Reddit Starts One-Sided Censorship

[Ostroeuropa]

Not all positions of power in our society are elected.

The top ones are, and I'm not just talking about the obvious president or whatever your leader is called. And not just the political world as well. And it's the top ones that matter most as they've got the most media coverage. Without the top positions serving as propaganda beacons, the rest loses its utility and eventually disappears.

How the media covers it matters, and we don't elect journalists.

[Attempted Socialism]

..No? What does having to label it NSFW have to do with anything? If you haven't noticed, white fragility is peaking right now as when Caucasian people get even a slight taste of racial discrimination, they freak out. And you know what, I don't blame some of them. But reddit is not "racist" towards white people.

They are treating the undefined majority like hot garbage! That's what's wrong with it!

I didn't realise all Nazi Germany did was change some rules that bans discrimination against all but a fairly loosely defined majority.

Though to make an actual point beyond "a Nazi Germany comparison is stupid", the rule should've protected people in the majority from genuine discrimination, harassment, bullying etc.

That's why I said "REVERSE Nazi Germany"

The reverse of complete evil being complete good. So in your informed opinion, Reddit is now perfect?
After seeing leftist groups whine about some guillotine-meme subreddits being closed, I guess your hot take is about as close to reality as your reverse Nazi Germany analogy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Purgatio, while the mission statement of GenderCritical was anti-trans, there was a considerable amount of misandry there that was normalized. Their reasoning for supporting sex-segregated spaces was uniformly about demonizing males too.

There's also their rhetoric and discussion of male bodies and the visceral disgust they hold them in.

They were also a feminist movement, so misandrist by default.

They really weren't 'demonising' males at all, they regard trans women as biologically male because they believe biological sex is real and important, and they support sex-segregated spaces because they believe its essentially to prevent VAW. None of that is demonising of biological males. I'm a man who has been on that subreddit fairly regularly and very rarely saw anything that was hateful or misandrist or vitriolic of men in general.

There's a big difference between recognising a difference between biological sex and gender identity, which was at the core of what r/GenderCritical was about, and just straight up hating biological males for being biologically-male. The people on r/GenderCritical were gender-abolitionist, they were advocating for a society where biological sex does not carry or entail any gendered societal expectations. That's not a misandrist opinion to hold. Neither is it misandrist to suggest trans women are biologically different from cis women.

Right, that bit about VAW? That's misandry. That's the problem. And again, there's the issue of how they discuss male bodies in terms of disgust.

[Costa Fierro]

Anti-discrimination laws on private business are a thing in most US States already you know. And the Civil Rights Act already imposes non-discrimination obligations on places of public accommodation.

All I'm suggesting is something similar, but for discrimination based on viewpoints and political affiliation, and applied vis-a-vis online businesses and platforms and domains instead.

You know what can be done?

Build your own platform. If the market likes your idea, customers will flock to it (and Big Tech will try to steal it).

Like that conservative Twitter-alternative which I can't remember the name of. The Free Market has provided you with an alternative. No need to use governmental force to change the way private companies are doing business.

This is pretty much it.

If people don't like it, they can go and build their own site with blackjack and hookers.

There's nothing compelling Reddit to keep these subs around. Not that it matters because they're hilariously bad at keeping banned content banned.

[Esternial]

Not all positions of power in our society are elected.

The top ones are, and I'm not just talking about the obvious president or whatever your leader is called. And not just the political world as well. And it's the top ones that matter most as they've got the most media coverage. Without the top positions serving as propaganda beacons, the rest loses its utility and eventually disappears.

Haven't seen a lot of evidence of this in practice, save for maybe the People's Republic and North Korea.

[Purgatio]

Anti-discrimination laws on private business are a thing in most US States already you know. And the Civil Rights Act already imposes non-discrimination obligations on places of public accommodation.

All I'm suggesting is something similar, but for discrimination based on viewpoints and political affiliation, and applied vis-a-vis online businesses and platforms and domains instead.

You know what can be done?

Build your own platform. If the market likes your idea, customers will flock to it (and Big Tech will try to steal it).

Like that conservative Twitter-alternative which I can't remember the name of. The Free Market has provided you with an alternative. No need to use governmental force to change the way private companies are doing business.

This "find another platform" argument doesn't address the core criticism that, in a tolerant and pluralistic society, it is wrong and immoral for people to have to suffer discrimination or unequal treatment when transacting in everyday public life or interacting in the public square. No one should be subjected to lesser treatment simply for belonging to a class of individuals, whether that's race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or political affiliation or conscience.

