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.
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.