speech is impeded by failure to give a platform. Private companies always had the power to say "You can't use my service to say that", the only difference is that reddit built a reputation as the place where everyone had a platform.
Which is dangerous, because if you build the place where everyone can talk uncensored, you are going to disproportionately attract the sort of people that nobody else likes. Precisely because nobody else likes them. And now your platform is full of assholes and it gets the reputation as "the place with all the assholes" and you don't want that, because if you can go anywhere else, why would you go to the place with all the assholes?
I think places where everyone can say their piece, not matter how horrifying, are valuable. But being that place has heavy costs (which incidentally is why FQA is not one of them). Reddit has the right to not be that place.
But here's the question: where do you draw the line? I have zero sympathies for the racist assholes at CoonTown. I'm concerned because crackdowns on free speech never start with forms that are easy to defend. They gradually build up to them. If you'll remember, the Salem witch trials started with accusations against pariahs. After their initial success, they started going after pillars of the community. It may start with them banning racists, but where does it end? The exact wording they used was "subreddits that exist solely to annoy other redditors". Do you have any idea how much leeway that gives them?
Moreover, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Imagine there's a swing to the far right. Considering the resentment brewing against radflakes, it's entirely possible. Now, all of a sudden, those same weapons can be used to silence social justice advocates, feminists, and anybody calling for economic reform. This means there's pressure on Reddit to ban subreddits the new order dislikes. Even if Reddit refuses to be bullied, what's to stop them from just taking it over?
And yes, free speech is impeded if you don't have a platform. What good is the right to an attorney if you can't afford one? The freedom to speak your mind is meaningless if you're impeded from getting your voice out. Furthermore, in many cases, private entities don't do it because they made their own decisions. They did it because they were pressured, sometimes with the use of physical intimidation: see the cases of university debates that were shut down by hordes of angry protesters. Anyone who provides a free speech platform that allows voices to be heard by millions will be targeted and pressured into only allowing certain voices to be heard.
I agree. That said, if hate speech explicitly promotes violence, it should be banned.....that whole "Don't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater" thing. However, if most of these sites were otherwise harmless then, yes, you have every right to be concerned.
That should be the criteria involving banning and censoring stuff in a free, open, democratic society, ban only in "Yelling FIRE" situations, otherwise, let let it be no matter how stupid or inflammatory it is.
If someone came here and started using racial slurs, would I be wrong in banning them?
-
According to UP's logic, yes.
Ironbite-which is just not what free speech is about.
-
Although this isn't a free speech site. It is a site subject to the rules set - such as 'don't be a dick' and ' you must answer direct questions'
-
Although this isn't a free speech site. It is a site subject to the rules set - such as 'don't be a dick' and ' you must answer direct questions'
Exactly!
-
Going back to the platform thing for a second. Feel free to correct me, but I don't remember seeing a right of platform. Street corners seemed to work for the wackos in my neighborhood. Also, I don't entrepreneurs seeing anything about that people have to listen. If you've got a shitty message and crappy presentation, then you're free to shoot to the heavens as people walk by. If anyone stops to laugh, then the rights that let you stand on the street corner spouting your particular brand of nonsense allows them to laugh at you. A private company, server, whatever the hell Reddit is, has no obligation to provide you a platform. And most businesses are not government. They're businesses. Citizens United aside, businesses exist solely to turn a profit. They make a product or provide a service and sell that. If having a blatantly racist subwhatever is going to hurt those profits, they're well within their rights to stop that. You'll have to show something more to convince me there's a freedom of speech issue here.
Because Reddit was intended as a bastion of free speech. The fact you're a private entity doesn't matter if you're advertising yourself as an open forum for public discussions. If that's the case, it's your moral duty to facilitate that open discussion by protecting even speech you find detestable.