[Ostroeuropa]

You know what can be done?

Build your own platform. If the market likes your idea, customers will flock to it (and Big Tech will try to steal it).

Like that conservative Twitter-alternative which I can't remember the name of. The Free Market has provided you with an alternative. No need to use governmental force to change the way private companies are doing business.

This is pretty much it.

If people don't like it, they can go and build their own site with blackjack and hookers.

There's nothing compelling Reddit to keep these subs around. Not that it matters because they're hilariously bad at keeping banned content banned.

social media sites are often natural monopolies.

[Purgatio]

They really weren't 'demonising' males at all, they regard trans women as biologically male because they believe biological sex is real and important, and they support sex-segregated spaces because they believe its essentially to prevent VAW. None of that is demonising of biological males. I'm a man who has been on that subreddit fairly regularly and very rarely saw anything that was hateful or misandrist or vitriolic of men in general.

There's a big difference between recognising a difference between biological sex and gender identity, which was at the core of what r/GenderCritical was about, and just straight up hating biological males for being biologically-male. The people on r/GenderCritical were gender-abolitionist, they were advocating for a society where biological sex does not carry or entail any gendered societal expectations. That's not a misandrist opinion to hold. Neither is it misandrist to suggest trans women are biologically different from cis women.

Right, that bit about VAW? That's misandry. That's the problem. And again, there's the issue of how they discuss male bodies in terms of disgust.

The very concept of VAW is misandry? What? How? So having an issue with forced marriages, forced pregnancies and female genital mutilation is misandrist? But its not, its literally just concerned about systemic violence suffered by women, not demonising men.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The thing is Ostro, we can't just advocate for freedom of expression for groups we agree with. That's totally hypocritical.

I disagree with pretty much everything there is to be found on genderCritical. I still don't think it should be shut down, because their opinions are just as valid as those opinions with which I agree.

I broadly agree with you. Incitement to violence would be a different matter though. I'm merely noting that yes, they were misandrists.

The term 'incitement to violence' has been expanded out of all proportion though.

I know a guy who thought I should be killed, which is lovely. He thought all disabled people should be killed, the university were considering kicking him off his degree over it. I spent a lot of time defending this guy, and pointed out to the people who were literally calling for him to be removed from his degree that he hadn't actually incited violence as he had only expressed the view that the disabled should be killed, rather than encouraging people to go out to kill them. I also changed the guys mind, we're very close friends now.

[Esternial]

You know what can be done?

Build your own platform. If the market likes your idea, customers will flock to it (and Big Tech will try to steal it).

Like that conservative Twitter-alternative which I can't remember the name of. The Free Market has provided you with an alternative. No need to use governmental force to change the way private companies are doing business.

This is pretty much it.

If people don't like it, they can go and build their own site with blackjack and hookers.

There's nothing compelling Reddit to keep these subs around. Not that it matters because they're hilariously bad at keeping banned content banned.

People innately want stuff other people want, as it imparts more value if it's more wanted.

The left or the right (who tends to flip flop as time passes) might claim it's simply for "free speech, but it's for "their free speech on a popular platform" which sets at least 2 additional requirements.

[Costa Fierro]

This is pretty much it.

If people don't like it, they can go and build their own site with blackjack and hookers.

There's nothing compelling Reddit to keep these subs around. Not that it matters because they're hilariously bad at keeping banned content banned.

social media sites are often natural monopolies.

Reddit isn't a monopoly. Social media sites, even the monolith of Facebook, are not monopolies.

[Purgatio]

If you're gonna advocate en masse censorship of people's opinions, you really are gonna need something a bit more concrete and certain than this nebulous notion of "erosion of social cohesion", which you clearly can't explain, articulate in detail, or justify when applied to individual cases.

I don't. It's what it says on the tin.

You're defending Reddit's decision to ban and deplatform a number of its own subreddits based on "erosion of social cohesion", but you can't coherently explain what precisely was said and done on specific subreddits that justified them being banned. That's inherently Kafkaesque. You don't seem to care about articulating clear, predictable, and certain rules, in which redditors can have a coherent idea in advance as to what will or will not get them banned.

[Esternial]

social media sites are often natural monopolies.

