A PRIVATELY RUN COMPANY DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PRIVATELY RUN FORUMS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You don't have to be a government to have "Freedom of Speech" as a core value. This is one of the things that has always made Reddit great, that people can say what they like, and yes there will be filth, but many people wouldn't have it any other way.
If you just have robots patrolling forums and reading every word you say waiting for you to slip up or raise a ruckus so they can throw you in a forum jail, things get a little dystopian.
Then why are you here? Cause this "dystopia" you describe is this place. Cause this forum will 100% ban your ass at a moments notice for being a shitlord and without a single regret. Tube literally talks about this frequently in the thread where everyone got to ask him questions. Calling this forum dystopian is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
I have no opinion on reddit, but I think everyone understand that private forums are not obligated to respect freedom of speech, but that some do still try to, and some don't. There's really no need to explain that a private corporation can refuse to provide a forum for whatever they want. Everyone gets it.
A PRIVATELY RUN COMPANY DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PRIVATELY RUN FORUMS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You don't have to be a government to have "Freedom of Speech" as a core value. This is one of the things that has always made Reddit great, that people can say what they like, and yes there will be filth, but many people wouldn't have it any other way.
If you just have robots patrolling forums and reading every word you say waiting for you to slip up or raise a ruckus so they can throw you in a forum jail, things get a little dystopian.
Then why are you here? Cause this "dystopia" you describe is this place. Cause this forum will 100% ban your ass at a moments notice for being a shitlord and without a single regret. Tube literally talks about this frequently in the thread where everyone got to ask him questions. Calling this forum dystopian is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
If that's dystopian in your mind, then every society ever is. Even Reddit is, since they will just downvote your speech into oblivion where it will never be seen. It happened to Pao after all.
Or, maybe, this definition of dystopian is so broad as to be meaningless.
A PRIVATELY RUN COMPANY DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PRIVATELY RUN FORUMS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You don't have to be a government to have "Freedom of Speech" as a core value. This is one of the things that has always made Reddit great, that people can say what they like, and yes there will be filth, but many people wouldn't have it any other way.
If you just have robots patrolling forums and reading every word you say waiting for you to slip up or raise a ruckus so they can throw you in a forum jail, things get a little dystopian.
Then why are you here? Cause this "dystopia" you describe is this place. Cause this forum will 100% ban your ass at a moments notice for being a shitlord and without a single regret. Tube literally talks about this frequently in the thread where everyone got to ask him questions. Calling this forum dystopian is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
People aren't banned for no reason. They're banned for breaking rule #1 habitually. The whole "Don't be a dick" rule.
If that's dystopian, expecting people to not be a dick to one another, then sign me up.
No I don't.
+47
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
A PRIVATELY RUN COMPANY DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PRIVATELY RUN FORUMS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You don't have to be a government to have "Freedom of Speech" as a core value. This is one of the things that has always made Reddit great, that people can say what they like, and yes there will be filth, but many people wouldn't have it any other way.
If you just have robots patrolling forums and reading every word you say waiting for you to slip up or raise a ruckus so they can throw you in a forum jail, things get a little dystopian.
Then why are you here? Cause this "dystopia" you describe is this place. Cause this forum will 100% ban your ass at a moments notice for being a shitlord and without a single regret. Tube literally talks about this frequently in the thread where everyone got to ask him questions. Calling this forum dystopian is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
If that's dystopian in your mind, then every society ever is. Even Reddit is, since they will just downvote your speech into oblivion where it will never be seen. It happened to Pao after all.
Or, maybe, this definition of dystopian is so broad as to be meaningless.
A dystopia (from the Greek δυσ-and τόπος, alternatively, cacotopia, kakotopia, or simply anti-utopia) is an imaginary community or society that is undesirable or frightening. It is literally translated as "not-good place", an antonym of utopia.
To a good many number of people, these forums are a "not-good place" I guess.
Khavall on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Automatically believing any feminist or minority cause must be right and anyone who attacks it is evil is an incredibly dangerous road to go down.