-
Going back to the platform thing for a second. Feel free to correct me, but I don't remember seeing a right of platform. Street corners seemed to work for the wackos in my neighborhood. Also, I don't entrepreneurs seeing anything about that people have to listen. If you've got a shitty message and crappy presentation, then you're free to shoot to the heavens as people walk by. If anyone stops to laugh, then the rights that let you stand on the street corner spouting your particular brand of nonsense allows them to laugh at you. A private company, server, whatever the hell Reddit is, has no obligation to provide you a platform. And most businesses are not government. They're businesses. Citizens United aside, businesses exist solely to turn a profit. They make a product or provide a service and sell that. If having a blatantly racist subwhatever is going to hurt those profits, they're well within their rights to stop that. You'll have to show something more to convince me there's a freedom of speech issue here.
Because Reddit was intended as a bastion of free speech. The fact you're a private entity doesn't matter if you're advertising yourself as an open forum for public discussions. If that's the case, it's your moral duty to facilitate that open discussion by protecting even speech you find detestable.
Um... well... therein lies the problem, UP. I won't do a quote breakdown, because it's a monumental pain in the ass. Instead, I'll just dissect it here and now.
Reddit as a 'bastion of free speech'? Funny, they've never said that. Ever.
Private entity that doesn't matter if advertising as an open forum for public discussion? um. Yes. Yes it does. They're a PRIVATE COMPANY, they have the right. Also, if that logic holds true, we should have to deal with every fucking troll and asshole that comes around here on FQA, rather than banhammering them like they deserve. Have fun with that.
Moral duty? ... Moral. Fucking. Duty. You SANCTIMONIOUS piece of shit! The fuck are you pulling THAT out of? they're an ONLINE COMMUNITY, no different than every other webgroup out there, and you think they have a MORAL DUTY?
Go away. Just... go away and come back when you've figured out where you went wrong in life.
-
Going back to the platform thing for a second. Feel free to correct me, but I don't remember seeing a right of platform. Street corners seemed to work for the wackos in my neighborhood. Also, I don't entrepreneurs seeing anything about that people have to listen. If you've got a shitty message and crappy presentation, then you're free to shoot to the heavens as people walk by. If anyone stops to laugh, then the rights that let you stand on the street corner spouting your particular brand of nonsense allows them to laugh at you. A private company, server, whatever the hell Reddit is, has no obligation to provide you a platform. And most businesses are not government. They're businesses. Citizens United aside, businesses exist solely to turn a profit. They make a product or provide a service and sell that. If having a blatantly racist subwhatever is going to hurt those profits, they're well within their rights to stop that. You'll have to show something more to convince me there's a freedom of speech issue here.
Because Reddit was intended as a bastion of free speech. The fact you're a private entity doesn't matter if you're advertising yourself as an open forum for public discussions. If that's the case, it's your moral duty to facilitate that open discussion by protecting even speech you find detestable.
Um... well... therein lies the problem, UP. I won't do a quote breakdown, because it's a monumental pain in the ass. Instead, I'll just dissect it here and now.
Reddit as a 'bastion of free speech'? Funny, they've never said that. Ever.
Except they have.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-co-founder-alexis-ohanians-rosy-outlook-on-the-future-of-politics/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-co-founder-alexis-ohanians-rosy-outlook-on-the-future-of-politics/)
A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet [the founding fathers] would like it.
Private entity that doesn't matter if advertising as an open forum for public discussion? um. Yes. Yes it does. They're a PRIVATE COMPANY, they have the right. Also, if that logic holds true, we should have to deal with every fucking troll and asshole that comes around here on FQA, rather than banhammering them like they deserve. Have fun with that.
Different scenario entirely. FQA doesn't claim to be a bastion of free speech. Besides, on Reddit it should be the responsibility of the subreddits to deal with those types.
Moral duty? ... Moral. Fucking. Duty. You SANCTIMONIOUS piece of shit! The fuck are you pulling THAT out of? they're an ONLINE COMMUNITY, no different than every other webgroup out there, and you think they have a MORAL DUTY?
Actually, they are different. For one, they're a lot bigger than most online communities. Therefore, along with other big networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, I'm going to hold them to high standards. Hell, I'm going to hold Reddit to higher standards because of its unique structure!
I believe that big social websites should give everybody the same access to infrastructure and audience, regardless of opinion. Because if they don't, everybody suffers.