Reddit isn't a monopoly. Social media sites, even the monolith of Facebook, are not monopolies.

I agree. If they were, they would be much less subservient to advertisers and mob mentality.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This is pretty much it.

If people don't like it, they can go and build their own site with blackjack and hookers.

There's nothing compelling Reddit to keep these subs around. Not that it matters because they're hilariously bad at keeping banned content banned.

People innately want stuff other people want, as it imparts more value if it's more wanted.

The left or the right (who tends to flip flop as time passes) might claim it's simply for "free speech, but it's for "their free speech on a popular platform" which sets at least 2 additional requirements.

This is why people who only get annoyed when certain speech is censored irritate me so much.

[Zapato]

You know what can be done?

Build your own platform. If the market likes your idea, customers will flock to it (and Big Tech will try to steal it).

Like that conservative Twitter-alternative which I can't remember the name of. The Free Market has provided you with an alternative. No need to use governmental force to change the way private companies are doing business.

This "find another platform" argument doesn't address the core criticism that, in a tolerant and pluralistic society, it is wrong and immoral for people to have to suffer discrimination or unequal treatment when transacting in everyday public life or interacting in the public square. No one should be subjected to lesser treatment simply for belonging to a class of individuals, whether that's race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or political affiliation or conscience.

Why can't I post porn on YouTube? Am I being discriminated against? Is it wrong an immoral for YouTube to ban my speech, just because I want to talk graphically about my bodily fluids?

Sure, I *could* find another platform, and there's many of them, but this is apparently a tolerant and pluralistic society so we should compell YouTube to change it's ToS and allow me to post my porn, right?

[Purgatio]

They really weren't 'demonising' males at all, they regard trans women as biologically male because they believe biological sex is real and important, and they support sex-segregated spaces because they believe its essentially to prevent VAW. None of that is demonising of biological males. I'm a man who has been on that subreddit fairly regularly and very rarely saw anything that was hateful or misandrist or vitriolic of men in general.

There's a big difference between recognising a difference between biological sex and gender identity, which was at the core of what r/GenderCritical was about, and just straight up hating biological males for being biologically-male. The people on r/GenderCritical were gender-abolitionist, they were advocating for a society where biological sex does not carry or entail any gendered societal expectations. That's not a misandrist opinion to hold. Neither is it misandrist to suggest trans women are biologically different from cis women.

Right, that bit about VAW? That's misandry. That's the problem. And again, there's the issue of how they discuss male bodies in terms of disgust.

They also don't discuss male bodies in disgust, they just recognise biological males and females are distinct, and that certain issues like abortion, contraception, and period-related health products, solely affect biological women, which is why they object to trans-inclusive language erasing the concept of biological sex (saying "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women", that kind of thing). That's not really disgust at male bodies, so much as wanting to linguistically-preserve terminology that refers to specific issues faced by biological females and not faced by biological males.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This "find another platform" argument doesn't address the core criticism that, in a tolerant and pluralistic society, it is wrong and immoral for people to have to suffer discrimination or unequal treatment when transacting in everyday public life or interacting in the public square. No one should be subjected to lesser treatment simply for belonging to a class of individuals, whether that's race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or political affiliation or conscience.

Why can't I post porn on YouTube? Am I being discriminated against? Is it wrong an immoral for YouTube to ban my speech, just because I want to talk graphically about my bodily fluids?

Sure, I *could* find another platform, and there's many of them, but this is apparently a tolerant and pluralistic society so we should compell YouTube to change it's ToS and allow me to post my porn, right?

Personally, sure go for it. I agree.

However, porn isn't a political affiliation or conscience, which is the angle Purgatio is taking so that wouldn't be covered.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

By 'clean up' you mean become an echo chamber?

I disagree with your wording but I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. The real problem then are these movements which try to get advertisers to pull out of websites for hosting opinions they disagree with.

You're close. With "clean up" I meant "become an attractive platform for advertisers".

The movements you refer to are indeed an active element, but I think advertisers themselves also push platforms towards enforcing the most "common denominator" ideology.

It's part of the free market economy. Public image has become a bigger and bigger deal in markets that grow more and more competitive, and it really shows sometimes in knee-jerk responses to try and conform as much as possible, which don't tend to come across as genuine.

Mainstream media always had a pro-capitalism bias, because each outlet was competing (on price and viewer numbers) for a share of the advertising spend on offer. From capitalists, of course. Trade unions didn't buy a lot of advertising.