This is actually what makes it so easy for a minority to abuse their position as a minority for personal gain. Anyone who denies that is naive.
Boy it's a good thing no member of a majority group has ever done that. Oh wait. It's what they've been doing since the dawn of time.
I don't see your point.
You're criticizing the hypothetical situation of a minority using their status for personal gain. I was pointing out that if they were to indeed do such a thing it is no worse than if a majority person does it.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It's almost as if anytime an actual minority group begins to speak out against their treatment by the (mostly white and male) power structure, they get attacked by rabid defenders of that power structure.
So you're saying that no minority would ever exploit their position as a minority for their own personal gain? Right.
And because one might do it then all of them do it all the time?Right.
But let's stop with the silliness shall we?
I have heard several posters now say Pao was a bad CEO and on a SJW crusade to the detriment of the company. Can someone please provide proof of her SJW crusade and how it hurt the company? The latter preferably with numbers.
A PRIVATELY RUN COMPANY DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PRIVATELY RUN FORUMS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You don't have to be a government to have "Freedom of Speech" as a core value. This is one of the things that has always made Reddit great, that people can say what they like, and yes there will be filth, but many people wouldn't have it any other way.
If you just have robots patrolling forums and reading every word you say waiting for you to slip up or raise a ruckus so they can throw you in a forum jail, things get a little dystopian.
Then why are you here? Cause this "dystopia" you describe is this place. Cause this forum will 100% ban your ass at a moments notice for being a shitlord and without a single regret. Tube literally talks about this frequently in the thread where everyone got to ask him questions. Calling this forum dystopian is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
If that's dystopian in your mind, then every society ever is. Even Reddit is, since they will just downvote your speech into oblivion where it will never be seen. It happened to Pao after all.
Or, maybe, this definition of dystopian is so broad as to be meaningless.
The only way actual society outside the internet could ever become as dystopian as message boards or reddit is if we transition to the Black Mirror Christmas episode. When you're talking to people in a bar, you see them and hear them and know who they are. You might hate their opinion but there's at least a human connection there. I can't think of any real world comparison to what message boards are, really.
Butcher on
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
So, why did they want to fire Victoria Taylor, anyway?
From what I read, she was opposed to some of the ways they wanted to monetize AMA.
What, like pay to ask questions? Maybe Pao got fired for being greedy and a bad CEO, maybe she got fired for opposing the bean counters and MBAs, but trying to monetize the AMA stuff is another one of those terrible ideas that sounds good only in business school- the whole reason people go to those threads is because they're free! If you try to charge for it they'll just move to the competition, which is Twitter.
If 'Chairman Pao' (as many redditors called her, hey look, casual racism!) was a SJW, she wasn't a very good one. While /fatpeoplehate was shut down, many other fat phobic subreddits remained up. Why? Possibly because while they made fun of obese people, the didn't doxx their targets or harass people who thought they were going too far. /redpill is also still up, as are various subreddits that no SJW would allow. So, I'm not buying the whole argument that Pao was turning it into Tumblr.
Automatically believing any feminist or minority cause must be right and anyone who attacks it is evil is an incredibly dangerous road to go down.
This is actually what makes it so easy for a minority to abuse their position as a minority for personal gain. Anyone who denies that is naive.
Boy it's a good thing no member of a majority group has ever done that. Oh wait. It's what they've been doing since the dawn of time.
I don't see your point.
You're criticizing the hypothetical situation of a minority using their status for personal gain. I was pointing out that if they were to indeed do such a thing it is no worse than if a majority person does it.
It's probably worse, because it's easier to identify when a majority person is abusing their status and do something about it.
If I'm to believe Hedgie's first link in the last paragraph of the OP, Reddit's implosion was always a matter of when, not if. I made an account years ago because of word of mouth, and literally within minutes of looking on the front page realized I could never willingly associate myself with that community.
I mean, there's a limit to how big you can get before you have to make some serious decisions about what kind of content provider you're going to be. The very forum we call home was once considerably more lax in its policies, but it couldn't exist if there wasn't a way to keep out the people who just want to watch the world burn.
