In fact, correct me if I'm wrong (I'll do some digging) but wasn't there are gigantic shitfest when r/twoxchromosomes became one of the default subreddits on the main page? If I recall the first few weeks of that event were full of absolute garbage people posting hateful shit on women who were sharing their own stories in what was, ostensibly, a safe space.
couldn't tell you, I re-tuned the default front pages ages ago.
I think society has a responsibility to uphold the concept of "free speech" as much as it can. I also think society has a responsibility to thwart bigotry as much as it can. These ideals compete. When it comes to marginalizing people, I'd rather marginalize bigots for choosing to be bigoted than black people for being born black (or any other such group). I don't see what society gains by giving quarter to those who promote hatred against those that have no choice to be what they are.
The government doesn't have much of a place dictating what society has a right to engage in, or think about, or say, but society certainly has a right and, I would argue, a duty to push itself in a better direction, and that means away from bigotry, and that means telling bigots to go away.
If they clash irreconcilably, sure.
And I like pressuring platforms I use to run better.
That's actually why mass exoduses terrify me.
Eventually, bigots will run out of places to go. And any non-bigots joining the exodus are really just kidding themselves and will eventually dissociate with the bigots they are defending in the name of "free speech."
So I'm fine with it.
Granted, I have no personal stake in /reddit/ - maybe you do and, so, of course it sucks when change threatens to disrupt the fabric of what you are used to. People are territorial about their communities. How many splinter communities has PA had? I barely remember their names anymore, but there were at least 4 huge ones that I can remember and I'm sure there are or were plenty more.
Hell, I was worried when my local watering hole changed their name and menu, even though it was the same owners and staff. Even subtle changes to a community can change it forever, and sometimes not for the better (at least from your personal, individual perspective).
But holistically, I think cutting off avenues where bigots feel welcome is a good thing.
in my particular case, I use a fitness reddit and a local reddit that are both well and fairly run, and a couple fiction writing reddits as well as some IC fiction reddits like /nosleep
And they've been really good to me. I've probably used reddit for 3-4 years now and never stumbled onto any of this "problematic" content. When shown it, it's TINY subs; I think the biggest redpill one has maybe 10k people in it?
What people are mostly upset about is gruffness and coarseness in comments and I don't like that shit. But I do, past a certain point, just sort of shrug and go "Well, that person just outed himself as a jerk. Glad he self labled"
It doesn't hit me that hard, most of the time. Family and friends who post idiocy on facebook are worse on me, because I both love and feel "stuck" with them and thus pressured to engage.
But do you really feel that any backlash from marginalizing the bullshit will actually impact your experience as a fitness-focused redditor in any tangible or meaninful way (negatively)? If so, how do you see all this playing into that outcome?
nah, I don't really care. But I have also had TERRIBLE experiences with passive aggressive, shitty, cliquey people on heavily moderated boards. I really don't think it makes any difference. I see reddit as a secondary provider of free BBSes; I don't really CARE if they monetize the eyeshare of a bunch of mouthbreathers on another board. To me, and maybe this is the disconnect, I see the population of /randomshittyreddit and /redditIgoTo to be very nearly as unrelated as PA and stormfront. I just don't care that much; I DO see it like an ISP-ish relationship.
But, and here's the issue, it's not an "ISPish" relationship.
The boards you like? They'll go dark if reddit can't pay the bills just like every other reddit board. So, if you like reddit (and it appears you do) then what will help reddit keep the lights on? Supporting the racist/misogynist boards, or not supporting them.
maybe I don't understand reddit's business model. How does supporting minute, in comparison to the iceburg, subreddits "keep the lights on?"
I don't think they effect business one way or another, as far as say, ad revenue goes.
But I don't "support" those boards. I just didn't know about them. I'm not making a first time decision to use or not use reddit, I'm stuck with an old, vested account and leaving doesn't feel like I'm teaching reddit a lesson, it feels like I'm ceding the floor to the bad element.
i am pretty sure it has been stated in this thread that if reddit continues to host bigotry-filled subreddits, albeit without adspace, then it stands to reason that the revenue reddit makes from subreddits that do have adspace is then being used to host the bigotry subs in addition to the regular ones. that's the thing. every subreddit, even if completely unrelated by subject matter, is still hosted by reddit.
perhaps the statement you were responding to was worded poorly?
In fact, correct me if I'm wrong (I'll do some digging) but wasn't there are gigantic shitfest when r/twoxchromosomes became one of the default subreddits on the main page? If I recall the first few weeks of that event were full of absolute garbage people posting hateful shit on women who were sharing their own stories in what was, ostensibly, a safe space.
couldn't tell you, I re-tuned the default front pages ages ago.
It seems like, at the very least, there were, some, initial problems, although a few moderatorsfelt positively about the change. I haven't checked any of the posts there in a while to see if they are still home to a lot of shit, but at least my original statement seems verified.
(also, incidentally, some of the keywords I searched pulled up posts on things like bodybuilding forums that were....disgusting, to say the least. I'm not going to post them, forum raiding is against the rules, but you can easily find them with the phrase "reddit twoxchromosomes default" in google)
Which again ties into what I said upthread. Reddit doesn't owe these people a platform. It doesn't owe these Hitler fapppers a single goddamn thing. That it gives them the space to operate is little more then shitty ruthless way of maximizing profits by attracting the scum of the universe.
If I recall, there will be no ads on hate subreddits, which means Reddit is literally paying to support hate speech.
You can, however, argue it's a way to increase ad revenue since guys from r/idhitlerit will likely check out more benign subreddits with ads.
Which again ties into what I said upthread. Reddit doesn't owe these people a platform. It doesn't owe these Hitler fapppers a single goddamn thing. That it gives them the space to operate is little more then shitty ruthless way of maximizing profits by attracting the scum of the universe.
Except for the part where it's not about profit because Reddit doesn't turn a profit and because the people who own the site have come out and talked about how their whole "everyone is welcome (kind)" stance is philosophical.
How on earth does it cover it's costs then?
It doesn't, it never has, and it likely never will. Kind of what the thread's about, dude.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I think society has a responsibility to uphold the concept of "free speech" as much as it can. I also think society has a responsibility to thwart bigotry as much as it can. These ideals compete. When it comes to marginalizing people, I'd rather marginalize bigots for choosing to be bigoted than black people for being born black (or any other such group). I don't see what society gains by giving quarter to those who promote hatred against those that have no choice to be what they are.