Public image has become a bigger part of each advertiser's brand, as you say. Now they have a lot more choice of platforms to buy advertising on, and they're increasingly picky to be sure that their clean brand isn't dirtied by being alongside repellent fringe opinions.

But I don't see it as something revolutionary. It's just a more nuanced and diversified imposition of bias on platforms, by those who pay to advertise there. Unless users are prepared to pay directly and free the platform from dependence on advertising, I'm not sure how they can avoid it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Right, that bit about VAW? That's misandry. That's the problem. And again, there's the issue of how they discuss male bodies in terms of disgust.

The very concept of VAW is misandry? What? How? So having an issue with forced marriages, forced pregnancies and female genital mutilation is misandrist? But its not, its literally just concerned about systemic violence suffered by women, not demonising men.

Arguably yes, VAW is a misandrist concept given that the overwhelming majority of violence is suffered by men, and VAW has been pushed to the point that it distorts public perceptions of violence and they believe women suffer more of it. It's also misandrist in issues like female genital mutilation in that it seperates those concerns from genital mutilation as a whole in an attempt to segregate the discussion, resulting in men being left uncovered. This is also the case for forced marriages in most cases.

More specifically, the concept that if men are allowed into womens spaces, violence against women will be the result, is a misandrist concept without any backing to it.

[Purgatio]

This "find another platform" argument doesn't address the core criticism that, in a tolerant and pluralistic society, it is wrong and immoral for people to have to suffer discrimination or unequal treatment when transacting in everyday public life or interacting in the public square. No one should be subjected to lesser treatment simply for belonging to a class of individuals, whether that's race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or political affiliation or conscience.

Why can't I post porn on YouTube? Am I being discriminated against? Is it wrong an immoral for YouTube to ban my speech, just because I want to talk graphically about my bodily fluids?

Sure, I *could* find another platform, and there's many of them, but this is apparently a tolerant and pluralistic society so we should compell YouTube to change it's ToS and allow me to post my porn, right?

Most anti-discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 allow private businesses to institute policies that would be prima facie discriminatory, but which pursues a legitimate aim and comports with proportionality. For instance, having a support group for sufferers of gay conversion therapy is a policy that would include gay people and not straight people, that's prima facie discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but could be argued to be compatible with the principle of proportionality and it pursues a legitimate aim and interest. So in your example, we could just apply the test of proportionality to YouTube's policy and let a court figure out whether the argument flies. This is not a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 in the UK is based on precisely this system that I'm suggesting should be extended to discrimination based on political conscience.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why can't I post porn on YouTube? Am I being discriminated against? Is it wrong an immoral for YouTube to ban my speech, just because I want to talk graphically about my bodily fluids?

Sure, I *could* find another platform, and there's many of them, but this is apparently a tolerant and pluralistic society so we should compell YouTube to change it's ToS and allow me to post my porn, right?

Most anti-discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 allow private businesses to institute policies that would be prima facie discriminatory, but which pursues a legitimate aim and comports with proportionality. For instance, having a support group for sufferers of gay conversion therapy is a policy that would include gay people and not straight people, that's prima facie discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but could be argued to be compatible with the principle of proportionality and it pursues a legitimate aim and interest. So in your example, we could just apply the test of proportionality to YouTube's policy and let a court figure out whether the argument flies. This is not a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 in the UK is based on precisely this system that I'm suggesting should be extended to discrimination based on political conscience.

But importantly, it's a court that can't be swayed by advertiser pressure making that call, not the company themselves.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why can't I post porn on YouTube? Am I being discriminated against? Is it wrong an immoral for YouTube to ban my speech, just because I want to talk graphically about my bodily fluids?

Sure, I *could* find another platform, and there's many of them, but this is apparently a tolerant and pluralistic society so we should compell YouTube to change it's ToS and allow me to post my porn, right?

Most anti-discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 allow private businesses to institute policies that would be prima facie discriminatory, but which pursues a legitimate aim and comports with proportionality. For instance, having a support group for sufferers of gay conversion therapy is a policy that would include gay people and not straight people, that's prima facie discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but could be argued to be compatible with the principle of proportionality and it pursues a legitimate aim and interest. So in your example, we could just apply the test of proportionality to YouTube's policy and let a court figure out whether the argument flies. This is not a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 in the UK is based on precisely this system that I'm suggesting should be extended to discrimination based on political conscience.