So while I can empathize with people who feel like their former safe zone is now throwing them out on their asses, they were always squatters to begin with. And I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion that we as a society can survive without r/picsofdeadkids, r/rapingwomen, and r/hurtinganimals.
And while I can understand that the former CEO Ellen Pao was at best naive and at worst completely fucking oblivious, the problems with the site seem to run much deeper. They created a monster and never implemented, nor even considered a plan for keeping it under their control. And, well, the outcome is nothing if not predictable.
So even if part of their original mission was to create a "bastion of free speech," the people in charge have every right to change their minds. The problem, naturally, is that the inmates are running the asylum at this point. Maybe the only possible conclusion is to let it burn itself out and see if something sustainable can grow from the ashes.
+5
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Oh no those insidious minorities
They're trying to destroy us from within
Whatever shall we do
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+29
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
It's probably worse, because it's easier to identify when a majority person is abusing their status and do something about it.
A minority can play their cards more insidiously.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's more like you can't call them out on it (if you're a member of the majority) because they'll go "I'm X. How dare you accuse me of Y!" and then you look like a dick, even if you're in the right.
It reaaaaallly doesn't happen that often though, and certainly not enough to think that every member of a minority with a complaint is faking it for personal gain. Let's Occam's Razor this Reddit thing-
option 1- Pao is engaging in a somewhat-convoluted plan to get fired so she can sue for a discrimination lawsuit
option 2- Pao got fired for not doing what the MBA's wanted her to do
It's almost as if anytime an actual minority group begins to speak out against their treatment by the (mostly white and male) power structure, they get attacked by rabid defenders of that power structure.
So you're saying that no minority would ever exploit their position as a minority for their own personal gain? Right.
And because one might do it then all of them do it all the time?Right.
But let's stop with the silliness shall we?
I have heard several posters now say Pao was a bad CEO and on a SJW crusade to the detriment of the company. Can someone please provide proof of her SJW crusade and how it hurt the company? The latter preferably with numbers.
Seriously, can anyone claiming this shit provide some actual proof of any of it?
How was Pao a bad CEO?
How was she an "SJW Crusader"?
It's almost as if anytime an actual minority group begins to speak out against their treatment by the (mostly white and male) power structure, they get attacked by rabid defenders of that power structure.
So you're saying that no minority would ever exploit their position as a minority for their own personal gain? Right.
And because one might do it then all of them do it all the time?Right.
But let's stop with the silliness shall we?
I have heard several posters now say Pao was a bad CEO and on a SJW crusade to the detriment of the company. Can someone please provide proof of her SJW crusade and how it hurt the company? The latter preferably with numbers.
Seriously, can anyone claiming this shit provide some actual proof of any of it?
How was Pao a bad CEO?
How was she an "SJW Crusader"?
Short answer: No.
There is no long answer.
No I don't.
+12
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
All Reddit has taught me is that freedom of speech is not valuable beyond the freedom to say about 10 percent more on the internet than elsewhere. After that? Meh, bring on the social opprobrium for any anonymous hater or harasser gets exposed, and delete as many comments sections as possible. I don't care because so much of what is written is an attack on my entire species.
I barely value the anonymity even. Let's have a bunch of 60-year old politicians dictate who gets punished or investigated for speech they thought was made incognito. They won't do a worse job than the weak racism-subsidizers that run places like Reddit (they are giving a completely racist subreddit server space without running ads on it).
I just can't imagine worse than gibberguff, Breitbart or the redpillers.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Automatically believing any feminist or minority cause must be right and anyone who attacks it is evil is an incredibly dangerous road to go down.
This is actually what makes it so easy for a minority to abuse their position as a minority for personal gain. Anyone who denies that is naive.
Boy it's a good thing no member of a majority group has ever done that. Oh wait. It's what they've been doing since the dawn of time.
I don't see your point.
You're criticizing the hypothetical situation of a minority using their status for personal gain. I was pointing out that if they were to indeed do such a thing it is no worse than if a majority person does it.