The government doesn't have much of a place dictating what society has a right to engage in, or think about, or say, but society certainly has a right and, I would argue, a duty to push itself in a better direction, and that means away from bigotry, and that means telling bigots to go away.
If they clash irreconcilably, sure.
And I like pressuring platforms I use to run better.
That's actually why mass exoduses terrify me.
Eventually, bigots will run out of places to go. And any non-bigots joining the exodus are really just kidding themselves and will eventually dissociate with the bigots they are defending in the name of "free speech."
So I'm fine with it.
Granted, I have no personal stake in /reddit/ - maybe you do and, so, of course it sucks when change threatens to disrupt the fabric of what you are used to. People are territorial about their communities. How many splinter communities has PA had? I barely remember their names anymore, but there were at least 4 huge ones that I can remember and I'm sure there are or were plenty more.
Hell, I was worried when my local watering hole changed their name and menu, even though it was the same owners and staff. Even subtle changes to a community can change it forever, and sometimes not for the better (at least from your personal, individual perspective).
But holistically, I think cutting off avenues where bigots feel welcome is a good thing.
in my particular case, I use a fitness reddit and a local reddit that are both well and fairly run, and a couple fiction writing reddits as well as some IC fiction reddits like /nosleep
And they've been really good to me. I've probably used reddit for 3-4 years now and never stumbled onto any of this "problematic" content. When shown it, it's TINY subs; I think the biggest redpill one has maybe 10k people in it?
What people are mostly upset about is gruffness and coarseness in comments and I don't like that shit. But I do, past a certain point, just sort of shrug and go "Well, that person just outed himself as a jerk. Glad he self labled"
It doesn't hit me that hard, most of the time. Family and friends who post idiocy on facebook are worse on me, because I both love and feel "stuck" with them and thus pressured to engage.
But do you really feel that any backlash from marginalizing the bullshit will actually impact your experience as a fitness-focused redditor in any tangible or meaninful way (negatively)? If so, how do you see all this playing into that outcome?
nah, I don't really care. But I have also had TERRIBLE experiences with passive aggressive, shitty, cliquey people on heavily moderated boards. I really don't think it makes any difference. I see reddit as a secondary provider of free BBSes; I don't really CARE if they monetize the eyeshare of a bunch of mouthbreathers on another board. To me, and maybe this is the disconnect, I see the population of /randomshittyreddit and /redditIgoTo to be very nearly as unrelated as PA and stormfront. I just don't care that much; I DO see it like an ISP-ish relationship.
But, and here's the issue, it's not an "ISPish" relationship.
The boards you like? They'll go dark if reddit can't pay the bills just like every other reddit board. So, if you like reddit (and it appears you do) then what will help reddit keep the lights on? Supporting the racist/misogynist boards, or not supporting them.
maybe I don't understand reddit's business model. How does supporting minute, in comparison to the iceburg, subreddits "keep the lights on?"
I don't think they effect business one way or another, as far as say, ad revenue goes.
But I don't "support" those boards. I just didn't know about them. I'm not making a first time decision to use or not use reddit, I'm stuck with an old, vested account and leaving doesn't feel like I'm teaching reddit a lesson, it feels like I'm ceding the floor to the bad element.
i am pretty sure it has been stated in this thread that if reddit continues to host bigotry-filled subreddits, albeit without adspace, then it stands to reason that the revenue reddit makes from subreddits that do have adspace is then being used to host the bigotry subs in addition to the regular ones. that's the thing. every subreddit, even if completely unrelated by subject matter, is still hosted by reddit.
perhaps the statement you were responding to was worded poorly?
I don't think reddit as a business actually works that discretely. They aren't paying to host subs, they get paid by hosting big subs. They little ones are probably revenue neutral, due to the volume of their infrastructure buy. It takes thousands of views to convert eyeshare online, so I'm not sure the idea of a "red pill dollar" is even a thing... the notion of giving up ads on the troubled subs is really a token concession.
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
Reddit's problem is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too- they want people to be able to say whatever hateful or uplifting things they want, but they also want to be able to wash their hands of the hateful crap and make a lot of money off of the good stuff....yet the very same policies that encourage goodposting also encourage the worst kinds of shitposting.
And to triple post (maybe), the real question then becomes- can we still have the good parts of reddit as we bring the hammer down on the dark underbelly?
I'm obviously of the position that yes, we can *gestures vaguely to these very boards*, but I'm interested in hearing a coherent argument against this position (which I, so far, have not seen)
And to triple post (maybe), the real question then becomes- can we still have the good parts of reddit as we bring the hammer down on the dark underbelly?
I'm obviously of the position that yes, we can *gestures vaguely to these very boards*, but I'm interested in hearing a coherent argument against this position (which I, so far, have not seen)
It is possible for a website to have both things, but evidence seems to show that is not possible for Reddit because most of it's userbase believes that if free speech means having the "dark subreddits", then so be it. There's no Reddit if enough people revolt, the individual factions are big enough to cause an impact, even if they are a minority on the site. A minority on this forum can be a few dozens of users, but we are talking about several subreddits with hundreds of thousands of users.
Which is why I believe that Reddit grew too big to handle. Hence, the efforts of the administration are focused on keeping it from exploding.
TryCatcher on
+1
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
... Googling tumblr porn ... definitely returns some hits.
That being said, I don't know of any tumblrs that promote racism. Not sure if that's really that meaningful though, since... well... I guess I can do more Googling
Malicious Speech. Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. We encourage you to dismantle negative speech through argument rather than censorship. We will, however, remove anything that is overtly malicious.
Right above that reads the following
As a global platform for creativity and self-expression, Tumblr is deeply committed to supporting and protecting freedom of speech. At the same time, we draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep reddit running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on reddit. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Take Personal Responsibility: As you use reddit, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
Yeah, there's still TONS of porn tumblers, they just can't cross certain "I know it when i see it" fuzzy lines.
And sure, "hate tumblers" are removed, but uncivil behavior is FINE on tumbler, generally. Like poster to poster? WAY nastier than here, or a place like Boing Boing, where the tone itself is refereed pretty tightly for civility...
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
... Googling tumblr porn ... definitely returns some hits.
That being said, I don't know of any tumblrs that promote racism. Not sure if that's really that meaningful though, since... well... I guess I can do more Googling
They (supposedly) don't host adult videos that aren't strictly user-generated, among other things. It's in the TOS, though I'm not sure how strictly it is actually enforced
Unflagged NSFW Blogs. Tumblr is home to millions of readers and creators from a variety of locations, cultures, and backgrounds who hold different points of view concerning adult-oriented content. If you regularly post sexual or adult-oriented content, respect the choices of people in our community who would rather not see such content by flagging your blog (which you can do on your blog's Settings page) as Not Suitable for Work ("NSFW"). This action doesn't prevent you or your readers from using any of Tumblr's social features, but rather screens your blog's content from Tumblr users who would prefer not to see NSFW material.