Go away. Just... go away and come back when you've figured out where you went wrong in life.
Why are you so upset about this, man? I'm kinda concerned.
-
Although this isn't a free speech site. It is a site subject to the rules set - such as 'don't be a dick' and ' you must answer direct questions'
Exactly!
OK, so why am I allowed to enforce rules and not reddit? Is being a free-speech site something you can't opt out of?
-
Although this isn't a free speech site. It is a site subject to the rules set - such as 'don't be a dick' and ' you must answer direct questions'
Exactly!
OK, so why am I allowed to enforce rules and not reddit? Is being a free-speech site something you can't opt out of?
You can, but that doesn't mean you should. Especially not without consulting the userbase. See, Reddit's meant to be community driven, and as such, these mandates from on high are a betrayal of the users.
-
I think I see what the problem here is. Free speech is a construct of the government. It applies to protection from government and only from government. It means that (except for cases of inciting violence, putting people in danger, copyright infringement, and slander or liable) you can say any damn fool thing you want without being arrested or otherwise penalized by the government. Like I said, I think I see the problem. You seem to believe that free speech should be a bit broader. That we should be expecting the same treatments from private entities. That may be a discussion worth having. But as it stands now, anybody who was effected by the subreddit shutting down has not had their free speech rights violated in any way. No more than if a troll gets banhammered here.
-
Although this isn't a free speech site. It is a site subject to the rules set - such as 'don't be a dick' and ' you must answer direct questions'
Exactly!
OK, so why am I allowed to enforce rules and not reddit? Is being a free-speech site something you can't opt out of?
You can, but that doesn't mean you should. Especially not without consulting the userbase. See, Reddit's meant to be community driven, and as such, these mandates from on high are a betrayal of the users.
Ah, that's a different thing then. Not into Reddit culture so I can't comment on that, so I'll just say that betraying the users/going against the spirit of the site is not a general free speech issue.
If you problem is Reddit not being Reddit in the right way, sure, that's a perfectly valid thing to be upset about. But the framing of this thread, and correct me if I got the wrong impression, was "there is a general problem with free speech caused by Reddit banning certain subreddits". I disagree with that, on the grounds that reddit is not everything.
If what you meant was that there is a reduction of freedom of speech in Reddit, then yes. Speech is not as free as it could be, in Reddit. That's about all I can say on the subject, not being a regular reddit user. My views on localised free speech are much less strong than those about general free speech.
-
I think I see what the problem here is. Free speech is a construct of the government. It applies to protection from government and only from government. It means that (except for cases of inciting violence, putting people in danger, copyright infringement, and slander or liable) you can say any damn fool thing you want without being arrested or otherwise penalized by the government. Like I said, I think I see the problem. You seem to believe that free speech should be a bit broader. That we should be expecting the same treatments from private entities. That may be a discussion worth having. But as it stands now, anybody who was effected by the subreddit shutting down has not had their free speech rights violated in any way. No more than if a troll gets banhammered here.
False equivalence. They didn't ban an individual, they banned a community. A horribly racist community, but a community nevertheless. And their excuse for shutting it down was based on a rule so nebulously worded that you could apply it to just about anything. Moreover, without CoonTown to act as a containment board, I've been seeing more anti-black racism elsewhere. This means more drama, which in turn means the higher-ups have more excuses to shut down subreddits.
-
Invest heavily and join the board then. It's still a company that still looks after its bottom dollar first and foremost.
-
A privately owned company chose to purge horrible people off its service after they drove off the only woman keeping them there? Surely, free speech is dead!
If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, then we don't believe in it at all.
And giving private companies the power to censor is really unwise.
*sigh* Look. This is like someone saying, "I'll advertise my baby-sitting service!" That person is allowed to put up signs in places where soliciting isn't banned. But our prospective baby-sitter isn't given carte blanche to go around the nearest Wal-Mart, harassing shoppers and forcing fliers on them.
If you can access the Internet, you can express whatever views you like somewhere. But the owners of a private website are allowed to say "Please take this sort of thing elsewhere; we don't want it on our site." It's the exact same idea. We live in an age in which making your own website is trivial; not only are there numerous companies that will gladly take your money to host whatever bizarre website you want, there are even websites devoted entirely to white supremacy that those assholes could join. Nobody's shutting down Stormfront.
