5 ms·

Socially irresponsible to allow Subreddits such as "Fat People Hate" in my opinion. People have these views and they are free to express them, but creating a c

Socially irresponsible to allow Subreddits such as "Fat People Hate" in my opinion. People have these views and they are free to express them, but creating a community dedicated to it normalises that behaviour and helps breed further hatred. Under 18 age group seems to be large on Reddit as well [1]. Allowing subreddits such as FPH is really unhealthy amongst the more impressionable. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/1agz1o/ever_wonder_about_the_ages_of_redditors_some_data/ https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/1agz1o/ever_wonder_ab...

DavidHm 10y ago
To play the devils advocate, where does this stop? Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  Are you comfortable denying the KKK a public place where they can communicate with each other? Where do you draw the line?
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    They can burn crosses on their lawn, and not on mine. Pretty straightforward. There are plenty of right-wing web sites.
    - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
      I'm struggling to understand the point your making?
      - robotresearcher 10y ago
        Reddit is not denying the KKK a public forum. They are denying Reddit's privately-owned forum to the KKK. Reddit has no power to stop the KKK from saying whatever they want. But they are under no legal or moral obligation to provide a forum for it. The KKK can spin up a website and say whatever they want.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Sure, if they want a space they can make their own. Nobody has the right for other people to host their speech, that's purely an earned privilege.
  - problems 10y ago
    So does that apply to say server providers like OVH or proxies like CloudFlare? What about DNS providers? What about domain registrars? TLD owners? ICANN? Are they not allowed to host certain speech either without being deemed "socially irresponsible"? Or is there some level of removal beyond which it's okay? If you've decided they're not allowed to use the internet now, is it okay to rent them spaces? sell them land? There's no good, definite ending point to this. Which is why companies like Black Lotus, CloudFlare and OVH just get it done. I don't fault them for it at all, in fact I trust them more to keep me online if some controversy is ever stirred in my direction.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      The definite ending point is government. The government cannot do anything to restrict anyone's speech. Private organizations can do whatever they want. I don't think they should take that to an extreme, but I think they can. I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.
      - problems 10y ago
        I agree that they can and even have the right to, but it's more of a "should they be considered socially irresponsible for allowing it in any way, shape or form" question than about what they can or must do. Personally I don't fault them for allowing it as long as they're sufficiently distant from it themselves and protect their employees from abuse to a reasonable degree.
        10y ago
- corysama 10y ago
  I have great respect for moot's statement that he created 4chan partly because he thought "people need a place to be wrong". As in, people need a place to experiment with ideas that are controversial or even downright stupid with being afraid. 4chan and Something Awful provided that. I think it's healthy for the world to have a few places cordoned off to be primordial slimepools/cesspits. But, I wouldn't given anyone a hard time for trying very hard to not be one of those places. For example, I think a big part of the continuing high signal/noise ratio at HN is it's tradition of downvoting sarcasm, memes, jokes, fluff, "nice post!" and other low-signal comments. As HN has grown, this has been slipping. But, it us already lasted much longer than I expected.
  - scruple 10y ago
    If you subscribe to the notion of "containment boards" (I personally do) then places like /b/, /pol/, and parts of SA, etc..., are absolutely essential places for the Internet at-large to operate unhindered by their presence.
makomk 10y ago
This is especially true when the community in question literally has a policy of banning anyone who thinks of fat people as human or suggests they might be going too far. (They also liked to take identifiable photos of people they've posted to other subreddits and repost them with enough information that their members could track down the original poster and send her nasty PMs, and when someone complained the moderators reposted her photo in the sidebar to draw even more attention to her.)
wyager 10y ago
Think of the children! Sorry, I don't buy this. Reddit doesn't have a "social responsibility" to be the morality police.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  When such an apparently large portion of your audience are children, why wouldn't you think of them? If you're insulating I'm appealing to a logical fallacy I don't believe it applies here. Children are more impressionable, and when they form a large population on Reddit allowing hateful communities I think really does help normalise it.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > When such an apparently large portion of your audience are children, why wouldn't you think of them? I don't know if Reddit considers that considering that /r/deadbabies still exists[1]. 1. Probably. I'm sorry but I'm not going to check if that subreddit still exists.
  - wyager 10y ago
    So if a website intended for adults happens to get popular and pick up young users, they have a moral obligation to censor "indecent" content? I don't buy it.