Uploading Sexually Explicit Video. You can embed anything in a Tumblr post as long as it's lawful and follows our other guidelines, but please don't use Tumblr's Upload Video feature to upload sexually explicit video. We're not in the business of hosting adult-oriented videos (and it's fucking expensive).
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
Yeah, there's still TONS of porn tumblers, they just can't cross certain "I know it when i see it" fuzzy lines.
And sure, "hate tumblers" are removed, but uncivil behavior is FINE on tumbler, generally. Like poster to poster? WAY nastier than here, or a place like Boing Boing, where the tone itself is refereed pretty tightly for civility...
I'm putting a pin in this for later, when the forums inevitably have another argument about whether arguments should have civility as the ultimate goal. I would argue that reddit is perhaps more civil, user-to-user, than tumblr, but also has a more toxic community. I'll have to think about this more though.
I thought tumblr was focused on images and reddit was focused on discussion
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
... Googling tumblr porn ... definitely returns some hits.
That being said, I don't know of any tumblrs that promote racism. Not sure if that's really that meaningful though, since... well... I guess I can do more Googling
They (supposedly) don't host adult videos that aren't strictly user-generated, among other things. It's in the TOS, though I'm not sure how strictly it is actually enforced
Unflagged NSFW Blogs. Tumblr is home to millions of readers and creators from a variety of locations, cultures, and backgrounds who hold different points of view concerning adult-oriented content. If you regularly post sexual or adult-oriented content, respect the choices of people in our community who would rather not see such content by flagging your blog (which you can do on your blog's Settings page) as Not Suitable for Work ("NSFW"). This action doesn't prevent you or your readers from using any of Tumblr's social features, but rather screens your blog's content from Tumblr users who would prefer not to see NSFW material.
Uploading Sexually Explicit Video. You can embed anything in a Tumblr post as long as it's lawful and follows our other guidelines, but please don't use Tumblr's Upload Video feature to upload sexually explicit video. We're not in the business of hosting adult-oriented videos (and it's fucking expensive).
Judging by my last several trips to fap island, you can post a pretty long gif before tumblr thinks its a "video"
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
... Googling tumblr porn ... definitely returns some hits.
That being said, I don't know of any tumblrs that promote racism. Not sure if that's really that meaningful though, since... well... I guess I can do more Googling
They (supposedly) don't host adult videos that aren't strictly user-generated, among other things. It's in the TOS, though I'm not sure how strictly it is actually enforced
Unflagged NSFW Blogs. Tumblr is home to millions of readers and creators from a variety of locations, cultures, and backgrounds who hold different points of view concerning adult-oriented content. If you regularly post sexual or adult-oriented content, respect the choices of people in our community who would rather not see such content by flagging your blog (which you can do on your blog's Settings page) as Not Suitable for Work ("NSFW"). This action doesn't prevent you or your readers from using any of Tumblr's social features, but rather screens your blog's content from Tumblr users who would prefer not to see NSFW material.
Uploading Sexually Explicit Video. You can embed anything in a Tumblr post as long as it's lawful and follows our other guidelines, but please don't use Tumblr's Upload Video feature to upload sexually explicit video. We're not in the business of hosting adult-oriented videos (and it's fucking expensive).
Judging by my last several trips to fap island, you can post a pretty long gif before tumblr thinks its a "video"
Reddit gives people the space and tools. People decide what to do with it.
If you don't like the way something is modded, make something else. 2X actually split when it went default. A lot of the people who couldn't cope with the influx actually moved to a makeup sub to continue talking and would mail people on 2X the sub name if they posted without being awful and such.
TrollX also got more active around the same time.
Of course 2x had a lot of internal drama of regulars making alt accounts to troll each other because they wanted to ruin the sub, since the owner went default without really telling anyone.
I also want to respond to something:
I have no idea why people think Reddit is in some kind of dire financial straights. Their primary holder is a billion dollar company that wants coverage.. The cost of Reddit is nothing.
On top of that, Reddit is apparently doing just fine. They made some odd 8.4m in ad revenue last year. Also roughly $74,300 in Reddit gold earnings over the last 30 days.
Amazon cloud services aren't that expensive and their staff is fairly small.. I just don't think it costs as much as people seem to think, and their income is fairly steady.
Malicious Speech. Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. We encourage you to dismantle negative speech through argument rather than censorship. We will, however, remove anything that is overtly malicious.
Right above that reads the following
As a global platform for creativity and self-expression, Tumblr is deeply committed to supporting and protecting freedom of speech. At the same time, we draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep reddit running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on reddit. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Take Personal Responsibility: As you use reddit, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
No, tumblr is still full of racists, sexists, and hateful assholes. Trust me, I've been there for two years now. The difference is that tumblr, on a corporate level, is trying to avoid them, whereas Reddit invites them in.
Malicious Speech. Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. We encourage you to dismantle negative speech through argument rather than censorship. We will, however, remove anything that is overtly malicious.
Right above that reads the following
As a global platform for creativity and self-expression, Tumblr is deeply committed to supporting and protecting freedom of speech. At the same time, we draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep reddit running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on reddit. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Take Personal Responsibility: As you use reddit, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
No, tumblr is still full of racists, sexists, and hateful assholes. Trust me, I've been there for two years now. The difference is that tumblr, on a corporate level, is trying to avoid them, whereas Reddit invites them in.
Mostly. I'm saying that tumblr definitley does have does have hateful subcomunities. I've ran into Radfems, Terfs, MRAs, Fundies, Black Nationalists, White Supremacists etc. It ties into your point, though, that tumblr avoids a good chunk of stigma by not encouraging these assholes.
Tumblr does have the stigma of not bothering to enforce their own TOS unless copyright lawyers call them. And I would argue that people are less harsh on Tumblr because it also has the stigma of being filled with spoiled teenagers.
Malicious Speech. Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. We encourage you to dismantle negative speech through argument rather than censorship. We will, however, remove anything that is overtly malicious.
Right above that reads the following
As a global platform for creativity and self-expression, Tumblr is deeply committed to supporting and protecting freedom of speech. At the same time, we draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep reddit running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on reddit. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Take Personal Responsibility: As you use reddit, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
I'm not sure if this drags things off topic or provides a useful comparison point, but...