-
UP, I'm sorry. When I said to invest heavily in Reddit and that, I was at work and didn't have time to properly phrase a response. I'd like to do that now.
What we call free speech is indeed a construct of the government. As long as nobody was arrested for saying whatever it was, then free speech was not violated. So your issue, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with free speech as it currently stands. Your issue, again as far as I can tell, has to do with private platforms. If I'm correct, now we're in the same page and can have the discussion you were looking for. Am I correct in that thinking?
-
You might be disappointed that Reddit is no longer a bastion of unlimited free speech, but it is important to note that the standard to which you are holding it to, the U.S. constitution, has been modified, limited in scope, and outright backpedaled on, on numerous occasions.
-
UP, I'm sorry. When I said to invest heavily in Reddit and that, I was at work and didn't have time to properly phrase a response. I'd like to do that now.
What we call free speech is indeed a construct of the government. As long as nobody was arrested for saying whatever it was, then free speech was not violated. So your issue, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with free speech as it currently stands. Your issue, again as far as I can tell, has to do with private platforms. If I'm correct, now we're in the same page and can have the discussion you were looking for. Am I correct in that thinking?
You're right in your thinking, but wrong on your definition of free speech. It's not just the First Amendment.
You might be disappointed that Reddit is no longer a bastion of unlimited free speech, but it is important to note that the standard to which you are holding it to, the U.S. constitution, has been modified, limited in scope, and outright backpedaled on, on numerous occasions.
That's kind of an ironic thing to say, considering you're relying on an originalist definition. We have to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789. How much power did private entities have back then?
-
UP, I'm sorry. When I said to invest heavily in Reddit and that, I was at work and didn't have time to properly phrase a response. I'd like to do that now.
What we call free speech is indeed a construct of the government. As long as nobody was arrested for saying whatever it was, then free speech was not violated. So your issue, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with free speech as it currently stands. Your issue, again as far as I can tell, has to do with private platforms. If I'm correct, now we're in the same page and can have the discussion you were looking for. Am I correct in that thinking?
You're right in your thinking, but wrong on your definition of free speech. It's not just the First Amendment.
You might be disappointed that Reddit is no longer a bastion of unlimited free speech, but it is important to note that the standard to which you are holding it to, the U.S. constitution, has been modified, limited in scope, and outright backpedaled on, on numerous occasions.
That's kind of an ironic thing to say, considering you're relying on an originalist definition. We have to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789. How much power did private entities have back then?
I'm not sure I find it particularly ironic since Reddit came to the conclusion that their original idea needed some re-working in order to be able to deal with the realities of their current situation.
As for power of private entities then vs. now I suspect that at best it's a wash when you look at entities like the British East India company.
-
UP, I'm sorry. When I said to invest heavily in Reddit and that, I was at work and didn't have time to properly phrase a response. I'd like to do that now.
What we call free speech is indeed a construct of the government. As long as nobody was arrested for saying whatever it was, then free speech was not violated. So your issue, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with free speech as it currently stands. Your issue, again as far as I can tell, has to do with private platforms. If I'm correct, now we're in the same page and can have the discussion you were looking for. Am I correct in that thinking?
You're right in your thinking, but wrong on your definition of free speech. It's not just the First Amendment.
You might be disappointed that Reddit is no longer a bastion of unlimited free speech, but it is important to note that the standard to which you are holding it to, the U.S. constitution, has been modified, limited in scope, and outright backpedaled on, on numerous occasions.
That's kind of an ironic thing to say, considering you're relying on an originalist definition. We have to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789. How much power did private entities have back then?
I'm not sure I find it particularly ironic since Reddit came to the conclusion that their original idea needed some re-working in order to be able to deal with the realities of their current situation.
As for power of private entities then vs. now I suspect that at best it's a wash when you look at entities like the British East India company.
The British East India Company. I was talking about America. Maybe I should've been clearer.
