Reddit Starts One-Sided Censorship

[Dawn Denac]

???

It's Reddit, not the federal government. And it's not like they're particularly zealous about enforcing those rules. It took them like four years to ban r/the_Donald, and they only did so after that little shithole had already suffered a long agony and was basically a husk.

Privatizing the public square means it's okay for corporations to censor people.

Like how if we privatize healthcare, it's fine to deny it to Jews, not racism.

BigThink from "Liberals".

It's not about the liberals or the conservatives. Bloody hell people.

[The Emerald Legion]

Privatizing the public square means it's okay for corporations to censor people.

Like how if we privatize healthcare, it's fine to deny it to Jews, not racism.

BigThink from "Liberals".

It's not about the liberals or the conservatives. Bloody hell people.

Kind of is, yeah.

[Squidroidia]

I can smell the popcorn from here.

[Ostroeuropa]

Privatizing the public square means it's okay for corporations to censor people.

Like how if we privatize healthcare, it's fine to deny it to Jews, not racism.

BigThink from "Liberals".

It's not about the liberals or the conservatives. Bloody hell people.

I'm calling them liberals because it's a corporate bootlicking response to the issue, and liberalism is basically private property abuses memeified into an ideology. (Actual Liberalism, not the weird US definition of it). I also know Lir is not a corporate bootlicker, so I don't really get why they'd respond this way.

[Dawn Denac]

I can smell the popcorn from here.

Thanks for reminding me I have popcorn.

[Dawn Denac]

It's not about the liberals or the conservatives. Bloody hell people.

Kind of is, yeah.

Sure.

It's not about the liberals or the conservatives. Bloody hell people.

I'm calling them liberals because it's a corporate bootlicking response to the issue, and liberalism is basically private property abuses memeified into an ideology. (Actual Liberalism, not the weird US definition of it). I also know Lir is not a corporate bootlicker, so I don't really get why they'd respond this way.

/shrug

[Liriena]

???

It's Reddit, not the federal government. And it's not like they're particularly zealous about enforcing those rules. It took them like four years to ban r/the_Donald, and they only did so after that little shithole had already suffered a long agony and was basically a husk.

Privatizing the public square means it's okay for corporations to censor people.

Like how if we privatize healthcare, it's fine to deny it to Jews, not racism.

BigThink.


"Racism doesn't exist, because civil rights act" v "censorship doesn't exist, because it's not the government doing it.".

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I am saying that the word "outrageous" is kind of misdirected when used to describe a rule that the platform itself has a history of not really enforcing with any serious diligence.

You can certainly complain that rules against hate speech in online communication platforms are wrong, be it as a matter of principle or in specific cases where their wording is not inclusive enough or lends itself to favouritisms. But you'd be complaining about rules that, in practice, work as aspirational abstractions and tend to have little to do with the material reality of how those platforms actually operate.

[Dynvan]

For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

Huh, so as long as my VPN is set to a black majority country I have a hard r pass? Oh and since women are 51% of population, now I can act like the (internal) misogynist I have always wanted to be? Very cool reddit, this rule definitely won't get changed in like a week.

[Ostroeuropa]

Privatizing the public square means it's okay for corporations to censor people.

Like how if we privatize healthcare, it's fine to deny it to Jews, not racism.

BigThink.


"Racism doesn't exist, because civil rights act" v "censorship doesn't exist, because it's not the government doing it.".

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I am saying that the word "outrageous" is kind of misdirected when used to describe a rule that the platform itself has a history of not really enforcing with any serious diligence.

You can certainly complain that rules against hate speech in online communication platforms are wrong, be it as a matter of principle or in specific cases where their wording is not inclusive enough or lends itself to favouritisms. But you'd be complaining about aspirational abstractions which tend to have little to do with the material reality of how those platforms actually operate.