Take this concept you've outlined here and apply it to VAW.

[Purgatio]

The very concept of VAW is misandry? What? How? So having an issue with forced marriages, forced pregnancies and female genital mutilation is misandrist? But its not, its literally just concerned about systemic violence suffered by women, not demonising men.

Arguably yes, VAW is a misandrist concept given that the overwhelming majority of violence is suffered by men, and VAW has been pushed to the point that it distorts public perceptions of violence and they believe women suffer more of it. It's also misandrist in issues like female genital mutilation in that it seperates those concerns from genital mutilation as a whole in an attempt to segregate the discussion, resulting in men being left uncovered. This is also the case for forced marriages in most cases.

More specifically, the concept that if men are allowed into womens spaces, violence against women will be the result, is a misandrist concept without any backing to it.

Not really, I think there are valid concerns that an end to sex-segregated spaces could lead to problems like exhibitionism, indecent exposure, and voyeurism, which have occurred in the past from men to women, examples of which can easily be found in the news. I wouldn't say there is 'no backing' to it either, there are specific examples of people like Katie Dolatowski who have assaulted natal women in sex-segregated bathrooms and spaces.

And its not inherently-misandrist to recognise certain cases where women suffer disproportionate types of violence, be it sexual harassment or rape or domestic violence (and I'm well aware that its controversial to suggest that women are disproportionately likely to suffer rape or DV, I've done papers on this in university and a lot of the debate centres on how you define these concepts, which statistics you cite etc. etc., suffice to say whatever your view is on that matter, my point is its not inherently-misandrist to think that women disproportionately suffer certain categories of violence, because its not suggesting that male victims of those same types of violence should be ignored or are unimportant).

[Esternial]

You're close. With "clean up" I meant "become an attractive platform for advertisers".

The movements you refer to are indeed an active element, but I think advertisers themselves also push platforms towards enforcing the most "common denominator" ideology.

It's part of the free market economy. Public image has become a bigger and bigger deal in markets that grow more and more competitive, and it really shows sometimes in knee-jerk responses to try and conform as much as possible, which don't tend to come across as genuine.

Mainstream media always had a pro-capitalism bias, because each outlet was competing (on price and viewer numbers) for a share of the advertising spend on offer. From capitalists, of course. Trade unions didn't buy a lot of advertising.

Public image has become a bigger part of each advertiser's brand, as you say. Now they have a lot more choice of platforms to buy advertising on, and they're increasingly picky to be sure that their clean brand isn't dirtied by being alongside repellent fringe opinions.

But I don't see it as something revolutionary. It's just a more nuanced and diversified imposition of bias on platforms, by those who pay to advertise there. Unless users are prepared to pay directly and free the platform from dependence on advertising, I'm not sure how they can avoid it.

That's a good point. Haven't really looked at the "predecessors" of social media in such a way.

I agree, only non-commercialized platforms can have a real chance in avoiding bias.

[Purgatio]

Most anti-discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 allow private businesses to institute policies that would be prima facie discriminatory, but which pursues a legitimate aim and comports with proportionality. For instance, having a support group for sufferers of gay conversion therapy is a policy that would include gay people and not straight people, that's prima facie discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but could be argued to be compatible with the principle of proportionality and it pursues a legitimate aim and interest. So in your example, we could just apply the test of proportionality to YouTube's policy and let a court figure out whether the argument flies. This is not a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 in the UK is based on precisely this system that I'm suggesting should be extended to discrimination based on political conscience.

Take this concept you've outlined here and apply it to VAW.

VAW is not a discriminatory concept. Its about recognising specific categories of violence that both disproportionately affect women, and are motivated at least in part by misogynistic views and ideals (i.e. ownership or entitlement or control over women's bodies). Like forced pregnancies. Honour killings. Forced marriages etc. The point is to recognise types of VAW so they can be specifically-targeted, by addressing the misogynistic ideas, concepts, and beliefs that contribute in part to their perpetuation.

There's a gigantic difference between saying "there's this category of violence that's motivated, in part, by hatred of the targeted group, let's try and call attention to that hatred", versus "only violence against women matters, fuck men, I don't care about men suffering violence". You get that these two arguments are conceptually very different right? I can care about homophobic hate crimes against gay people like Matthew Shepard or Orlando without implicitly suggesting that I don't care about straight people getting murdered.