-
UP, I'm sorry. When I said to invest heavily in Reddit and that, I was at work and didn't have time to properly phrase a response. I'd like to do that now.
What we call free speech is indeed a construct of the government. As long as nobody was arrested for saying whatever it was, then free speech was not violated. So your issue, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with free speech as it currently stands. Your issue, again as far as I can tell, has to do with private platforms. If I'm correct, now we're in the same page and can have the discussion you were looking for. Am I correct in that thinking?
You're right in your thinking, but wrong on your definition of free speech. It's not just the First Amendment.
You might be disappointed that Reddit is no longer a bastion of unlimited free speech, but it is important to note that the standard to which you are holding it to, the U.S. constitution, has been modified, limited in scope, and outright backpedaled on, on numerous occasions.
That's kind of an ironic thing to say, considering you're relying on an originalist definition. We have to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789. How much power did private entities have back then?
I'm not sure I find it particularly ironic since Reddit came to the conclusion that their original idea needed some re-working in order to be able to deal with the realities of their current situation.
As for power of private entities then vs. now I suspect that at best it's a wash when you look at entities like the British East India company.
The British East India Company. I was talking about America. Maybe I should've been clearer.
Well in that case take your pick of American resource barons littering the history books. The BEI is just a good example because it was one of the first and most successful. In addition, at the time Britain was the global power, and thus occupied position similar to that of the current U.S. -- albeit in broad terms.
-
I am not particularly concerned by the loss of a "quarantine" subreddit. If people are upset by the racists' presence, they can ban them from their reddits or just make it clear through group action they are not welcome.
I am not obligated to suffer the presence or speech of a racist.
-
UP, I'm sorry. When I said to invest heavily in Reddit and that, I was at work and didn't have time to properly phrase a response. I'd like to do that now.
What we call free speech is indeed a construct of the government. As long as nobody was arrested for saying whatever it was, then free speech was not violated. So your issue, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with free speech as it currently stands. Your issue, again as far as I can tell, has to do with private platforms. If I'm correct, now we're in the same page and can have the discussion you were looking for. Am I correct in that thinking?
You're right in your thinking, but wrong on your definition of free speech. It's not just the First Amendment.
You might be disappointed that Reddit is no longer a bastion of unlimited free speech, but it is important to note that the standard to which you are holding it to, the U.S. constitution, has been modified, limited in scope, and outright backpedaled on, on numerous occasions.
That's kind of an ironic thing to say, considering you're relying on an originalist definition. We have to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789. How much power did private entities have back then?
I'm not sure I find it particularly ironic since Reddit came to the conclusion that their original idea needed some re-working in order to be able to deal with the realities of their current situation.
As for power of private entities then vs. now I suspect that at best it's a wash when you look at entities like the British East India company.
The British East India Company. I was talking about America. Maybe I should've been clearer.
Well in that case take your pick of American resource barons littering the history books. The BEI is just a good example because it was one of the first and most successful. In addition, at the time Britain was the global power, and thus occupied position similar to that of the current U.S. -- albeit in broad terms.
American resource barons really only began to emerge in the 19th Century.
I am not particularly concerned by the loss of a "quarantine" subreddit. If people are upset by the racists' presence, they can ban them from their reddits or just make it clear through group action they are not welcome.
I am not obligated to suffer the presence or speech of a racist.
Well, I am, because I'm afraid it won't stop there.
And I never said you were.
-
Oh, oh, what is next? Will they come for the sexists?
Or is this a "you will be persecuted for being Christian" fantasy thing...
-
Oh, oh, what is next? Will they come for the sexists?
Or is this a "you will be persecuted for being Christian" fantasy thing...
I think he's afraid that Reddit will eventually ban anyone who disagrees with them, even if their opinion has nothing to do with prejudice against another segment of humanity.
IOW, the slope isn't quite as slippery as UP thinks it is.
-
Oh, oh, what is next? Will they come for the sexists?
Or is this a "you will be persecuted for being Christian" fantasy thing...
Considering a lot of the Reddit higher-ups have a rather loose and inconsistent definition of "hate sub", I'm not taking any chances.