A lot of Tumblr communities (and especially radical social justice communities) are as genuinely awful and hateful as anything you can find on reddit. While I don't think it would be fun to dig for examples, the worst of the SJ communities on tumblr are exactly as hateful and bigoted and destructive as the worst communities on reddit. TERFs are an obvious example, as are a lot of the nastier forms of radfem, and even among the more standard SJ blogs there are objectively horrible and prejudiced things said every day about the groups that don't fit into their culture (like men, theists, and conservatives.)
Imagine if Donald Trump became the new Tumblr CEO tomorrow, and as his first order of business he went about closing down all of the SJ blogs he considered to be radical, as well as banning slashfiction because he considers it immoral. He then proceeds to delete the tumblrs of anyone who complains about him. He'd probably be within his 'rights' to do this, but I think the outcry on Tumblr would probably be fairly similar to the outcry against Pao on Reddit, and it seems to me to be similarly justified. Likewise, any argument about how "Reddit needs to police its more toxic communities" fails hard on consistency if you aren't willing to apply that argument equally to Tumblr and to radical SJ in general.
I'm not especially certain that I buy the general-case argument, however. I think the expected harm of fringe subreddits or tumblrs is extremely low, and the expected value loss that will come from trying to actively police fringe communities is fairly high (and especially, finding a way to agree on what is and is not a "fringe community" that doesn't end up causing more harm than good.) But I'm also not especially worried if someone tries - if an online community isn't serving the needs of its users, another will take its place fairly quickly, as we've seen many times in the past.
Malicious Speech. Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. We encourage you to dismantle negative speech through argument rather than censorship. We will, however, remove anything that is overtly malicious.
Right above that reads the following
As a global platform for creativity and self-expression, Tumblr is deeply committed to supporting and protecting freedom of speech. At the same time, we draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep reddit running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on reddit. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Take Personal Responsibility: As you use reddit, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
I'm not sure if this drags things off topic or provides a useful comparison point, but...
A lot of Tumblr communities (and especially radical social justice communities) are as genuinely awful and hateful as anything you can find on reddit. While I don't think it would be fun to dig for examples, the worst of the SJ communities on tumblr are exactly as hateful and bigoted and destructive as the worst communities on reddit. TERFs are an obvious example, as are a lot of the nastier forms of radfem, and even among the more standard SJ blogs there are objectively horrible and prejudiced things said every day about the groups that don't fit into their culture (like men, theists, and conservatives.)
Imagine if Donald Trump became the new Tumblr CEO tomorrow, and as his first order of business he went about closing down all of the SJ blogs he considered to be radical, as well as banning slashfiction because he considers it immoral. He then proceeds to delete the tumblrs of anyone who complains about him. He'd probably be within his 'rights' to do this, but I think the outcry on Tumblr would probably be fairly similar to the outcry against Pao on Reddit, and it seems to me to be similarly justified. Likewise, any argument about how "Reddit needs to police its more toxic communities" fails hard on consistency if you aren't willing to apply that argument equally to Tumblr and to radical SJ in general.
I'm not especially certain that I buy the argument, in its general case. I think the expected harm of fringe subreddits tumblrs is quite low for society, and the expected value loss that will come from trying to actively police fringe communities is fairly high. But I'm also not especially worried if someone tries - if an online community isn't serving the needs of its users, another will take its place fairly quickly, as we've seen many times in the past.
Maybe don't assume those calling for getting rid of biggoted spaces on Reddit wouldn't be for getting rid of biggoted places on tumblr.
Terfs fall into the category of garbage spewing biggots just as much as racists or misogynists.
Seriously, what's up with people desperately trying to make opponents of Reddit out to be hypocritical based off of baseless assumptions?
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+4
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
Can someone quickly summarize then what progress has been made here in the last few pages?
Malicious Speech. Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. We encourage you to dismantle negative speech through argument rather than censorship. We will, however, remove anything that is overtly malicious.
Right above that reads the following
As a global platform for creativity and self-expression, Tumblr is deeply committed to supporting and protecting freedom of speech. At the same time, we draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep reddit running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on reddit. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off reddit: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Take Personal Responsibility: As you use reddit, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
I'm not sure if this drags things off topic or provides a useful comparison point, but...
A lot of Tumblr communities (and especially radical social justice communities) are as genuinely awful and hateful as anything you can find on reddit. While I don't think it would be fun to dig for examples, the worst of the SJ communities on tumblr are exactly as hateful and bigoted and destructive as the worst communities on reddit. TERFs are an obvious example, as are a lot of the nastier forms of radfem, and even among the more standard SJ blogs there are objectively horrible and prejudiced things said every day about the groups that don't fit into their culture (like men, theists, and conservatives.)
Imagine if Donald Trump became the new Tumblr CEO tomorrow, and as his first order of business he went about closing down all of the SJ blogs he considered to be radical, as well as banning slashfiction because he considers it immoral. He then proceeds to delete the tumblrs of anyone who complains about him. He'd probably be within his 'rights' to do this, but I think the outcry on Tumblr would probably be fairly similar to the outcry against Pao on Reddit, and it seems to me to be similarly justified. Likewise, any argument about how "Reddit needs to police its more toxic communities" fails hard on consistency if you aren't willing to apply that argument equally to Tumblr and to radical SJ in general.
I'm not especially certain that I buy the argument, in its general case. I think the expected harm of fringe subreddits tumblrs is quite low for society, and the expected value loss that will come from trying to actively police fringe communities is fairly high. But I'm also not especially worried if someone tries - if an online community isn't serving the needs of its users, another will take its place fairly quickly, as we've seen many times in the past.
Maybe don't assume those calling for getting rid of biggoted spaces on Reddit wouldn't be for getting rid of biggoted places on tumblr.
Terfs fall into the category of garbage spewing biggots just as much as racists or misogynists.
Seriously, what's up with people desperately trying to make opponents of Reddit out to be hypocritical based off of baseless assumptions?
Hmm, maybe because the opponents of Reddit are making a lot of baseless assumptions about everything, themselves? I mean a vast majority of the discussions have been nothing but baseless assumptions.
Interesting that. I mean someone was actively defending tumblr as some great bastion of clean living and wholesome safe spaces.
When in reality it's not. Like. At all. And tumblr really doesn't accomplish anything in cleaning them up. So maybe that's where the "baseless assumptions" come from?