DavidHm 10y ago

To play the devils advocate, where does this stop? Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Are you comfortable denying the KKK a public place where they can communicate with each other? Where do you draw the line?
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  They can burn crosses on their lawn, and not on mine. Pretty straightforward. There are plenty of right-wing web sites.
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    I'm struggling to understand the point your making?
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      Reddit is not denying the KKK a public forum. They are denying Reddit's privately-owned forum to the KKK. Reddit has no power to stop the KKK from saying whatever they want. But they are under no legal or moral obligation to provide a forum for it. The KKK can spin up a website and say whatever they want.
burkaman 10y ago
Sure, if they want a space they can make their own. Nobody has the right for other people to host their speech, that's purely an earned privilege.
- problems 10y ago
  So does that apply to say server providers like OVH or proxies like CloudFlare? What about DNS providers? What about domain registrars? TLD owners? ICANN? Are they not allowed to host certain speech either without being deemed "socially irresponsible"? Or is there some level of removal beyond which it's okay? If you've decided they're not allowed to use the internet now, is it okay to rent them spaces? sell them land? There's no good, definite ending point to this. Which is why companies like Black Lotus, CloudFlare and OVH just get it done. I don't fault them for it at all, in fact I trust them more to keep me online if some controversy is ever stirred in my direction.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    The definite ending point is government. The government cannot do anything to restrict anyone's speech. Private organizations can do whatever they want. I don't think they should take that to an extreme, but I think they can. I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.
    - problems 10y ago
      I agree that they can and even have the right to, but it's more of a "should they be considered socially irresponsible for allowing it in any way, shape or form" question than about what they can or must do. Personally I don't fault them for allowing it as long as they're sufficiently distant from it themselves and protect their employees from abuse to a reasonable degree.
      - 10y ago
corysama 10y ago
I have great respect for moot's statement that he created 4chan partly because he thought "people need a place to be wrong". As in, people need a place to experiment with ideas that are controversial or even downright stupid with being afraid. 4chan and Something Awful provided that. I think it's healthy for the world to have a few places cordoned off to be primordial slimepools/cesspits. But, I wouldn't given anyone a hard time for trying very hard to not be one of those places. For example, I think a big part of the continuing high signal/noise ratio at HN is it's tradition of downvoting sarcasm, memes, jokes, fluff, "nice post!" and other low-signal comments. As HN has grown, this has been slipping. But, it us already lasted much longer than I expected.
- scruple 10y ago
  If you subscribe to the notion of "containment boards" (I personally do) then places like /b/, /pol/, and parts of SA, etc..., are absolutely essential places for the Internet at-large to operate unhindered by their presence.

makomk 10y ago

This is especially true when the community in question literally has a policy of banning anyone who thinks of fat people as human or suggests they might be going too far. (They also liked to take identifiable photos of people they've posted to other subreddits and repost them with enough information that their members could track down the original poster and send her nasty PMs, and when someone complained the moderators reposted her photo in the sidebar to draw even more attention to her.)

wyager 10y ago

Think of the children! Sorry, I don't buy this. Reddit doesn't have a "social responsibility" to be the morality police.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
When such an apparently large portion of your audience are children, why wouldn't you think of them? If you're insulating I'm appealing to a logical fallacy I don't believe it applies here. Children are more impressionable, and when they form a large population on Reddit allowing hateful communities I think really does help normalise it.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > When such an apparently large portion of your audience are children, why wouldn't you think of them? I don't know if Reddit considers that considering that /r/deadbabies still exists[1]. 1. Probably. I'm sorry but I'm not going to check if that subreddit still exists.
- wyager 10y ago
  So if a website intended for adults happens to get popular and pick up young users, they have a moral obligation to censor "indecent" content? I don't buy it.