4 ms·
Reddit censorship
- hart_russell 10y agoI have stopped going on reddit. There is an obvious agenda trying to be pushed in the guise of a purely user driven content aggregator.
- justinsaccount 10y agoEveryone has an agenda. techrights.org has an agenda. Hacker news has an agenda (You think you can post whatever you want here and not get banned?).
- effingwewt 10y agoBut most are clear about them, not lying. Also, let's not forget when they called themselves a bastion of free speech, where people can come to share ideas.
- progman 10y agoShadow banning _is_ censorship. It causes intellectual decline of a site because over time it reduces the audience to a synchronized minimum of wanted opinions like a communistic party. The only answer for such a policy is boycott, and to convince also other visitors by verbal propaganda to boycott. There are so many sites in the Internet. We actually don't depend on Reddit and the like.
- atrophying 10y agoFree speech is a concept of government. Reddit is a for-proft corporation. It's not censorship, it's a business refining its model. Joke's on you that you thought reddit was anything but.
- hart_russell 10y agoWhile I 100% agree they aren't doing anything illegal, it's still a shady business practice.
- danjoc 10y agoThe joke is on me, I guess. I've never understood how the line is drawn. Freedom of speech and religion are both in amendment one. Free speech is a right, but one can, evidently, open a website and suppress any opinion one chooses. Freedom of religion is a right, but one cannot use religious beliefs to deny gay people their rights. [1] That seems like a double standard to me and I've yet to find a way to reconcile it. edit: grammar, edit2: supporting story [1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505 http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-...
- nhebb 10y agoFreedom of speech protects you from government prosecution, with certain limitations like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. It doesn't mean that others (e.g. Reddit) have to give you a platform for your speech. Freedom of religion won't let you practice something that impinges upon the rights of others or violates a law.
- Kristine1975 10y agoFWIW the "others don't see my posts, only I do" is called "shadow-banning" or "stealth banning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_banning The practice involves making a user's contributions invisible to all other users, but visible to themselves, making them less likely to create new accounts to add the same material.
- minimaxir 10y agoShadowbans aren't meant for censorship. It's an artifact of old Reddit design for spammers that hasn't been replaced yet. (I know the CEO mentioned that was on the agenda, hence the improved suspension option) Hacker News does shadowbans too which I am not happy about, but that's another story.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- akerro 10y agoThey changes their tactics now https://voat.co/v/MeanwhileOnReddit/comments/1083516 https://voat.co/v/MeanwhileOnReddit/comments/1083516
- Yver 10y agoI don't see anything that I would describe as "spamming" in that account's history. I can't say what the feature was meant for, but we can see how it's been used.
- minimaxir 10y agoIf you mean the overview screenshot in the article, keep in mind that there is no timestamp on that screenshot. It's possible that the submissions by that user between when the screenshot was taken and the shadowbox may be more questionable.
- dang 10y ago> Hacker News does shadowbans too which I am not happy about, but that's another story. We almost never do that anymore except in cases of spammers or new accounts that appear to be trolling, i.e. the cases where telling people you banned them tends to be problematic. Apart from those, we almost always post a comment in the thread saying that we banned the account. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20banned%20this%20account https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&date...
- 10y ago
- justinsaccount 10y agoIf someone was censoring comments not kind to the pharma industry on that post, you would think they would have also removed the comment that starts "... horrible horrible medication. don't take it."
- gjulianm 10y agoThis is from 2015. Reddit removed their shadowbans for regular users (still enabled for spammers, I think) [1]. And, by the way, calling out censorship because of 1 shadowban when there's even a subreddit to know if you're shadowbanned (https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/, appears when you search shadowban reddit) is too much of a stretch, I think. 1: https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions...
- danjoc 10y agoI don't know anything about shadowbans, much less changes in policies about them. I only submitted the link because I thought it was an interesting read.
- __david__ 10y agoReddit had shadow bans way before Conde Nast. This article acts like it's blown up this huge conspiracy, but only uncovered something that is common knowledge. It has all the conspiratorial fervor of the most witch hunt-y Reddit threads—and it's not a good look.
- shrugger 10y agoIronic how this will be flagged to shit and seen by only a few.