Reddit Starts One-Sided Censorship

[Gormwood]

…Reddit is not turning into a “reverse Nazi Germany.”

For one thing, the only gas chambers are on fetish subreddits.

And the marijuana subreddits.

[The Alma Mater]

Yep! Like you said, the tech giants have been doing this for a while and will continue doing it. It's going to be extraordinarily hard to get them to be more transparent, if they even will.

It's just stupid that people can only see this issue within the context of Trump. But Trump isn't going to be president forever. One day, he'll be gone. Is Twitter going to give up its power to push an ideology? Is YouTube going to cut back on censorship? The precedent has already been set that these tech companies basically tell the government to suck their dicks. It's only going to get worse.

Just wondering: if they would be pushing an ideology you agree with, would you also oppose them in this manner ?

[Dawn Denac]

…Reddit is not turning into a “reverse Nazi Germany.”

For one thing, the only gas chambers are on fetish subreddits.

And the marijuana subreddits.

Hum. Wouldn't that be hot boxes?

[The Alma Mater]

If you don't wanna get banned from using the website of a private company, maybe don't violate their terms of use. Just food for thought.

One would like to, but the terms are too vague and silly.

[Salus Maior]

It's not really any different from what they have been doing.

Or this site has been doing, really.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Okay hold up just a minute

It's official, Reddit is turning into a reverse Nazi Germany (which is just as bad as the real Nazi Germany).

Doesn't that seem just a bit overly dramatic to you? It's a website, not a country that wanted to take over the world and commit systematic genocide.

[Dawn Denac]

Okay hold up just a minute

It's official, Reddit is turning into a reverse Nazi Germany (which is just as bad as the real Nazi Germany).

Doesn't that seem just a bit overly dramatic to you? It's a website, not a country that wanted to take over the world and commit systematic genocide.

Ten bucks for anytime someone says "LITERALLY HITLER" in response to something on the Internet?

[Qvait]

Reddit said they banned r/The_Donald for violating rules 1, 2, and 8. Let's go over those rules:

1. Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

2. Abide by community rules. Post authentic content into communities where you have a personal interest, and do not cheat or engage in content manipulation (including spamming, vote manipulation, ban evasion, or subscriber fraud) or otherwise interfere with or disrupt Reddit communities.

8. Don’t break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit.

Source: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

[Bear Stearns]

It's just stupid that people can only see this issue within the context of Trump. But Trump isn't going to be president forever. One day, he'll be gone. Is Twitter going to give up its power to push an ideology? Is YouTube going to cut back on censorship? The precedent has already been set that these tech companies basically tell the government to suck their dicks. It's only going to get worse.

Money makes problems disappear. As long as people keep using these sites, they'll keep having money to throw at their issues. Good luck with lawsuits too, cause they'll likely drown you in litigation and legal fees.

The situation with YouTube is particularly alarming. YouTube is a near monopoly in its space (bitchute and dailymotion will never be real threats), with deep institutional power, the ability to leverage Google's search engines, and deep relationships with traditional media companies that are using YouTube to forestall their coming obsolescence. And it's structurally set up to be this way. There can really over be one YouTube-like platform at any given time. If two exist at the same time, one will eventually win out. The reason is because content creators will gravitate towards the most accessible and concentrated platform, and viewers will gravitate towards the platforms with the most content. So it becomes a feedback loop. YouTube is dominant because that's where the content creators are, and content creators go to YouTube because YouTube is dominant. This is why it is practically impossible to develop a real alternative to YouTube. The only way these sorts of natural monopolies are disrupted is either through government regulation or the development of new technologies that make the prior models obsolete.

And given YouTube's accessibility by billions of viewers and content creators, it's essentially the closest thing there is a public platform for all, and is often the primary source of video information for millions across the world. Because of the centrality of YouTube to the flow of information in our daily lives, saying "lol it's just a private company they can do whatever the fuck they want" seems really dumb. In other sectors, when these monopolies arise, the government usually allows the monopoly but regulates them to prevent abuse. Such is the case with water, power, and telecom utilities.

If we're comfortable regulating utility and telecom monopolies, then it's probably time to seriously look into treating YouTube the same way. To get an analogy of how bad this could get it, imagine if AT&T could shut off your phone service because they disagreed with what you were saying over the phone.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Okay hold up just a minute


Doesn't that seem just a bit overly dramatic to you? It's a website, not a country that wanted to take over the world and commit systematic genocide.

Ten bucks for anytime someone says "LITERALLY HITLER" in response to something on the Internet?