-
If free speech isn't just a government thing, and it's clearly not a business thing, and it's not really a private thing but kinda is, what else is there? Where else are you finding a right of free speech?
-
American resource barons really only began to emerge in the 19th Century.
Given the age of the country that's really not all that surprising. ::)
I am not particularly concerned by the loss of a "quarantine" subreddit. If people are upset by the racists' presence, they can ban them from their reddits or just make it clear through group action they are not welcome.
I am not obligated to suffer the presence or speech of a racist.
Well, I am, because I'm afraid it won't stop there.
And I never said you were.
Am I to understand that that you feel it is okay for niam to do what he wants about racists (i.e. ban them) but it is not okay for the actual owner of the board? Or are you saying niam is free to take his business elsewhere if he wants but the racist gets to stay?
-
American resource barons really only began to emerge in the 19th Century.
Given the age of the country that's really not all that surprising. ::)
I am not particularly concerned by the loss of a "quarantine" subreddit. If people are upset by the racists' presence, they can ban them from their reddits or just make it clear through group action they are not welcome.
I am not obligated to suffer the presence or speech of a racist.
Well, I am, because I'm afraid it won't stop there.
And I never said you were.
Am I to understand that that you feel it is okay for niam to do what he wants about racists (i.e. ban them) but it is not okay for the actual owner of the board? Or are you saying niam is free to take his business elsewhere if he wants but the racist gets to stay?
Maybe I should've been clearer. What I mean is that you're free to downvote racists, make it clear they're not welcome, or ban them if you own the subreddit. My problem is with Reddit depriving them of their subreddits.
-
Ultimate Paragon, direct question. Where besides the government are you finding a right to free speech? You said it's not just a First Amendment thing. What other thing is it?
-
Ultimate Paragon, direct question. Where besides the government are you finding a right to free speech? You said it's not just a First Amendment thing. What other thing is it?
It's complicated, but part of it's the right for everybody to have more or less equal access to communication platforms and infrastructure, regardless of opinion.
-
Interesting. Please go on.
-
If free speech isn't just a government thing, and it's clearly not a business thing, and it's not really a private thing but kinda is, what else is there? Where else are you finding a right of free speech?
Time to recycle this post (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=5728.msg233468#msg233468)!
(relevant part below, edited slightly)
The legal right to freedom of speech (as seen in the first amendment) and the ethical principle of freedom of speech are different things.[...]
The legal right to freedom of speech varies by jurisdiction and changes over time. It speaks of what is in fact the law and not what the law should be. [...] It doesn't answer the question "Should people be punished for their opinions?", only "To what extent does the law allow me to punish people for their opinions"?
The ethical principle of freedom of speech, on the other hand, is the idea that we should allow people to freely express their opinions even when we don't like them, and that differences in opinion should be answered with discussion, not force (a somewhat ambiguous term, admittedly). The idea that we should allow speech we disagree with is a recognition of the fact that often in history, ideas we now recognise as good were thought to be disgusting or heretical or ridiculous, and by punishing those that voiced them rather than allowing them to speak freely we held our civilization back. At least, that's why I think it's important, I'm sure plenty of people find other reasons for it.
-
Interesting. Please go on.
The concept of "Free Speech" as an ideal has existed as far back as Ancient China and Greece, long before the U.S. Constitution was a thing. It's a basic human right and part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed and adopted by most democratic governments across the world:
Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
You know what countries didn't sign it at the time? Totalitarian countries, who obviously had the ulterior motives. As a rule, I suspect anybody who wants to restrict free speech (except in cases of actual, demonstrable harm) of having ulterior motives.
So what does this have to do with the Internet? It's fairly simple. Like it or not, big social networking websites are the successors to the town squares of yesteryear. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and the like are communication mechanisms of unprecedented power. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson could never have imagined being able to have instant communication with somebody living in Vietnam. Unfortunately, many of these sites are starting to show signs that they might start censoring.