I kind of agree with this, but i'd question that they don't have a connection to the material reality of how they operate. It seems to me that the lax enforcement of the rules is in part due to them not being sincere, but a cover for the elimination of ideological enemies of the mainstream media. The material reality then is that these platforms kowtow to media narratives and censor criticism of the ideas and perspectives the media enforces on the public.

The lax enforcement of the rules is because they're not sincere principles, but rather, excuses. This is also why "sexism" and "racism" have been stretched beyond all recognition, because it's simple enough to rationalize an excuse for why something is racist, insist that it is so and disagreeing makes you unpersoned, and then demand it be censored. At least, it's simple to do if you hold power over the media.

[Liriena]

For reference: Reddit didn't just ban r/the_Donald this time around. They also banned r/ChapoTrapHouse (ostensibly because of repeatedly showing support for John Brown and the killings of slave owners) and r/GenderCritical (i.e. Reddit TERFs' HQ).

[Crockerland]

Wow, I can't believe Reddit sent six million people to death camps while waging war against an entire continent!

Please go outside and get some fresh air, OP. And read a fucking book.

The five million non-Jewish victims in the camps were also people.

And Africa is also a separate entire continent - I think we all got what Liriena meant, though.

[Washington Resistance Army]

For reference: Reddit didn't just ban r/the_Donald this time around. They also banned r/ChapoTrapHouse (ostensibly because of repeatedly showing support for John Brown and the killings of slave owners) and r/GenderCritical (i.e. Reddit TERFs' HQ).

CTH also encouraged and supported very modern and present terrorism. In particular I remember seeing lots of posts alluding to the Bernie Bro who shot a bunch of Republicans a few years back.

[Crockerland]

For reference: Reddit didn't just ban r/the_Donald this time around. They also banned r/ChapoTrapHouse (ostensibly because of repeatedly showing support for John Brown and the killings of slave owners) and r/GenderCritical (i.e. Reddit TERFs' HQ).

They also branned r/Bruhfunny, home of Sharkwhistling.

Thankfully r/ape has not been banned. MOnke > shark

[Liriena]

For reference: Reddit didn't just ban r/the_Donald this time around. They also banned r/ChapoTrapHouse (ostensibly because of repeatedly showing support for John Brown and the killings of slave owners) and r/GenderCritical (i.e. Reddit TERFs' HQ).

CTH also encouraged and supported very modern and present terrorism. In particular I remember seeing lots of posts alluding to the Bernie Bro who shot a bunch of Republicans a few years back.

"Play ball" and "take me out to be ball game" did become recurring memes there.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

For reference: Reddit didn't just ban r/the_Donald this time around. They also banned r/ChapoTrapHouse (ostensibly because of repeatedly showing support for John Brown and the killings of slave owners) and r/GenderCritical (i.e. Reddit TERFs' HQ).

Yep, and you're a hypocrite if you think some of them are wrong and not all.

[Liriena]

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I am saying that the word "outrageous" is kind of misdirected when used to describe a rule that the platform itself has a history of not really enforcing with any serious diligence.

You can certainly complain that rules against hate speech in online communication platforms are wrong, be it as a matter of principle or in specific cases where their wording is not inclusive enough or lends itself to favouritisms. But you'd be complaining about aspirational abstractions which tend to have little to do with the material reality of how those platforms actually operate.

I kind of agree with this, but i'd question that they don't have a connection to the material reality of how they operate. It seems to me that the lax enforcement of the rules is in part due to them not being sincere, but a cover for the elimination of ideological enemies of the mainstream media. The material reality then is that these platforms kowtow to media narratives and censor criticism of the ideas and perspectives the media enforces on the public.

The lax enforcement of the rules is because they're not sincere principles, but rather, excuses. This is also why "sexism" and "racism" have been stretched beyond all recognition, because it's simple enough to rationalize an excuse for why something is racist, insist that it is so and disagreeing makes you unpersoned, and then demand it be censored. At least, it's simple to do if you hold power over the media.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it's an issue of friends and enemies of the mainstream media, at least not mainly. Platforms like Youtube have thrived through channels that sell themselves as alternatives to the established mainstream. Mainstream media shining a spotlight on controversial figures in those platforms can accelerate the platforms' reactions, but I feel like said reactions ultimately end up responding to a broader zeitgeist, rather than the mainstream media specifically.