Hmmm. It appears that r/rtwoxchromosomes has a very strict moderation policy. I guess that is a fourth angle to the discussion. How do you reconcile the idea that, overall, reddit exists to maintain a place for free expression of ideas as determined by the subreddits that are allowed to exist. Yet, each community is allowed to have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, as long as the general rules for the community also include the rules for the site at large.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
I don't see how it's opposed. Since this is the thread of terrible analogies, there is a difference between speech and accosting someone in the street and ranting at them. If you create a subreddit, you can define the rules for that conversation. If someone doesn't like those rules, they can just create their own. And people can choose to join in those conversations, or not. No one is prevented from speaking, but no one is forced to listen. It still accomplishes the goal of a free exchange of ideas.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Please don't argue for me, and please don't sarcastically attribute things to me I didn't say. That's infuriating. I've never claimed, or rather I didn't mean to imply, that Tumblr was free of hate.
On the other hand, the point I was attempting to make is that while there is still a similar problem of user created free expression on both platforms, which can lead to footholds of hate, one platform has less of a toxic reputation.
And by extension this largely due to the differences in moderation. In addition, platforms have a goal of free speech, but one has decided it will shelter all speech that doesn't directly attack specific people while the other has a harder stance on harm and hate.
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think it is clear that Reddit is a service provider in both an American legal DCMA sense, and in a logical sense. I think that the latter state reflects the moral expectations we should have for the platform, and the various people within the thread who have appealed to the service provider nature of reddit have that correct.
---
AS for the complaints about "how if we come for the nazis, next we'll come for the gays" not making any sense. I think that misconstrues the argument. The idea that we ought freeze what is permissible to the current standards of the time is not going to cut a lot of ice. If we'd have done so one hundred years ago then the ideals we held would have legitimised racism even as we rejected particular forms of mysogyny. It seems odd to suggest that we have reached the peak of moral development - that today's commonplaces won't be discovered or considered to be monstrous in the future, perhaps defenses of whaling, perhaps we will discover that there are particular psychological conditions that lead to the redpill mentality and that by mocking them we're simply exercising our neurotypical privilege.
So, the obvious move is to point to the nature of the beliefs in question are those that become monstrous, not banning particular kinds of positive activist speech. We might appeal to the fact that particular kinds of positions are oppressive (they seek to constrain rights) and others are revolutionary (they seek to gain rights/remove oppressive beliefs) - a distinction that comes up in discussions like "Must a democratic society tolerate undemocratic ideas?". The problem that comes up here is that the oppressive beliefs maxim clobbers other things that it seems we ought not wish to clobber - such as religious positions, particular political platforms and so forth. Likewise, there are complications in say, Islam critical positions - "That's racist!" people cry - but then, they direct these criticisms against the victims of Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The problem is that it's difficult to come up with a general principle for stifling speech that doesn't fall afoul of both historical and future shifts in consensus. So then, we say "well when there's controversy we ought err on the side of caution, but for other things, I know it when I see it and we should not hesitate to get rid of them" - well, that's the question I guess, how do we know we know it when we see it? I don't see any benefit in /r/c***town and would in no way lament its passing in a general sense. But then, Islamists know it when they see it (hence the anti-blasphemy/religious offense conventions that get a lot of traction in the UN) and maybe /r/atheism or anti-Salafi reddits are thus for the block. A very large chunk of people would have happily seen Dragon's Crown never made indeed viewing it as a moral blight, they probably know it when they see it too, and a bunch of other places go away for their incessant microaggression.
Another way to look at is is thus: at present, the winds of society suggest that personal liberty and social justice are goals we ought ultimately pursue. So, it's obvious that the people who are racist are incompatible with our values. On the other hand, a few hundred years ago, we prized religious concerns much higher in general, the atheist and homosexual campaigning for their rights literally put others in danger of eternal damnation, against which concerns of self-determination seem petty. This seemed no less obvious then than our own pursuit of social justice seems now.
I can 100% guarantee that racism and sexism will always, 100% be bullshit. In 100 years of peoe are looking back going "man, those people wanting equality for people of all stripes were so backwards" then something has gone wrong.
I think it is clear that Reddit is a service provider in both an American legal DCMA sense, and in a logical sense. I think that the latter state reflects the moral expectations we should have for the platform, and the various people within the thread who have appealed to the service provider nature of reddit have that correct.
You can't just say "its clear" and ignore all the reasons why its not like them at all.
AS for the complaints about "how if we come for the nazis, next we'll come for the gays" not making any sense. I think that misconstrues the argument. The idea that we ought freeze what is permissible to the current standards of the time is not going to cut a lot of ice.
This is not the argument at all. No one has come close to suggesting we freeze what is permissible. What was suggested was that there is no slippery slope that leads from nazi's to gays. How in the Chirst did you get there from here?
The problem is that it's difficult to come up with a general principle for stifling speech that doesn't fall afoul of both historical and future shifts in consensus.
1) Its really easy to come up with a general principle which does not fall afoul of historical shifts in consensus. Since none exist since that is history and its not changing.
2) We do not have to have a general principle for stifling speech that doesn't fall afoul of a future change in consensus because such a thing is not necessary to moderate message boards. Just like the Constitution is a living document which evolves as Judges rule on it we can change our standards for moderation as the need arises
3) Racism will always be bad.
Another way to look at is is thus: at present, the winds of society suggest that personal liberty and social justice are goals we ought ultimately pursue. So, it's obvious that the people who are racist are incompatible with our values. On the other hand, a few hundred years ago, we prized religious concerns much higher in general, the atheist and homosexual campaigning for their rights literally put others in danger of eternal damnation, against which concerns of self-determination seem petty. This seemed no less obvious then than our own pursuit of social justice seems now.
At present we are discussing whether a private forum should moderate its speech. We are not discussing whether or not the government should change its speech laws. We are not discussing what public accommodation means. We are not discussing hypothetical future pogroms led by Reddit or whatever it is you seem to be thinking of here.
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I can 100% guarantee that racism and sexism will always, 100% be bullshit. In 100 years of peoe are looking back going "man, those people wanting equality for people of all stripes were so backwards" then something has gone wrong.
Obviously, I agree with that phrasing. But I also think that you're going to be hard pressed to define either such that we have consensus on what is or is not acceptable no matter how self evident any such example seems.
Basically, I'm no more inclined to accept your judgement about what is permissible than you are of mine despite the fact that we have oceans more in common with each other than the residents of /r/c---town.
I can 100% guarantee that racism and sexism will always, 100% be bullshit. In 100 years of peoe are looking back going "man, those people wanting equality for people of all stripes were so backwards" then something has gone wrong.