A common refrain is that those concerned should take their business elsewhere. But the problem with this suggestion is that there isn't much choice. How many viable alternatives are there? Hardly any. It's not for lack of trying, either. Remember when Google tried to create their own social network? Remember how hardly anybody used it? That's because they had no incentive to use Google+, because everybody and their mother was already on Facebook. These companies have almost unprecedented power over communication. This is frankly unsettling, and why I think those who argue big social media platforms should be designated as "privately owned public spaces" have a point.
It's also disconcerting that we expect the free market to preserve freedom of speech. This is really dangerous. Do we expect the free market to preserve racial equality? To preserve worker safety? To preserve the environment? To preserve product quality? To preserve the accuracy of advertising?
Finally, those who argue that corporations should have the power to censor speech they don't like should beware of this being used against them. When free speech on the largest hubs of the Internet can be censored at the whim of a single CEO, everyone suffers.
-
Interesting. Please go on.
The concept of "Free Speech" as an ideal has existed as far back as Ancient China and Greece, long before the U.S. Constitution was a thing. It's a basic human right and part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed and adopted by most democratic governments across the world:
Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
You know what countries didn't sign it at the time? Totalitarian countries, who obviously had the ulterior motives. As a rule, I suspect anybody who wants to restrict free speech (except in cases of actual, demonstrable harm) of having ulterior motives.
So what does this have to do with the Internet? It's fairly simple. Like it or not, big social networking websites are the successors to the town squares of yesteryear. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and the like are communication mechanisms of unprecedented power. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson could never have imagined being able to have instant communication with somebody living in Vietnam. Unfortunately, many of these sites are starting to show signs that they might start censoring.
A common refrain is that those concerned should take their business elsewhere. But the problem with this suggestion is that there isn't much choice. How many viable alternatives are there? Hardly any. It's not for lack of trying, either. Remember when Google tried to create their own social network? Remember how hardly anybody used it? That's because they had no incentive to use Google+, because everybody and their mother was already on Facebook. These companies have almost unprecedented power over communication. This is frankly unsettling, and why I think those who argue big social media platforms should be designated as "privately owned public spaces" have a point.
It's also disconcerting that we expect the free market to preserve freedom of speech. This is really dangerous. Do we expect the free market to preserve racial equality? To preserve worker safety? To preserve the environment? To preserve product quality? To preserve the accuracy of advertising?
Finally, those who argue that corporations should have the power to censor speech they don't like should beware of this being used against them. When free speech on the largest hubs of the Internet can be censored at the whim of a single CEO, everyone suffers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't land owners able to kick people out for any or no reason?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't land owners able to kick people out for any or no reason?
Private property vs. public business.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't land owners able to kick people out for any or no reason?
Private property vs. public business.
Even public businesses can set up arbitrary rules as long as they don't step on a protected class. No shoes, no shirt, no service, for example.
As a more obvious censorship example: the school I go to has (physical) bulletin boards that students can put notices on, but they have to go through admin first. Admin can refuse to post it for any number of reasons. How is that different from Facebook, or is it also unacceptable censorship?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't land owners able to kick people out for any or no reason?
Private property vs. public business.
Even public businesses can set up arbitrary rules as long as they don't step on a protected class. No shoes, no shirt, no service, for example.
As a more obvious censorship example: the school I go to has (physical) bulletin boards that students can put notices on, but they have to go through admin first. Admin can refuse to post it for any number of reasons. How is that different from Facebook, or is it also unacceptable censorship?
Well, one would expect a school to have higher standards of conduct than a social networking site.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't land owners able to kick people out for any or no reason?
Private property vs. public business.
Even public businesses can set up arbitrary rules as long as they don't step on a protected class. No shoes, no shirt, no service, for example.
As a more obvious censorship example: the school I go to has (physical) bulletin boards that students can put notices on, but they have to go through admin first. Admin can refuse to post it for any number of reasons. How is that different from Facebook, or is it also unacceptable censorship?
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I was thinking of personal private property and the fact that you don't have to put up with anyone the moment you decide you don't want to (albeit with certain exceptions concerning public officials and co-owners/dependent family).
What you're think of is a bit different in that you can run afoul of protected classes which to my understanding is something you cannot do in your personal residence. You can tell the cops "this _____ refuses to leave" and the cops will charge that person with trespass regardless of how big an asshole you are.
