Reddit Starts One-Sided Censorship

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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?

IBM defended itself by giving up it's monopoly on its own tech. It basically let anyone build IBM parts and such.

I suppose that's a significant concession.
Most computers were "IBM compatible" for quite a while and the clone makers sold a lot of units.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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.

If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Uhm...if this website is for only 'jewish' survivors, it's already covered under the exemptions that Purgatio brought up.

[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.

If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Lmao do you just not get how legal precedent, case law, and res judicata work? Judicial precedent exists for a reason.

[No State Here]

If your favorite subreddit got banned, consider it a badge of honor, because it means one of two things, either it hurt Steve Huffman’s feelings, or it hurt China’s feelings

[Zapato]

If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Lmao do you just not get how legal precedent, case law, and res judicata work? Judicial precedent exists for a reason.

I get how legal fees work. For every user denied who can sue to see if their particular circumstances means that their denial is justified or unjustifiable discrimination the legal fees rack up. It can be costly for the private person to defend themselves in court, and a death by a thousand cuts is still a death.

[No State Here]

Keep in mind this is the same website who got 300 million from the Chinese Communists

I spammed the China copypasta on every leftist sub I could find, I’m curious to see how long until Reddit deletes my account

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

[Cekoviu]

If your favorite subreddit got banned, consider it a badge of honor, because it means one of two things, either it hurt Steve Huffman’s feelings, or it hurt China’s feelings

no worries, i'm not a subhuman so none of my favorite subreddits were banned :^)

[Zapato]

If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Uhm...if this website is for only 'jewish' survivors, it's already covered under the exemptions that Purgatio brought up.

But we'll have to "let a court figure out" if the exemption applies. Do you know how much that will cost in the US?

Enough that I would not want to start up such a website.

[Thermodolia]

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?

Paying? Hardly. The CEOs would be lucky to not be thrown in prison

[Stylan]

Rule 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 people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

It's official, Reddit is turning into a reverse Nazi Germany (which is just as bad as the real Nazi Germany). Not to mention, r/BigChungus also got banned. That ALONE is not a good idea in my opinion

I don't think a social media platform is really the same as Nazi Germany idk tho

[Kargintina the Third]

Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

[The Emerald Legion]

Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

Giant is a privately owned Grocery Store, they can sell, or not sell, to who they please.

[Stylan]

Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

wrong way to respond to this

[Kargintina the Third]

Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

Giant is a privately owned Grocery Store, they can sell, or not sell, to who they please.

Correct

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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?

Paying? Hardly. The CEOs would be lucky to not be thrown in prison

Count me out. That's just vandalism.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Paying? Hardly. The CEOs would be lucky to not be thrown in prison

Count me out. That's just vandalism.

I mean you do that to any monopoly and monopsony, since the economy becomes very screwed up at that rate. We're getting to a point where tech companies hold more influence and power than ever before. Some would say they are the modern robber barons of this era. Wouldn't be to bad to knock them down a few pegs.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Count me out. That's just vandalism.

I mean you do that to any monopoly and monopsony, since the economy becomes very screwed up at that rate. We're getting to a point where tech companies hold more influence and power than ever before. Some would say they are the modern robber barons of this era. Wouldn't be to bad to knock them down a few pegs.

WRA's suggestion was to break them up, a la the Bell monopoly. I'm willing to consider that.

Seizing corporations for no compensation is robbing from all the shareholders, the immediate effect is as you say, to screw up the economy. But the asset itself will rapidly depreciate because it will lose all its customers. I call that vandalism.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Uhm...if this website is for only 'jewish' survivors, it's already covered under the exemptions that Purgatio brought up.

But we'll have to "let a court figure out" if the exemption applies. Do you know how much that will cost in the US?

Enough that I would not want to start up such a website.

I think that allowing discrimination against people on grounds of conscience or political affiliation does more harm than the possibility that a few small websites might have to pay a few thousand dollars in legal fees; legal fees that, if they're doing nothing wrong in the first place, they won't have to pay.

[Lanoraie II]

Imagine using r*ddit. These rules were written for manchildren and womenchildren who can't function as competent members of society and feel the need to blame everything wrong with their life on the majority, their scapegoat. I'm a bisexual disabled woman and the only problems in my life are from my parents and a small handful of people who failed me. Not necessarily society as a whole. There are society-wide problems for sure, but generalizing, let's see.....anywhere from the entire population of one's country to the entire world is quite a heavy handed and arrogant move.