Obviously, I agree with that phrasing. But I also think that you're going to be hard pressed to define either such that we have consensus on what is or is not acceptable no matter how self evident any such example seems.
Basically, I'm no more inclined to accept your judgement about what is permissible than you are of mine despite the fact that we have oceans more in common with each other than the residents of /r/c---town.
Well too bad. Welcome to the culture war. Feel free to disarm at your peril.
In fact, correct me if I'm wrong (I'll do some digging) but wasn't there are gigantic shitfest when r/twoxchromosomes became one of the default subreddits on the main page? If I recall the first few weeks of that event were full of absolute garbage people posting hateful shit on women who were sharing their own stories in what was, ostensibly, a safe space.
couldn't tell you, I re-tuned the default front pages ages ago.
I can tell you, a good quarter of posts on that board are either sexist posts, or a variation of /notallmen. Honestly, sexism is a bigger issue on reddit than racism or even homophobia. (Transphobia though, big problems). The blatant sexism seeps through all but the most moderated subreddits. An article about how Germany is trying to treat male pedophiles before they act on their urges is drowned by a tidal wave of "what about those evil female pedophiles! Not all men!"
A funny news article about a male version of Hooters, where the waiters refuse to wear their kilt uniforms due to groping leads to a rage filled page decrying those hypocritical feminazis, instead of a thoughtful discussion of how it feels to be sexually objectified.
And these aren't things you'd find on redpill, these are just regular subreddits.
I can 100% guarantee that racism and sexism will always, 100% be bullshit. In 100 years of peoe are looking back going "man, those people wanting equality for people of all stripes were so backwards" then something has gone wrong.
Obviously, I agree with that phrasing. But I also think that you're going to be hard pressed to define either such that we have consensus on what is or is not acceptable no matter how self evident any such example seems.
Basically, I'm no more inclined to accept your judgement about what is permissible than you are of mine despite the fact that we have oceans more in common with each other than the residents of /r/c---town.
Well too bad. Welcome to the culture war. Feel free to disarm at your peril.
That's what Reddit's done, hasn't it? A cultural switzerland
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
On another issue, it seems that historical context is important for judging the phrase "reddit is supporting racists by allow them to ride free by removing advertisements".
It seems like everything about that decision was based upon the perceived desires of their advertisers - specifically, they don't want to see their brand next to "come to c-town and laugh at n-words" or something like that. I don't think that the thought "let's use the advertising revenue from other subs to keep c-town etc... afloat entered their mind" furthermore, it doesn't seem like the removal of any subs was based on the personal distaste of the administration - specifically, such actions appear to be in response to particular business relationship concerns.
Given that the decisions were never one of approval/disapproval viewing the remaining subs through that lense seems a difficult reading.
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think it is clear that Reddit is a service provider in both an American legal DCMA sense, and in a logical sense. I think that the latter state reflects the moral expectations we should have for the platform, and the various people within the thread who have appealed to the service provider nature of reddit have that correct.
You can't just say "its clear" and ignore all the reasons why its not like them at all.
But, it is, by definition.
It's protected by DMCA safe harbors, its owners and management are not liable for the criminal activities of its users provided it follows the appropriate procedures.
I'm of the opinion that the legal definition matches the logical definition pretty well at least for our current purposes.
Legal precedent also maintains that the capacity to, and historical willingness to exercise some control over content doesn't remove those legal protections and I don't see how it changes the moral status either.
EDIT: and as for "What was suggested was that there is no slippery slope that leads from nazi's to gays" - I am point out that that was never the argument. The argument is rather what was permissible and what was acceptable would have clobbered discussions of homosexuality and furthermore, that it's not very easy to determine what will in the future seem as outrageous as clobbering the discussion of gays. Note that the original phrasing was akin to "don't forget, at one point social consensus would have banned discussion of homosexuality" not that if we ban nazis soon we will be banning gays.
I'm also not talking about pogroms or government mandated speech restrictions, so I don't see why you think that is a relevant thing to point out.
Posts
couldn't tell you, I re-tuned the default front pages ages ago.
I host a podcast about movies.
i am pretty sure it has been stated in this thread that if reddit continues to host bigotry-filled subreddits, albeit without adspace, then it stands to reason that the revenue reddit makes from subreddits that do have adspace is then being used to host the bigotry subs in addition to the regular ones. that's the thing. every subreddit, even if completely unrelated by subject matter, is still hosted by reddit.
perhaps the statement you were responding to was worded poorly?
It seems like, at the very least, there were, some, initial problems, although a few moderatorsfelt positively about the change. I haven't checked any of the posts there in a while to see if they are still home to a lot of shit, but at least my original statement seems verified.
(also, incidentally, some of the keywords I searched pulled up posts on things like bodybuilding forums that were....disgusting, to say the least. I'm not going to post them, forum raiding is against the rules, but you can easily find them with the phrase "reddit twoxchromosomes default" in google)
EDIT: grammar
It doesn't, it never has, and it likely never will. Kind of what the thread's about, dude.
Steam: adamjnet
I don't think reddit as a business actually works that discretely. They aren't paying to host subs, they get paid by hosting big subs. They little ones are probably revenue neutral, due to the volume of their infrastructure buy. It takes thousands of views to convert eyeshare online, so I'm not sure the idea of a "red pill dollar" is even a thing... the notion of giving up ads on the troubled subs is really a token concession.
I host a podcast about movies.
If I can't post that I think women are terrible harpies in the comment thread of /r/twoxchromosomes, but I can do that in the comments of r/redpill, how do we approach this?
If all ideas are permitted, shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about women in the comments of r/twoxchromosomes? How do subreddits with strict moderation policies align with the overall goal of creating a space for everyone?
I don't have an answer here, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I feel like there are inconsistencies here, on an administrative level, but I don't have a firm grasp on them mentally.
How can both the strict moderation policy against hate be in practice in a default subreddit (r/twoxchromosomes) and the existence of a subreddit devoted to hate both exist and be in line with reddit's overall site philosophy and rules?
The answer is, of course, "each subreddit can set it's own rules, but there are few rules on what can be a subreddit," as this is the actual policy simplified....but I feel like this answer is philosophically opposed to essentially every view presented in this thread.
Reddit's problem is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too- they want people to be able to say whatever hateful or uplifting things they want, but they also want to be able to wash their hands of the hateful crap and make a lot of money off of the good stuff....yet the very same policies that encourage goodposting also encourage the worst kinds of shitposting.
