2 ms·
Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality
by Clanan 10y ago
Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.
- bonaldi 10y agoThe first comment is a reference to http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/18/on-the-li... which suggests that yes, one "side" is more tempted and prone to this than the other. The intent was to say that there is more to this than "platforms for diverse opinions ... censoring those they disagree with". Regardless of their agreement, if they just censor those that are false they will appear to have a liberal bias. This is reportedly what scared Facebook away from dealing with fake, mostly right-wing, propaganda on their platform.
- AnOscelot 10y agoReddit has infamously tried to be a free speech platform. They've allowed misogynists, nazis, rabid Trump devotees, and fat-haters a place to spew. The result of that spewing has been an enormous amount of trolling and harassment which ends up silencing people and making Reddit less diverse. At some point you have to choose whose free speech you value more. Reddit has made some small attempts to stop the harassment, which in turn has made Reddit somewhat more diverse. Because misogyny has become a little less prevalent, I'm seeing more women on the site. Free speech, as far as internet forums go, is not a black and white issue.