Plus, online platforms may try to court a diverse or progressive audience, but in practice they often seem to be quite adamantly centrist, if not right-wing liberal. For a long while, for example, people have complained that the supposedly diverse and inclusive Youtube often takes a very Section 28-ish approach to LGBT content, and its rule enforcement often fails to distinguish between extremist propaganda and criticism of extremist propaganda.

And Reddit specifically seems to have an unspoken "both sides" policy whenever they get around to restricting or outright banning a community.

[Liriena]

For reference: Reddit didn't just ban r/the_Donald this time around. They also banned r/ChapoTrapHouse (ostensibly because of repeatedly showing support for John Brown and the killings of slave owners) and r/GenderCritical (i.e. Reddit TERFs' HQ).

Yep, and you're a hypocrite if you think some of them are wrong and not all.

John Brown did nothing wrong tho

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Yep, and you're a hypocrite if you think some of them are wrong and not all.

John Brown did nothing wrong tho

He kind of did, but I might have been unclear in my phrasing. I meant if you think some of the bans were wrong and not all, not the subs themselves.

[Gormwood]

John Brown did nothing wrong tho

He kind of did, but I might have been unclear in my phrasing. I meant if you think some of the bans were wrong and not all, not the subs themselves.

So resorting to the only realistic means of fighting slavery in a region where the system is explicitly in favor of it is wrong.

[Liriena]

John Brown did nothing wrong tho

He kind of did, but I might have been unclear in my phrasing. I meant if you think some of the bans were wrong and not all, not the subs themselves.

The r/ChapoTrapHouse ban was probably legitimate, if we abided by a strict interpretation of Reddit rules.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

He kind of did, but I might have been unclear in my phrasing. I meant if you think some of the bans were wrong and not all, not the subs themselves.

The r/ChapoTrapHouse ban was probably legitimate, if we abided by a strict interpretation of Reddit rules.

Do you mean the rules as they were, or the rule that they brought in and applied retrospectively?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

He kind of did, but I might have been unclear in my phrasing. I meant if you think some of the bans were wrong and not all, not the subs themselves.

So resorting to the only realistic means of fighting slavery in a region where the system is explicitly in favor of it is wrong.

Resorting to attacking people is wrong.
So is threadjacking though, so I won't be going deeper into it.

[Liriena]

The r/ChapoTrapHouse ban was probably legitimate, if we abided by a strict interpretation of Reddit rules.

Do you mean the rules as they were, or the rule that they brought in and applied retrospectively?

Both.

I enjoyed that subreddit immensely. There was a lot of good posting in there. But lines were crossed repeatedly and, even with the veil of irony, a lot of the discourse there wasn't helpful or healthy.

Still, I'll always be grateful to those libs for introducing me to Thomas Sankara and the best leftist podcast... Well There's Your Problem

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Do you mean the rules as they were, or the rule that they brought in and applied retrospectively?

Both.

I enjoyed that subreddit immensely. There was a lot of good posting in there. But lines were crossed repeatedly and, even with the veil of irony, a lot of the discourse there wasn't helpful or healthy.

Which previous rule did they break?

As for the new one, decency suggests they should have at least made an announcement saying 'here's this new we're bringing in with no notice whatsoever, here's a 7-day grace period, mods have 7 days to get their houses in order.' I think far fewer people would be complaining if they'd done that.

[Crockerland]

He kind of did, but I might have been unclear in my phrasing. I meant if you think some of the bans were wrong and not all, not the subs themselves.

So resorting to the only realistic means of fighting slavery in a region where the system is explicitly in favor of it is wrong.

The only way to end slavery is to murder this unarmed black railway worker in cold blood.