I'm obviously of the position that yes, we can *gestures vaguely to these very boards*, but I'm interested in hearing a coherent argument against this position (which I, so far, have not seen)
It is possible for a website to have both things, but evidence seems to show that is not possible for Reddit because most of it's userbase believes that if free speech means having the "dark subreddits", then so be it. There's no Reddit if enough people revolt, the individual factions are big enough to cause an impact, even if they are a minority on the site. A minority on this forum can be a few dozens of users, but we are talking about several subreddits with hundreds of thousands of users.
Which is why I believe that Reddit grew too big to handle. Hence, the efforts of the administration are focused on keeping it from exploding.
It's almost as though reddit sees itself as more of some sort of service provider...on the internet...
Except they don't charge. They take their dip off the traffic. So the people building the reddits don't have any sort of explicit expectation of continuity, like a contract with an ISP. they're essentially sort of ... solicited squatters. It's an unusually arrangement. I have to kick back to geocities/tripod era for reference. Fuck, I am old.
There's LOTS of pretty awful shit on tumbler, blogger, etc as well. Not for nothing, but nobody talks about them as toxic communities. And this place HAS a strict moderation policy, and some people view it as a toxic community/brand anyway.
I host a podcast about movies.
I don't think the comparisons between geocities, and more appropriately Tumblr are very apt. Geocities (or tripod?) was earlier demonstrated in the thread to have a much stricter moderation policy for hatespeech, and forbids such things in their terms of use. I also know that Tumblr has a VERY strict moderation policy, and hateTumblrs are rather quickly removed. In fact, Tumblr's moderation policy was the subject of some controversy years ago, when they were acquired by (if I recall) Yahoo- who then moved to crack down on pornographic Tumblrs.
So, I would venture the argument that the reason people don't view Tumblr as a "toxic community" is because of the knowledge that Tumblr doesn't tolerate problem behavior.
... Googling tumblr porn ... definitely returns some hits.
That being said, I don't know of any tumblrs that promote racism. Not sure if that's really that meaningful though, since... well... I guess I can do more Googling
Right above that reads the following
Contrast this with Reddit's rules
The differences are subtle, I think, but it strikes me as interesting that both websites claim to be committed to free speech, yet only one has a reputation for being full of awful subcommunities (and I mean awful as in, hateful, not "lol tumblr feminists" awful)
Yeah, there's still TONS of porn tumblers, they just can't cross certain "I know it when i see it" fuzzy lines.
And sure, "hate tumblers" are removed, but uncivil behavior is FINE on tumbler, generally. Like poster to poster? WAY nastier than here, or a place like Boing Boing, where the tone itself is refereed pretty tightly for civility...
I host a podcast about movies.
They (supposedly) don't host adult videos that aren't strictly user-generated, among other things. It's in the TOS, though I'm not sure how strictly it is actually enforced
I'm putting a pin in this for later, when the forums inevitably have another argument about whether arguments should have civility as the ultimate goal. I would argue that reddit is perhaps more civil, user-to-user, than tumblr, but also has a more toxic community. I'll have to think about this more though.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Judging by my last several trips to fap island, you can post a pretty long gif before tumblr thinks its a "video"
I host a podcast about movies.
Sigged
Reddit gives people the space and tools. People decide what to do with it.
If you don't like the way something is modded, make something else. 2X actually split when it went default. A lot of the people who couldn't cope with the influx actually moved to a makeup sub to continue talking and would mail people on 2X the sub name if they posted without being awful and such.
TrollX also got more active around the same time.
Of course 2x had a lot of internal drama of regulars making alt accounts to troll each other because they wanted to ruin the sub, since the owner went default without really telling anyone.
I also want to respond to something:
I have no idea why people think Reddit is in some kind of dire financial straights. Their primary holder is a billion dollar company that wants coverage.. The cost of Reddit is nothing.
On top of that, Reddit is apparently doing just fine. They made some odd 8.4m in ad revenue last year. Also roughly $74,300 in Reddit gold earnings over the last 30 days.
Amazon cloud services aren't that expensive and their staff is fairly small.. I just don't think it costs as much as people seem to think, and their income is fairly steady.
No, tumblr is still full of racists, sexists, and hateful assholes. Trust me, I've been there for two years now. The difference is that tumblr, on a corporate level, is trying to avoid them, whereas Reddit invites them in.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Right, I think that's my point.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I'm not sure if this drags things off topic or provides a useful comparison point, but...
A lot of Tumblr communities (and especially radical social justice communities) are as genuinely awful and hateful as anything you can find on reddit. While I don't think it would be fun to dig for examples, the worst of the SJ communities on tumblr are exactly as hateful and bigoted and destructive as the worst communities on reddit. TERFs are an obvious example, as are a lot of the nastier forms of radfem, and even among the more standard SJ blogs there are objectively horrible and prejudiced things said every day about the groups that don't fit into their culture (like men, theists, and conservatives.)
Imagine if Donald Trump became the new Tumblr CEO tomorrow, and as his first order of business he went about closing down all of the SJ blogs he considered to be radical, as well as banning slashfiction because he considers it immoral. He then proceeds to delete the tumblrs of anyone who complains about him. He'd probably be within his 'rights' to do this, but I think the outcry on Tumblr would probably be fairly similar to the outcry against Pao on Reddit, and it seems to me to be similarly justified. Likewise, any argument about how "Reddit needs to police its more toxic communities" fails hard on consistency if you aren't willing to apply that argument equally to Tumblr and to radical SJ in general.
I'm not especially certain that I buy the general-case argument, however. I think the expected harm of fringe subreddits or tumblrs is extremely low, and the expected value loss that will come from trying to actively police fringe communities is fairly high (and especially, finding a way to agree on what is and is not a "fringe community" that doesn't end up causing more harm than good.) But I'm also not especially worried if someone tries - if an online community isn't serving the needs of its users, another will take its place fairly quickly, as we've seen many times in the past.
Maybe don't assume those calling for getting rid of biggoted spaces on Reddit wouldn't be for getting rid of biggoted places on tumblr.
Terfs fall into the category of garbage spewing biggots just as much as racists or misogynists.
Seriously, what's up with people desperately trying to make opponents of Reddit out to be hypocritical based off of baseless assumptions?
Hmm, maybe because the opponents of Reddit are making a lot of baseless assumptions about everything, themselves? I mean a vast majority of the discussions have been nothing but baseless assumptions.
Interesting that. I mean someone was actively defending tumblr as some great bastion of clean living and wholesome safe spaces.
When in reality it's not. Like. At all. And tumblr really doesn't accomplish anything in cleaning them up. So maybe that's where the "baseless assumptions" come from?
