6 ms·

I'm no Trump supporter but this piece is brutal in its implicit bias. Essentially, "free speech should not be enjoyed by those that hold the wrong opinion!"

by tux1968 10y ago

brianwawok 10y ago
That's not at all how this is going down. There are rules about mobbing other subs with garbage. No one would care If they kept to their own sub.
- tux1968 10y ago
  Every sub is allowed to moderate itself how it chooses. Plus, there wasn't a similar outcry when Correct The Record, swamped the site with its paid advocacy before the election. Either you believe in free speech, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that good ideas will prevail in the end -- or you don't.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump of working for CTR that has lead to such a backlash. > sunlight is the best disinfectant What do you think that disinfectant looks like? It is rarely people changing ideas it is more often society excluding people. Which is what is happening here. You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. You don't have to give them anything but the right to speech which they can use on their own sites.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      > You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech I mean, technically, you do.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        You are welcome to make use of your free speech rights without forcing other people to promote your speech. So no technically you don't.
        wheelerwj 10y ago
        it's not free speech if you restrict thoughts and ideas. I am not saying reddit is required to be a free speech site, it's not, but you can't be free speech and still censor. Regardless, reddit claims to be about free speech and still censors. So... irony?
        sanswork 10y ago
        You're not restricting thoughts or ideas you are simply not agreeing to promote it. Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago.
    - tux1968 10y ago
      I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this debate. If you're not confronted with the best arguments of your adversaries, you won't understand, learn, or prevail.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash.
        tux1968 10y ago
        It's hard to be a fair judge when you disagree with someone so deeply. Rather than take the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it might be prudent to turn this into a teaching moment instead. Teach our side of the isle.. don't engage with idiots.. engage only with well formed arguments. We could learn something and become better people rather than becoming reactionary because we're unequipped to deal with alternate views. In the end, it's really not that hard to ignore the worst of it on Reddit, it would be even easier if people on our side didn't freak out about every tidbit.
        sanswork 10y ago
        I think a lot of people are happy to engage with well formed arguments. And the people that want to make them will continue to not associate themselves with the worst elements of their side of the political spectrum. There are lots of people on the left I refuse to support because of their ideas and comments. So I go out of my way to avoid associating myself with them. If you play in the muck though you're going to get dirty.
        wallace_f 10y ago
        Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > Every sub is allowed to moderate itself how it chooses. But they cross over into other subs and start interfering there. A small enough sub with a small team of moderators can find it difficult to deal with someone crashing their party. > Plus, there wasn't a similar outcry when Correct The Record, swamped the site with its paid advocacy before the election. I didn't see that, but I mostly visit non-political subs. And in any case, Person B doing something bad doesn't excuse Person A doing it. > Either you believe in free speech, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that good ideas will prevail in the end -- or you don't. But it can be hard to filter out the good ideas when they're buried under a hundred good ones; and an artificial UV light being beamed into your eyes isn't sunlight.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    I don't believe correct the record was ever as pervasive as the_donald. I don't believe the_donald constant spam (pre and post election) is based on legitimate interest. I am very confident, and slightly embarrassed that Reddit hasn't been able to stop this, that the_Donald has been able to maintain it's presence with technical vote manipulation. I can detect it's effects, and I am shitty data scientist. To associate this issue with free speech is a gross over statement of the problem. This is one of the most effective trolls in social media history.
paulcole 10y ago
Reddit, a private website, is under no obligation to provide a safe space for free speech.
- the8472 10y ago
  the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Another possible comparison: cities are composed of mostly private entities. The free speech limitations in private businesses are comparable to those on line. How does that play out? Is the comparison faulty? Honest question. I'd like to figure out a more real-world comparison that matches our intuitions.
    - the8472 10y ago
      There are lots of public spaces available, maintained by the government. Some plazas are larger than all but the largest private gathering places.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Good point. Any ideas on how to create similar spaces online? And how they should be policed? Should we have some government created forums? I'd be concerned they'd succumb to the same issues we're discussing now. One idea that comes to mind is forbidding anonymous posts, but then again, anonymous speech is also protected.
        sanswork 10y ago
        You create a website and post your thoughts on it.
  - leephillips 10y ago
anigbrowl 10y ago
If Centipede Central is the chat Reddit is referring to — a chat room within the Slack-like Discord program, the one linked in the sidebar of The_Donald and one of the largest servers on Discord — its users have encouraged the harassment of other moderators, artificially inflated the vote count on posts, rigged off-Reddit polls, and posted John Podesta’s personal Netflix login information for the chat’s 1000+ members to use at will. It reads to me like they're critiquing the behavior of the people running the subreddit, as opposed to their opinions. As I don't use Reddit much, could you add some context? For example, are the objectionable behaviors described int he article actually common across the political spectrum, or common in every election season? I would certainly accept your claim if bias if I knew that such behavior was widespread but only one flavor of it were being called out.
GabberBots 10y ago
The_Donald was infamous for it's brutal and violent opposition to free expression. Harassment, online and in real life, were the order of the day. Free speech is the very reason that The_Donald should have been put down. The chilling effect is very real.