It's probably worse, because it's easier to identify when a majority person is abusing their status and do something about it.
Automatically believing any feminist or minority cause must be right and anyone who attacks it is evil is an incredibly dangerous road to go down.
This is actually what makes it so easy for a minority to abuse their position as a minority for personal gain. Anyone who denies that is naive.
Boy it's a good thing no member of a majority group has ever done that. Oh wait. It's what they've been doing since the dawn of time.
I don't see your point.
You're criticizing the hypothetical situation of a minority using their status for personal gain. I was pointing out that if they were to indeed do such a thing it is no worse than if a majority person does it.
It's probably worse, because it's easier to identify when a majority person is abusing their status and do something about it.
A minority can play their cards more insidiously.
That doesn't seem true.
That's what makes it so insidious!
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+22
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
+15
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Lots of subjects bring maniacs and plain, less harmful dingbats together. Like Gabbergoof, or free speech-issues. Both naive, censorship-fearing libertarians and legit evil people defend having as many forums for hateful speech as possible. The latter makes good use of dogwhistles, gray areas, controversy-teaching and appeals to liberalism to keep the former allayed and smug.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
I think it's true that bigots will try to lump you into their cause to give their bigotry a veneer of legitimacy, but bigotry is about lying about shit in the first place.
Ellen's job was to grow Reddit, instead she was more interested in her "social justice" campaigns instead of actually improving the company. She was criticized for closing down subreddits arbitrarily and threatened the freedom of speech that people come to Reddit for. She demonstrated no clear plan or direction as would be expected of any CEO running a huge company.
This wasn't the first time Reddit has shut down subreddits that could potentially make it look bad in the public eye. I'd wager the decision had virtually nothing to do with any concept of "social justice".
Moreover. If reddit wants to grow and actually make money (you know Ellen Paos job) then they have to shut down reddits that make advertisers not want to be a part.
So Ellen's job then was, more or less, explicitly to shut those places down and it was prior CEOs who failed to step in or set up the kind of structure which would stop those aspects which were the bad CEOs. Not one of them made money. Yet we expect Ellen Pao to magically do so without making changes?
It's looking more and more that Pao was set up to fail so that the original Reddit owners could take control. Any CEO that takes significant amount of heat will essentially have to step down. They can't do their job once a they've been so publicay compromised. That Reddit leadership has acted essentially against her and to set her as the scapegoat is. The Victoria firing makes this even more clear.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Yup. Also the same logic that dismisses all religion because you "can't pick and choose", which has always been funny to me since life itself is essentially picking and choosing what you believe and who you want to be.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
If 'Chairman Pao' (as many redditors called her, hey look, casual racism!) was a SJW, she wasn't a very good one. While /fatpeoplehate was shut down, many other fat phobic subreddits remained up. Why? Possibly because while they made fun of obese people, the didn't doxx their targets or harass people who thought they were going too far. /redpill is also still up, as are various subreddits that no SJW would allow. So, I'm not buying the whole argument that Pao was turning it into Tumblr.
The comments by former CEO Yishan Wong (/u/yishan) are a great read.
Particularly relevant to this post (emphasis mine):
Ellen was more or less inclined to continue upholding my free-speech policies. /r/fatpeoplehate was banned for inciting off-site harassment, not discussing fat-shaming. What all the white-power racist-sexist neckbeards don't understand is that with her at the head of the company, the company would be immune to accusations of promoting sexism and racism: she is literally Silicon Valley's #1 Feminist Hero, so any "SJWs" would have a hard time attacking the company for intentionally creating a bastion (heh) of sexist/racist content. She probably would have tolerated your existence so long as you didn't cause any problems - I know that her long-term strategies were to find ways to surface and publicize reddit's good parts - allowing the bad parts to exist but keeping them out of the spotlight.