Also, just because reddit is "privately owned" does not excuse this godawful handling of their website and userbase. They are immensely popular and have a responsibility to be fair and respectful.

[Stylan]

Imagine using r*ddit. These rules were written for manchildren and womenchildren who can't function as competent members of society and feel the need to blame everything wrong with their life on the majority, their scapegoat. I'm a bisexual disabled woman and the only problems in my life are from my parents and a small handful of people who failed me. Not necessarily society as a whole. There are society-wide problems for sure, but generalizing, let's see.....anywhere from the entire population of one's country to the entire world is quite a heavy handed and arrogant move.

Also, just because reddit is "privately owned" does not excuse this godawful handling of their website and userbase. They are immensely popular and have a responsibility to be fair and respectful.

Under capitalism (which don't get me wrong, I don't defend) they have zero resposibility to do anything.

Your personal experience doesn't outweigh facts. As a straight white man I could say I was persecuted because x y z but statistics don't back it up.

One of the gravest dangers of political discourse online is the tendency for people to take their personal experiences as the way of the world.

[Gormwood]

Your personal experience doesn't outweigh facts. As a straight white man I could say I was persecuted because x y z but statistics don't back it up.

One of the gravest dangers of political discourse online is the tendency for people to take their personal experiences as the way of the world.

That's really not an impediment on NationStatea General, unfottunately.

[Anurial]

The reason so many of your favourite subreddits were banned was that they were full of Nazis and alt-righters. Weird to see "ancaps" defend this. The only exception to that was ChapoTrapHouse which was toxic enough anyway. I dunno about you but banning Nazis from using the site as the rest of large social media platforms do seems pretty reasonable to ensure a better environment for everyone else. On a last point, it seems odd that again supposed "ancaps" have a problem with what private companies want to add to their terms of service.

[Lanoraie II]

Imagine using r*ddit. These rules were written for manchildren and womenchildren who can't function as competent members of society and feel the need to blame everything wrong with their life on the majority, their scapegoat. I'm a bisexual disabled woman and the only problems in my life are from my parents and a small handful of people who failed me. Not necessarily society as a whole. There are society-wide problems for sure, but generalizing, let's see.....anywhere from the entire population of one's country to the entire world is quite a heavy handed and arrogant move.

Also, just because reddit is "privately owned" does not excuse this godawful handling of their website and userbase. They are immensely popular and have a responsibility to be fair and respectful.

Under capitalism (which don't get me wrong, I don't defend) they have zero resposibility to do anything.

Your personal experience doesn't outweigh facts. As a straight white man I could say I was persecuted because x y z but statistics don't back it up.

One of the gravest dangers of political discourse online is the tendency for people to take their personal experiences as the way of the world.

That goes for both sides though. And where did I say it outweighs facts? I'm not stupid enough to blame every single male for the actions of my rapist and abuser.

[Gormwood]

The reason so many of your favourite subreddits were banned was that they were full of Nazis and alt-righters. Weird to see "ancaps" defend this. The only exception to that was ChapoTrapHouse which was toxic enough anyway. I dunno about you but banning Nazis from using the site as the rest of large social media platforms do seems pretty reasonable to ensure a better environment for everyone else. On a last point, it seems odd that again supposed "ancaps" have a problem with what private companies want to add to their terms of service.

It's more "Just enough anarchy to let them do what they want and restrict your rights, while trying to profit off capitalism with unfair advantages."

[Stylan]

The reason so many of your favourite subreddits were banned was that they were full of Nazis and alt-righters. Weird to see "ancaps" defend this. The only exception to that was ChapoTrapHouse which was toxic enough anyway. I dunno about you but banning Nazis from using the site as the rest of large social media platforms do seems pretty reasonable to ensure a better environment for everyone else. On a last point, it seems odd that again supposed "ancaps" have a problem with what private companies want to add to their terms of service.

WAIT WHAT THE FUCK CHAPO WAS BANNED

But yeah, i agree, this whole "omg we're being oppressed because Facebook doesn't want a giant swastika on their website" is fucking stupid.