NationStates

The Huskar Social Union wrote:A lot of these subreddits that got banned were absolutely toxic shitholes so i can understand why they banned them, however their wording for their new rules and stuff leaves much to be desired and some other subreddits that are pretty shitty are still up there (like R/Sino for example which is nothing more than a CCP propaganda mill)

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:A lot of these subreddits that got banned were absolutely toxic shitholes so i can understand why they banned them, however their wording for their new rules and stuff leaves much to be desired and some other subreddits that are pretty shitty are still up there (like R/Sino for example which is nothing more than a CCP propaganda mill)

Does it matter that we disagree with what they say though? It's about freedom from discrimination; that's why I think those people who only have a problem when views they like are silenced are total hypocrits.

Thermodolia wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:A lot of these subreddits that got banned were absolutely toxic shitholes so i can understand why they banned them, however their wording for their new rules and stuff leaves much to be desired and some other subreddits that are pretty shitty are still up there (like R/Sino for example which is nothing more than a CCP propaganda mill)

Well ya can’t get rid of CCP propaganda when they bankroll ya

Purgatio wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Does it matter that we disagree with what they say though? It's about freedom from discrimination; that's why I think those people who only have a problem when views they like are silenced are total hypocrits.

Which definitely seems to be happening here, since many of the right-wingers on Reddit who are upset that r/The_Donald got banned seem to be happy about, and celebrating, the fact that r/GenderCritical got banned.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:
Well ya can’t get rid of CCP propaganda when they bankroll ya

lol I got banned within seconds of commenting on that subreddit last night.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:
Well ya can’t get rid of CCP propaganda when they bankroll ya

lol I got banned within seconds of commenting on that subreddit last night.

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:We've seen that companies don't particularly care about image when it doesn't affect their bottom line. Which leads us to the question, "how would retaining these subreddits affect Reddit's ability to make money?".

And the answer there is fairly simple, continuing to host the subreddits in question would result in other companies pulling their ads from Reddit. So, if "companies don't particularly care about image when it doesn't affect their bottom line", that leads us to a new question "how would running ads in association with the now banned content lead to financial loss?".

Well, running ads next to content that the general public doesn't like can expose companies to unwanted liability. They might get a negative news story about their ads appearing on questionable material. Or, perhaps worse, costumers seeing where you advertise get angry and boycott your products. Just reverse that saying from a few years back- It's now get woke or go broke.

All this to say that platforms have to dance a line- If they don't take action fast enough? Take the example of YouTube, who faced the terror of the adpocalypse after this story broke about ads being played on videos associated with white supremacists and pedophiles. If they take action that is too widespread? You get tumblr, where a ban on adult content basically halved activity on the platform.

As for Reddit and what they're specifically doing? Well, I'm going to roll with it. If Reddit turns into a mob of minorities telling me 'ur pp smol' because I'm white, I'd be somewhat surprised to say the least. But if my hunch is correct, society is at the point where telling r/theDonald users to buy dish soup is no longer profitable, and that, to me, seems like an optimistic sign for an otherwise rather trash year.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:It would be interesting if we ended up with Leftit funded by ads for left-leaning companies, and Rightit funded by ads for right-leaning companies. Righty stuff banned on one, Lefty stuff banned on the other.

It could develop into a schism of all society, with Rightists driving around in cheap petrol cars and Leftists having to car-pool with their expensive electric cars. Eating different food, from different supermarkets. And I guess a few companies splitting at the retail level to serve both LeftCapitalistDonalds with the left leaning arch, and RightCapitalistDonalds with the right leaning arch.

Purpelia wrote:So they just made official what everyone knew already? What's new? Other than with a bit of luck this might push them over the edge when Trumps executive actions about pursuing bad platforms succeed in his next term.

Auze wrote:Does this rule mean that Afrikaners can be racist, given they are the minority in South Africa? I think we need to do some testing on this.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Casual reminder that big tech should be broken up.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Casual reminder that big tech should be broken up.

That's a very expensive joke you just made. IBM fought the government off, and Microsoft did too.

You could try and stop big tech growing by merger (as Google did), using the FTC.

Purgatio wrote:

Zapato wrote: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.

Hunzali wrote:

Tornado Queendom wrote:To be honest, you should be racist and grotesque as you want to EVERYONE.

Couldn't they have just labeled it NSFW and be done with it?

..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.

Thermodolia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
That's a very expensive joke you just made. IBM fought the government off, and Microsoft did too.

You could try and stop big tech growing by merger (as Google did), using the FTC.

You can nationalize tech companies and then break them up. Or you can give them the ma bell treatment

Thermodolia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
That's a very expensive joke you just made. IBM fought the government off, and Microsoft did too.

You could try and stop big tech growing by merger (as Google did), using the FTC.

You can nationalize tech companies and then break them up. Or you can give them the ma bell treatment

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You can nationalize tech companies and then break them up. Or you can give them the ma bell treatment

I don't know how the law has changed, or if it's something about tech companies in particular, but IBM and Microsoft defended themselves just fine. As to AT&T they were in a compromised position, having operated for years as an authorized monopoly, and even so there's no saying they couldn't have fought the government.

As to nationalizing them, how much of the market value were you thinking of paying?

Hunzali wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Gotta love modern progressivism. You can be as racist and grotesque as you want as long as it is against the "right" people.

..But no? Where are people being racist here? When people make subreddits like r/fragilewhiteredditor, if you haven't noticed, most of the people there are white. It's people pointing out the hypocrisy of many redditors: complaining about the fragility of minorities, getting called a light slur (eg "cracker") and then freaking the fuck out.

That is reddit.

The Emerald Legion wrote:White Fragility is a nonsense term used to pathologize the rather natural tendency of people to be upset when compared to literally Hitler.