Well, one would expect a school to have higher standards of conduct than a social networking site.
I don't know if this was a well constructed trap or if you just turned it into one, but why can't a social networking site aspire to higher standards? If it's okay for a school, it has to be okay for a website. A school is subject to far more legal restrictions on what it can and cannot do than any cyberspace hangout. On top of that finding a new school can be time consuming and difficult at best or very expensive to impossible at worst. Finding a new online venue where you can chat about whatever you want is trivially easy and actually creating your own venue to do so is not much more difficult.
-
Well, one would expect a school to have higher standards of conduct than a social networking site.
I don't know if this was a well constructed trap or if you just turned it into one, but why can't a social networking site aspire to higher standards? If it's okay for a school, it has to be okay for a website. A school is subject to far more legal restrictions on what it can and cannot do than any cyberspace hangout. On top of that finding a new school can be time consuming and difficult at best or very expensive to impossible at worst. Finding a new online venue where you can chat about whatever you want is trivially easy and actually creating your own venue to do so is not much more difficult.
Because most of the social networking sites are de facto monopolies. Very few people have an incentive to switch to a new, untested alternative that doesn't have many users. As for existing "big name" alternatives, comparing Twitter to Facebook is like comparing Coca-Cola to Budweiser- their products are actually very different.
Also, a social networking site is not a school. It's not an environment focused on learning necessary skills for life. It's a place where you go to chat with friends and make new ones. Except in cases of provable harassment, distributing child pornography, and other criminal activities, I don't think there should be restrictions to what you can say on social networking sites, provided one uses the correct filters for potentially inappropriate content.
-
Well, one would expect a school to have higher standards of conduct than a social networking site.
I don't know if this was a well constructed trap or if you just turned it into one, but why can't a social networking site aspire to higher standards? If it's okay for a school, it has to be okay for a website. A school is subject to far more legal restrictions on what it can and cannot do than any cyberspace hangout. On top of that finding a new school can be time consuming and difficult at best or very expensive to impossible at worst. Finding a new online venue where you can chat about whatever you want is trivially easy and actually creating your own venue to do so is not much more difficult.
Because most of the social networking sites are de facto monopolies. Very few people have an incentive to switch to a new, untested alternative that doesn't have many users. As for existing "big name" alternatives, comparing Twitter to Facebook is like comparing Coca-Cola to Budweiser- their products are actually very different.
Also, a social networking site is not a school. It's not an environment focused on learning necessary skills for life. It's a place where you go to chat with friends and make new ones. Except in cases of provable harassment, distributing child pornography, and other criminal activities, I don't think there should be restrictions to what you can say on social networking sites, provided one uses the correct filters for potentially inappropriate content.
As I recall, you are not guaranteed an audience so the fact that you can't find a "big venue" is not really a concern since you can still find or make a venue. Everybody and every business in my town would tell you to get the fuck off their property if you stood on their lawn and started preaching hate. You are more than welcome to stand on the sidewalk and do that though.
You have no right to be telling the private businesses and homeowners dotting the sides of the highways and byways of of the internet what they can and can't do on their own turf. It's the guys who are in charge of those nominally public highways and byways are the ones you need to concern yourself with. Twitter and Facebook aren't those guys.
Basically I think your objective is good (free speech) but your focus is wrong. Who controls the pipeline? Keep them honest.
-
Because most of the social networking sites are de facto monopolies. Very few people have an incentive to switch to a new, untested alternative that doesn't have many users. As for existing "big name" alternatives, comparing Twitter to Facebook is like comparing Coca-Cola to Budweiser- their products are actually very different.
And a publicly funded school is a de jure monopoly. And, between students living on campus, the obvious choice of venue.
Also, a social networking site is not a school. It's not an environment focused on learning necessary skills for life. It's a place where you go to chat with friends and make new ones. Except in cases of provable harassment, distributing child pornography, and other criminal activities, I don't think there should be restrictions to what you can say on social networking sites, provided one uses the correct filters for potentially inappropriate content.
What Canadian Mojo said.