Also:
Well, when things were heating around the /r/creepshots thing and people were calling for its banning, I wrote to him (/u/spez, founder Steve Hoffman, now back in the CEO seat) to ask for advice. The very interesting thing he wrote back was "back when I was running things, if there was anything racist, sexist, or homophobic I'd ban it right away. I don't think there's a place for such things on reddit.
Well guess what. Now that Steve Hoffman is back in the driver's seat, he's clamping down on that shit. The whole irony here is that despite the crying of the fedoras, Pao was relatively uninterested in fighting SJW battles with Redditors.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
Anything to back up that they were a "large" percentage?
A PRIVATELY RUN COMPANY DECIDING WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PRIVATELY RUN FORUMS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You don't have to be a government to have "Freedom of Speech" as a core value. This is one of the things that has always made Reddit great, that people can say what they like, and yes there will be filth, but many people wouldn't have it any other way.
If you just have robots patrolling forums and reading every word you say waiting for you to slip up or raise a ruckus so they can throw you in a forum jail, things get a little dystopian.
Then why are you here? Cause this "dystopia" you describe is this place. Cause this forum will 100% ban your ass at a moments notice for being a shitlord and without a single regret. Tube literally talks about this frequently in the thread where everyone got to ask him questions. Calling this forum dystopian is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
People aren't banned for no reason. They're banned for breaking rule #1 habitually. The whole "Don't be a dick" rule.
If that's dystopian, expecting people to not be a dick to one another, then sign me up.
At no point will anyone ever convince me that banning Casket made the rest of us the real monsters.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
Anything to back up that they were a "large" percentage?
I don't know, the fact that you were seeing things like r/all routinely fill up with all sorts of bigoted memes targeting her?
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
There's also the fact that most feminists would point out that while this individual is being hyperbolic to some degree, the core point she makes - that unwanted photographs are a violation of the privacy of the individual being photographed - is a valid one.
A better example would be to point out that feminism does, in fact, have bigots in the ranks. One big group of such are transgender exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). But even this doesn't work, because as transgender rights have become more prominent, feminism as a whole has been openly rejecting TERFs.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
Anything to back up that they were a "large" percentage?
I don't know, the fact that you were seeing things like r/all routinely fill up with all sorts of bigoted memes targeting her?
And because of how reddit works, you can even track all those sweet upvotes to help show it's popularity compared to alternative modes of expression.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
How, in the context of this particular quote tree, would Butcher and those that hit agree with the post at the top have "put distance" between themselves and the bigots beyond noting that there were valid complaints other than biogtry? Because that seems to me to be a perfectly coherent expression of disunity.
That's why reddit has entire subreddits dedicated to racism, bigotry and other assorted unambiguously horrible shit. This is not something to be proud of.
Pride has nothing to do with it. You can say the same thing about the internet itself.
Shit is a thing that exists, and always will; so we should go back to having the streets flow with it, like the "good old days" before certain oversensitive busybodies got on their ridiculous "sanitation" crusade.
The people who disliked Pao weren't just racists and misoginysts, you know. There were plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike her.
And yet threads about her were routinely filled with racist and misogynist comments and memes. Not to mention that Ohanian has not been subjected to the same sort of abuse even though it has come to light that he was responsible for Taylor's firing.
At a certain point, even if you yourself have legitimate grievances, you need to realize you're giving cover to bigots.
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
Anything to back up that they were a "large" percentage?
I don't know, the fact that you were seeing things like r/all routinely fill up with all sorts of bigoted memes targeting her?
And because of how reddit works, you can even track all those sweet upvotes to help show it's popularity compared to alternative modes of expression.
Again, for a good while, the highest rated comment on the announcement of Pao's resignation was a reference to domestic violence made by an individual (who, as it turned out, was an admin on that subreddit that must not be named) using a alias referencing the terrorist who shot 9 people dead in a Charlestown church in order to provoke racial violence.
Posts
Boy it's a good thing no member of a majority group has ever done that. Oh wait. It's what they've been doing since the dawn of time.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It's not ridiculous. It is dystopian. People post here presumably because they enjoy the kind of environment the system of rules has put in place. You have discussions with people you don't know anything about, who can get banned (as you said) at a moments notice, and then you'll never read anything they post ever again. This board offers a lot of positives, but don't pretend there's not some very inhuman aspects to it.