I don't see how it's opposed. Since this is the thread of terrible analogies, there is a difference between speech and accosting someone in the street and ranting at them. If you create a subreddit, you can define the rules for that conversation. If someone doesn't like those rules, they can just create their own. And people can choose to join in those conversations, or not. No one is prevented from speaking, but no one is forced to listen. It still accomplishes the goal of a free exchange of ideas.
On the other hand, the point I was attempting to make is that while there is still a similar problem of user created free expression on both platforms, which can lead to footholds of hate, one platform has less of a toxic reputation.
And by extension this largely due to the differences in moderation. In addition, platforms have a goal of free speech, but one has decided it will shelter all speech that doesn't directly attack specific people while the other has a harder stance on harm and hate.
---
AS for the complaints about "how if we come for the nazis, next we'll come for the gays" not making any sense. I think that misconstrues the argument. The idea that we ought freeze what is permissible to the current standards of the time is not going to cut a lot of ice. If we'd have done so one hundred years ago then the ideals we held would have legitimised racism even as we rejected particular forms of mysogyny. It seems odd to suggest that we have reached the peak of moral development - that today's commonplaces won't be discovered or considered to be monstrous in the future, perhaps defenses of whaling, perhaps we will discover that there are particular psychological conditions that lead to the redpill mentality and that by mocking them we're simply exercising our neurotypical privilege.
So, the obvious move is to point to the nature of the beliefs in question are those that become monstrous, not banning particular kinds of positive activist speech. We might appeal to the fact that particular kinds of positions are oppressive (they seek to constrain rights) and others are revolutionary (they seek to gain rights/remove oppressive beliefs) - a distinction that comes up in discussions like "Must a democratic society tolerate undemocratic ideas?". The problem that comes up here is that the oppressive beliefs maxim clobbers other things that it seems we ought not wish to clobber - such as religious positions, particular political platforms and so forth. Likewise, there are complications in say, Islam critical positions - "That's racist!" people cry - but then, they direct these criticisms against the victims of Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The problem is that it's difficult to come up with a general principle for stifling speech that doesn't fall afoul of both historical and future shifts in consensus. So then, we say "well when there's controversy we ought err on the side of caution, but for other things, I know it when I see it and we should not hesitate to get rid of them" - well, that's the question I guess, how do we know we know it when we see it? I don't see any benefit in /r/c***town and would in no way lament its passing in a general sense. But then, Islamists know it when they see it (hence the anti-blasphemy/religious offense conventions that get a lot of traction in the UN) and maybe /r/atheism or anti-Salafi reddits are thus for the block. A very large chunk of people would have happily seen Dragon's Crown never made indeed viewing it as a moral blight, they probably know it when they see it too, and a bunch of other places go away for their incessant microaggression.
Another way to look at is is thus: at present, the winds of society suggest that personal liberty and social justice are goals we ought ultimately pursue. So, it's obvious that the people who are racist are incompatible with our values. On the other hand, a few hundred years ago, we prized religious concerns much higher in general, the atheist and homosexual campaigning for their rights literally put others in danger of eternal damnation, against which concerns of self-determination seem petty. This seemed no less obvious then than our own pursuit of social justice seems now.
This is not the argument at all. No one has come close to suggesting we freeze what is permissible. What was suggested was that there is no slippery slope that leads from nazi's to gays. How in the Chirst did you get there from here?
1) Its really easy to come up with a general principle which does not fall afoul of historical shifts in consensus. Since none exist since that is history and its not changing.
2) We do not have to have a general principle for stifling speech that doesn't fall afoul of a future change in consensus because such a thing is not necessary to moderate message boards. Just like the Constitution is a living document which evolves as Judges rule on it we can change our standards for moderation as the need arises
3) Racism will always be bad.
At present we are discussing whether a private forum should moderate its speech. We are not discussing whether or not the government should change its speech laws. We are not discussing what public accommodation means. We are not discussing hypothetical future pogroms led by Reddit or whatever it is you seem to be thinking of here.
Obviously, I agree with that phrasing. But I also think that you're going to be hard pressed to define either such that we have consensus on what is or is not acceptable no matter how self evident any such example seems.
Basically, I'm no more inclined to accept your judgement about what is permissible than you are of mine despite the fact that we have oceans more in common with each other than the residents of /r/c---town.
Well too bad. Welcome to the culture war. Feel free to disarm at your peril.
I can tell you, a good quarter of posts on that board are either sexist posts, or a variation of /notallmen. Honestly, sexism is a bigger issue on reddit than racism or even homophobia. (Transphobia though, big problems). The blatant sexism seeps through all but the most moderated subreddits. An article about how Germany is trying to treat male pedophiles before they act on their urges is drowned by a tidal wave of "what about those evil female pedophiles! Not all men!"
A funny news article about a male version of Hooters, where the waiters refuse to wear their kilt uniforms due to groping leads to a rage filled page decrying those hypocritical feminazis, instead of a thoughtful discussion of how it feels to be sexually objectified.
And these aren't things you'd find on redpill, these are just regular subreddits.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
That's what Reddit's done, hasn't it? A cultural switzerland
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It seems like everything about that decision was based upon the perceived desires of their advertisers - specifically, they don't want to see their brand next to "come to c-town and laugh at n-words" or something like that. I don't think that the thought "let's use the advertising revenue from other subs to keep c-town etc... afloat entered their mind" furthermore, it doesn't seem like the removal of any subs was based on the personal distaste of the administration - specifically, such actions appear to be in response to particular business relationship concerns.
Given that the decisions were never one of approval/disapproval viewing the remaining subs through that lense seems a difficult reading.
It's protected by DMCA safe harbors, its owners and management are not liable for the criminal activities of its users provided it follows the appropriate procedures.
I'm of the opinion that the legal definition matches the logical definition pretty well at least for our current purposes.
Legal precedent also maintains that the capacity to, and historical willingness to exercise some control over content doesn't remove those legal protections and I don't see how it changes the moral status either.
EDIT: and as for "What was suggested was that there is no slippery slope that leads from nazi's to gays" - I am point out that that was never the argument. The argument is rather what was permissible and what was acceptable would have clobbered discussions of homosexuality and furthermore, that it's not very easy to determine what will in the future seem as outrageous as clobbering the discussion of gays. Note that the original phrasing was akin to "don't forget, at one point social consensus would have banned discussion of homosexuality" not that if we ban nazis soon we will be banning gays.
I'm also not talking about pogroms or government mandated speech restrictions, so I don't see why you think that is a relevant thing to point out.