3 ms·

It's not just that the site was that way, a free-speech zone, for many years. It was their official policy. They were quite pretentious about it as well, leadin

by Fej 10y ago

It's not just that the site was that way, a free-speech zone, for many years. It was their official policy. They were quite pretentious about it as well, leading the reddit community to believe that this would be the permanent policy. To be honest, that is still mostly how it is; the admins only ban a subreddit when it generates a critical mass of bad press. They don't want to drive away their users. They know how Digg died. They're smart enough not to piss off the community enough such that any significant number of users will leave.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Quequau 10y ago
I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected' (or in the context of Reddit, permitted and perhaps celebrated). More importantly there are categories of speech which are not put forward in good faith but are instead intended to do damage to communities that host them. Among the various errors the administrators of Reddit may be guilty of, underestimating the damage & toxicity some categories of speech made in bad faith cause and having prepared no mechanisms to help their communities be resistant to or minimize that toxicity might be the most significant. Digg died because Reddit existed, so there was somewhere for disaffected Digg users to go to. In particular users who by & large were interested in good faith participation. There is no similar analog that exists today and because users who show tendencies to indulge in bad faith participation new alternative sites often struggle with dealing a level of toxic behavior which makes it extraordinarily difficult to maintain growth.
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected' In a sense it always comes up. Without sticking my neck out to say what reddit should or shouldn't allow, I simply want to point out that principled positions only count when they're uncomfortable to uphold. We wouldn't be having a conversation about free speech in the first place unless the conversation has already turned to the topic of sweeping away uncomfortable speech. If someone wanted to make a convincing argument about speech which should be 'unprotected' there has to be a conflicting principle, or it's just lip service to the idea of "free speech" (because it's generally recognized as virtuous and they don't want to be seen as opposing it). "Fighting words" are unprotected in so far as they represent incitement to an immediate breach of the peace. Other principles raised to carve out exceptions to free speech should be similar in the obviousness that it's categorically not about suppressing ideas.
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  > I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected'. I think this gets brought up a fair amount, with both the obvious examples (yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater) and the not-so-obvious ones (whether 'hate speech' should be protected is very divisive). A larger problem really is that many people are in a pretty binary mindset, especially about the not-so-obvious ones: Either you're a monster who has no principles, or you're a monster defending neo-nazis, without acknowledging that "allowable speech" is a constantly moving target. Yelling "DEATH TO <X>" on a plane nowadays would almost certainly land you in prison (whereas 50 years ago maybe you would've just gotten a psych evaluation), and conversely talking about equal rights 200 years ago would've gotten you thrown in prison as a rabble-rouser inciting chaos. Finding the acceptable level of "free speech" in a private community is something that's constantly going to be in flux, and successful communities will accept that ultimately neither group may be happy with the equilibrium: But it's still the equilibrium that maximizes happiness. > More importantly there are categories of speech which are not put forward in good faith but are instead intended to do damage to communities that host them. The dangerous part that you're omitting here is that "good faith" is an extremely subjective judgement. It's incredibly easy to imagine scenarios where dissenting speech = scrutinized HEAVILY for "not being in good faith". For example, I'm pretty sure Erdogan has accused many opposition members of exactly that.

by Fej 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Quequau 10y ago

I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected' (or in the context of Reddit, permitted and perhaps celebrated). More importantly there are categories of speech which are not put forward in good faith but are instead intended to do damage to communities that host them. Among the various errors the administrators of Reddit may be guilty of, underestimating the damage & toxicity some categories of speech made in bad faith cause and having prepared no mechanisms to help their communities be resistant to or minimize that toxicity might be the most significant. Digg died because Reddit existed, so there was somewhere for disaffected Digg users to go to. In particular users who by & large were interested in good faith participation. There is no similar analog that exists today and because users who show tendencies to indulge in bad faith participation new alternative sites often struggle with dealing a level of toxic behavior which makes it extraordinarily difficult to maintain growth.

forgottenpass 10y ago
I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected' In a sense it always comes up. Without sticking my neck out to say what reddit should or shouldn't allow, I simply want to point out that principled positions only count when they're uncomfortable to uphold. We wouldn't be having a conversation about free speech in the first place unless the conversation has already turned to the topic of sweeping away uncomfortable speech. If someone wanted to make a convincing argument about speech which should be 'unprotected' there has to be a conflicting principle, or it's just lip service to the idea of "free speech" (because it's generally recognized as virtuous and they don't want to be seen as opposing it). "Fighting words" are unprotected in so far as they represent incitement to an immediate breach of the peace. Other principles raised to carve out exceptions to free speech should be similar in the obviousness that it's categorically not about suppressing ideas.
CarpetBench 10y ago
> I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected'. I think this gets brought up a fair amount, with both the obvious examples (yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater) and the not-so-obvious ones (whether 'hate speech' should be protected is very divisive). A larger problem really is that many people are in a pretty binary mindset, especially about the not-so-obvious ones: Either you're a monster who has no principles, or you're a monster defending neo-nazis, without acknowledging that "allowable speech" is a constantly moving target. Yelling "DEATH TO <X>" on a plane nowadays would almost certainly land you in prison (whereas 50 years ago maybe you would've just gotten a psych evaluation), and conversely talking about equal rights 200 years ago would've gotten you thrown in prison as a rabble-rouser inciting chaos. Finding the acceptable level of "free speech" in a private community is something that's constantly going to be in flux, and successful communities will accept that ultimately neither group may be happy with the equilibrium: But it's still the equilibrium that maximizes happiness. > More importantly there are categories of speech which are not put forward in good faith but are instead intended to do damage to communities that host them. The dangerous part that you're omitting here is that "good faith" is an extremely subjective judgement. It's incredibly easy to imagine scenarios where dissenting speech = scrutinized HEAVILY for "not being in good faith". For example, I'm pretty sure Erdogan has accused many opposition members of exactly that.