If that's dystopian in your mind, then every society ever is. Even Reddit is, since they will just downvote your speech into oblivion where it will never be seen. It happened to Pao after all.
Or, maybe, this definition of dystopian is so broad as to be meaningless.
People aren't banned for no reason. They're banned for breaking rule #1 habitually. The whole "Don't be a dick" rule.
If that's dystopian, expecting people to not be a dick to one another, then sign me up.
I don't see your point.
I mean technically.....
To a good many number of people, these forums are a "not-good place" I guess.
You're criticizing the hypothetical situation of a minority using their status for personal gain. I was pointing out that if they were to indeed do such a thing it is no worse than if a majority person does it.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
And because one might do it then all of them do it all the time?Right.
But let's stop with the silliness shall we?
I have heard several posters now say Pao was a bad CEO and on a SJW crusade to the detriment of the company. Can someone please provide proof of her SJW crusade and how it hurt the company? The latter preferably with numbers.
The only way actual society outside the internet could ever become as dystopian as message boards or reddit is if we transition to the Black Mirror Christmas episode. When you're talking to people in a bar, you see them and hear them and know who they are. You might hate their opinion but there's at least a human connection there. I can't think of any real world comparison to what message boards are, really.
Because it's true. Civil rights is great, but there's a world of difference between those two clowns and Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example.
What, like pay to ask questions? Maybe Pao got fired for being greedy and a bad CEO, maybe she got fired for opposing the bean counters and MBAs, but trying to monetize the AMA stuff is another one of those terrible ideas that sounds good only in business school- the whole reason people go to those threads is because they're free! If you try to charge for it they'll just move to the competition, which is Twitter.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
It's probably worse, because it's easier to identify when a majority person is abusing their status and do something about it.
A minority can play their cards more insidiously.
I mean, there's a limit to how big you can get before you have to make some serious decisions about what kind of content provider you're going to be. The very forum we call home was once considerably more lax in its policies, but it couldn't exist if there wasn't a way to keep out the people who just want to watch the world burn.
So while I can empathize with people who feel like their former safe zone is now throwing them out on their asses, they were always squatters to begin with. And I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion that we as a society can survive without r/picsofdeadkids, r/rapingwomen, and r/hurtinganimals.
And while I can understand that the former CEO Ellen Pao was at best naive and at worst completely fucking oblivious, the problems with the site seem to run much deeper. They created a monster and never implemented, nor even considered a plan for keeping it under their control. And, well, the outcome is nothing if not predictable.
So even if part of their original mission was to create a "bastion of free speech," the people in charge have every right to change their minds. The problem, naturally, is that the inmates are running the asylum at this point. Maybe the only possible conclusion is to let it burn itself out and see if something sustainable can grow from the ashes.
They're trying to destroy us from within
Whatever shall we do
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It reaaaaallly doesn't happen that often though, and certainly not enough to think that every member of a minority with a complaint is faking it for personal gain. Let's Occam's Razor this Reddit thing-
option 1- Pao is engaging in a somewhat-convoluted plan to get fired so she can sue for a discrimination lawsuit
option 2- Pao got fired for not doing what the MBA's wanted her to do
To me, option 2 sounds more plausible.
Seriously, can anyone claiming this shit provide some actual proof of any of it?
How was Pao a bad CEO?
How was she an "SJW Crusader"?
Short answer: No.
There is no long answer.
I barely value the anonymity even. Let's have a bunch of 60-year old politicians dictate who gets punished or investigated for speech they thought was made incognito. They won't do a worse job than the weak racism-subsidizers that run places like Reddit (they are giving a completely racist subreddit server space without running ads on it).
I just can't imagine worse than gibberguff, Breitbart or the redpillers.
That doesn't seem true.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
That's what makes it so insidious!
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
This logic goes to places uncomfortable for basically everyone regardless of political affiliation or attitude toward issues of social justice. I would suggest that it is born of unsound premises.