You'd have more wealth than Bezos

[Dawn Denac]

Money makes problems disappear. As long as people keep using these sites, they'll keep having money to throw at their issues. Good luck with lawsuits too, cause they'll likely drown you in litigation and legal fees.

The situation with YouTube is particularly alarming. YouTube is a near monopoly in its space (bitchute and dailymotion will never be real threats), with deep institutional power, the ability to leverage Google's search engines, and deep relationships with traditional media companies that are using YouTube to forestall their coming obsolescence. And it's structurally set up to be this way. There can really over be one YouTube-like platform at any given time. If two exist at the same time, one will eventually win out. The reason is because content creators will gravitate towards the most accessible and concentrated platform, and viewers will gravitate towards the platforms with the most content. So it becomes a feedback loop. YouTube is dominant because that's where the content creators are, and content creators go to YouTube because YouTube is dominant. This is why it is practically impossible to develop a real alternative to YouTube. The only way these sorts of natural monopolies are disrupted is either through government regulation or the development of new technologies that make the prior models obsolete.

And given YouTube's accessibility by billions of viewers and content creators, it's essentially the closest thing there is a public platform for all, and is often the primary source of video information for millions across the world. Because of the centrality of YouTube to the flow of information in our daily lives, saying "lol it's just a private company they can do whatever the fuck they want" seems really dumb. In other sectors, when these monopolies arise, the government usually allows the monopoly but regulates them to prevent abuse. Such is the case with water, power, and telecom utilities.

If we're comfortable regulating utility and telecom monopolies, then it's probably time to seriously look into treating YouTube the same way.

This makes me wonder if someone like Roosevelt would've trustbusted YouTube or Google before they got too big.

[Bear Stearns]

It's just stupid that people can only see this issue within the context of Trump. But Trump isn't going to be president forever. One day, he'll be gone. Is Twitter going to give up its power to push an ideology? Is YouTube going to cut back on censorship? The precedent has already been set that these tech companies basically tell the government to suck their dicks. It's only going to get worse.

Just wondering: if they would be pushing an ideology you agree with, would you also oppose them in this manner ?

Yes because it is morally wrong and why sort of retard would leave up the future of public discourse to corporations, regardless if they agreed with you?

[The Alma Mater]

Just wondering: if they would be pushing an ideology you agree with, would you also oppose them in this manner ?

Yes because it is morally wrong and why sort of retard would leave up the future of public discourse to corporations, regardless if they agreed with you?

Republicans ?
Actually, no. Most capitalists even.

[Bear Stearns]

The situation with YouTube is particularly alarming. YouTube is a near monopoly in its space (bitchute and dailymotion will never be real threats), with deep institutional power, the ability to leverage Google's search engines, and deep relationships with traditional media companies that are using YouTube to forestall their coming obsolescence. And it's structurally set up to be this way. There can really over be one YouTube-like platform at any given time. If two exist at the same time, one will eventually win out. The reason is because content creators will gravitate towards the most accessible and concentrated platform, and viewers will gravitate towards the platforms with the most content. So it becomes a feedback loop. YouTube is dominant because that's where the content creators are, and content creators go to YouTube because YouTube is dominant. This is why it is practically impossible to develop a real alternative to YouTube. The only way these sorts of natural monopolies are disrupted is either through government regulation or the development of new technologies that make the prior models obsolete.

And given YouTube's accessibility by billions of viewers and content creators, it's essentially the closest thing there is a public platform for all, and is often the primary source of video information for millions across the world. Because of the centrality of YouTube to the flow of information in our daily lives, saying "lol it's just a private company they can do whatever the fuck they want" seems really dumb. In other sectors, when these monopolies arise, the government usually allows the monopoly but regulates them to prevent abuse. Such is the case with water, power, and telecom utilities.

If we're comfortable regulating utility and telecom monopolies, then it's probably time to seriously look into treating YouTube the same way.

This makes me wonder if someone like Roosevelt would've trustbusted YouTube or Google before they got too big.

Amazon would be trustbusted, and Google would either be nationalized or turned into a telecom utility.

[Dawn Denac]

Ten bucks for anytime someone says "LITERALLY HITLER" in response to something on the Internet?

You'd have more wealth than Bezos

I really do hate the "LITERALLY HITLER/STALIN/YADAYADA" argument. Yes, the thing that makes you upset on the Internet is equivalent to the systemic and carefully planned slaughter of human lives on a global scale.

Buuuuut we're here to talk about Reddit and censorship. So I am curious for OP's reason about the comparison to Nazi Germany as well.

[Bear Stearns]

Yes because it is morally wrong and why sort of retard would leave up the future of public discourse to corporations, regardless if they agreed with you?

Republicans ?

*sigh*

Both Republicans and Democrats are doing this, and are bought and paid for by these companies. Viewing this as a partisan issue will prevent it from getting solved because people will support increasing the power of corporations as long as they agree with them. The goal isn't to make corporations agree with you, the goal is prevent a monopolistic service from being abuse.

[Bear Stearns]

Reddit said they banned r/The_Donald for violating rules 1, 2, and 8. Let's go over those rules:

1. Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

2. Abide by community rules. Post authentic content into communities where you have a personal interest, and do not cheat or engage in content manipulation (including spamming, vote manipulation, ban evasion, or subscriber fraud) or otherwise interfere with or disrupt Reddit communities.

8. Don’t break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit.

Source: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

We are just going to take Reddit's ability to enforce its own rules objectively and impartially at face value...

It is increasingly odd to see nominally left-wing people suddenly become very laissez-faire on this issue.

[Purgatio]

Reddit said they banned r/The_Donald for violating rules 1, 2, and 8. Let's go over those rules:

1. Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

2. Abide by community rules. Post authentic content into communities where you have a personal interest, and do not cheat or engage in content manipulation (including spamming, vote manipulation, ban evasion, or subscriber fraud) or otherwise interfere with or disrupt Reddit communities.

8. Don’t break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit.

Source: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

None of those are cogent rules that are well defined enough to enable Redditors and subreddits to know when we are in violation. Especially ‘Remember the Human’. How do you define a “vulnerable and marginalised” group of people? And what kind of post counts as “attacking” said groups? And what kind of criticism or concerns being raised count as “hate based on identity”? Its so incredibly subjective.

I think the fact that r/RightWingLGBT got banned, despite simply criticising some of the violence in Minneapolis (as opposed to hating on black people or celebrating police brutality), and that r/GenderCritical got banned for simply promoting a feminist analysis that defined “women”, the class oppressed under patriarchy, based on biological sex rather than gender identity (which isn’t the same as hating on or inciting violence against trans people), shows that this criteria of “hate based on identity or vulnerability” is, to put it very mildly, nebulous and amorphous and highly capricious. It means nothing.

[The Alma Mater]

Republicans ?

*sigh*

Both Republicans and Democrats are doing this, and are bought and paid for by these companies. Viewing this as a partisan issue will prevent it from getting solved because people will support increasing the power of corporations as long as they agree with them. The goal isn't to make corporations agree with you, the goal is prevent a monopolistic service from being abuse.

I had already edited it to capitalists.

[Dawn Denac]

To elaborate a bit more on Bear's point before I go to sleep like the reponsible adult I pretend I am:

Reddit is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last in a long line of corporate censorship like it. Corporate guidelines, Terms and Conditions, TOS, EULAs are all there to drown you in legalese talk since 99% of the human race skims through it and dismisses it. For example, did you know there's a clause in the Google TOS that allows them to sell and distribute your information as they wish, without informing you, with full legal power? Think on that for a moment. Think on the amount of power corporations in general have with censorship and their reach. It's not -about- the politics. It's not -about- partisan sides, it's never been -about- that. If you're bothered by one-sided censorship, then start taking your own steps to disrupt it and avoid it. Comparisons to Nazi Germany literally make no sense in regards to this whatsoever, and it never will, it's a completely different barrel of monkeys.

So a question to the OP and thread: Aside from your one liner to start off the thread, what are your detailed and concise thoughts on this, without using comparisons to fascist tyrannical genocidal states?

[Mandicoria]

are you seriously upset that r/bigchungus got taken away

[Qvait]

It is increasingly odd to see nominally left-wing people suddenly become very laissez-faire on this issue.

I'd also say it's odd for the same people who praised the NFL for banning kneeling to be up in arms about social media companies regulating what's allowed on their websites.

[Nevertopia]

are you seriously upset that r/bigchungus got taken away

i wonder what the rationale was to not protect the majority from hate speech.

[Qvait]

And let's be real for a moment. r/The_Donald got what was rightfully coming to them.

[Bear Stearns]

It is increasingly odd to see nominally left-wing people suddenly become very laissez-faire on this issue.

I'd also say it's odd for the same people who praised the NFL for banning kneeling to be up in arms about social media companies regulating what's allowed on their websites.

Please provide evidence I have ever endorsed or given a shit about a position taken by the NFL.