Moreover. If reddit wants to grow and actually make money (you know Ellen Paos job) then they have to shut down reddits that make advertisers not want to be a part.
So Ellen's job then was, more or less, explicitly to shut those places down and it was prior CEOs who failed to step in or set up the kind of structure which would stop those aspects which were the bad CEOs. Not one of them made money. Yet we expect Ellen Pao to magically do so without making changes?
It's looking more and more that Pao was set up to fail so that the original Reddit owners could take control. Any CEO that takes significant amount of heat will essentially have to step down. They can't do their job once a they've been so publicay compromised. That Reddit leadership has acted essentially against her and to set her as the scapegoat is. The Victoria firing makes this even more clear.
There is a gawker post about one of the ousted discussing it: http://gawker.com/did-reddits-former-ceo-just-reveal-a-long-con-plan-to-1717334704
Aside: we literally have a "glorious edict" here and it makes this place kind of wonderful.
Yup this is why you can only play them with your friends.
The problem with this logic is that it's the exact logic that "we" used against GamerGate and it's the same logic that MRAs use against Feminists.
It's the "You need to embrace the most radical parts of your movement or distance yourself from that movement"
And it's kind of shitty always.
Yup. Also the same logic that dismisses all religion because you "can't pick and choose", which has always been funny to me since life itself is essentially picking and choosing what you believe and who you want to be.
Why is it "kinda shitty" to say "either put some distance between the bigots and you, or accept that they are your movement"?
Because as soon as some 14-year-old on youtube complains that taking pictures of someone is rape, all feminists get painted with "EMBRACE IT OR FEMINISTS ARE ALL SHIT"
The comments by former CEO Yishan Wong (/u/yishan) are a great read.
https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3n7hc
Particularly relevant to this post (emphasis mine):
Also:
Well guess what. Now that Steve Hoffman is back in the driver's seat, he's clamping down on that shit. The whole irony here is that despite the crying of the fedoras, Pao was relatively uninterested in fighting SJW battles with Redditors.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Or people just say that they don't agree with that shit and it's not representative of the movement as a whole?
To bring this back to the original point, I'm sure not all the people who disliked Pao were bigots, but bigots were certainly a large and vocal part of the people who disliked her.
Anything to back up that they were a "large" percentage?
At no point will anyone ever convince me that banning Casket made the rest of us the real monsters.
- John Stuart Mill
I don't know, the fact that you were seeing things like r/all routinely fill up with all sorts of bigoted memes targeting her?
In the same vein, here's an interesting analysis of the crosspollenation of the largest hate subreddit (which I will not name).
By the way, factoring all the subreddits devoted to anti-black racism and hate, Reddit is the largest white supremacist website on the internet.
There's also the fact that most feminists would point out that while this individual is being hyperbolic to some degree, the core point she makes - that unwanted photographs are a violation of the privacy of the individual being photographed - is a valid one.
A better example would be to point out that feminism does, in fact, have bigots in the ranks. One big group of such are transgender exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). But even this doesn't work, because as transgender rights have become more prominent, feminism as a whole has been openly rejecting TERFs.
Which, again, goes back to the point.
And because of how reddit works, you can even track all those sweet upvotes to help show it's popularity compared to alternative modes of expression.
How, in the context of this particular quote tree, would Butcher and those that hit agree with the post at the top have "put distance" between themselves and the bigots beyond noting that there were valid complaints other than biogtry? Because that seems to me to be a perfectly coherent expression of disunity.
So, what in particular were you after there?
Shit is a thing that exists, and always will; so we should go back to having the streets flow with it, like the "good old days" before certain oversensitive busybodies got on their ridiculous "sanitation" crusade.
Again, for a good while, the highest rated comment on the announcement of Pao's resignation was a reference to domestic violence made by an individual (who, as it turned out, was an admin on that subreddit that must not be named) using a alias referencing the terrorist who shot 9 people dead in a Charlestown church in order to provoke racial violence.