I'm no Trump supporter but this piece is brutal in its implicit bias. Essentially, "free speech should not be enjoyed by those that hold the wrong opinion!"

by tux1968 10y ago

I'm no Trump supporter but this piece is brutal in its implicit bias. Essentially, "free speech should not be enjoyed by those that hold the wrong opinion!"

brianwawok 10y ago

That's not at all how this is going down. There are rules about mobbing other subs with garbage. No one would care If they kept to their own sub.

tux1968 10y ago
Every sub is allowed to moderate itself how it chooses. Plus, there wasn't a similar outcry when Correct The Record, swamped the site with its paid advocacy before the election. Either you believe in free speech, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that good ideas will prevail in the end -- or you don't.
- sanswork 10y ago
  It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump of working for CTR that has lead to such a backlash. > sunlight is the best disinfectant What do you think that disinfectant looks like? It is rarely people changing ideas it is more often society excluding people. Which is what is happening here. You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. You don't have to give them anything but the right to speech which they can use on their own sites.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    > You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech I mean, technically, you do.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      You are welcome to make use of your free speech rights without forcing other people to promote your speech. So no technically you don't.
      - wheelerwj 10y ago
        it's not free speech if you restrict thoughts and ideas. I am not saying reddit is required to be a free speech site, it's not, but you can't be free speech and still censor. Regardless, reddit claims to be about free speech and still censors. So... irony?
        sanswork 10y ago
        You're not restricting thoughts or ideas you are simply not agreeing to promote it. Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago.
  - tux1968 10y ago
    I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this debate. If you're not confronted with the best arguments of your adversaries, you won't understand, learn, or prevail.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash.
      - tux1968 10y ago
        It's hard to be a fair judge when you disagree with someone so deeply. Rather than take the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it might be prudent to turn this into a teaching moment instead. Teach our side of the isle.. don't engage with idiots.. engage only with well formed arguments. We could learn something and become better people rather than becoming reactionary because we're unequipped to deal with alternate views. In the end, it's really not that hard to ignore the worst of it on Reddit, it would be even easier if people on our side didn't freak out about every tidbit.
        sanswork 10y ago
        I think a lot of people are happy to engage with well formed arguments. And the people that want to make them will continue to not associate themselves with the worst elements of their side of the political spectrum. There are lots of people on the left I refuse to support because of their ideas and comments. So I go out of my way to avoid associating myself with them. If you play in the muck though you're going to get dirty.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > Every sub is allowed to moderate itself how it chooses. But they cross over into other subs and start interfering there. A small enough sub with a small team of moderators can find it difficult to deal with someone crashing their party. > Plus, there wasn't a similar outcry when Correct The Record, swamped the site with its paid advocacy before the election. I didn't see that, but I mostly visit non-political subs. And in any case, Person B doing something bad doesn't excuse Person A doing it. > Either you believe in free speech, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that good ideas will prevail in the end -- or you don't. But it can be hard to filter out the good ideas when they're buried under a hundred good ones; and an artificial UV light being beamed into your eyes isn't sunlight.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  I don't believe correct the record was ever as pervasive as the_donald. I don't believe the_donald constant spam (pre and post election) is based on legitimate interest. I am very confident, and slightly embarrassed that Reddit hasn't been able to stop this, that the_Donald has been able to maintain it's presence with technical vote manipulation. I can detect it's effects, and I am shitty data scientist. To associate this issue with free speech is a gross over statement of the problem. This is one of the most effective trolls in social media history.

paulcole 10y ago

Reddit, a private website, is under no obligation to provide a safe space for free speech.

the8472 10y ago
the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.
- grzm 10y ago
  Another possible comparison: cities are composed of mostly private entities. The free speech limitations in private businesses are comparable to those on line. How does that play out? Is the comparison faulty? Honest question. I'd like to figure out a more real-world comparison that matches our intuitions.
  - the8472 10y ago
    There are lots of public spaces available, maintained by the government. Some plazas are larger than all but the largest private gathering places.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Good point. Any ideas on how to create similar spaces online? And how they should be policed? Should we have some government created forums? I'd be concerned they'd succumb to the same issues we're discussing now. One idea that comes to mind is forbidding anonymous posts, but then again, anonymous speech is also protected.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        You create a website and post your thoughts on it.
- leephillips 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

If Centipede Central is the chat Reddit is referring to — a chat room within the Slack-like Discord program, the one linked in the sidebar of The_Donald and one of the largest servers on Discord — its users have encouraged the harassment of other moderators, artificially inflated the vote count on posts, rigged off-Reddit polls, and posted John Podesta’s personal Netflix login information for the chat’s 1000+ members to use at will. It reads to me like they're critiquing the behavior of the people running the subreddit, as opposed to their opinions. As I don't use Reddit much, could you add some context? For example, are the objectionable behaviors described int he article actually common across the political spectrum, or common in every election season? I would certainly accept your claim if bias if I knew that such behavior was widespread but only one flavor of it were being called out.

GabberBots 10y ago

The_Donald was infamous for it's brutal and violent opposition to free expression. Harassment, online and in real life, were the order of the day. Free speech is the very reason that The_Donald should have been put down. The chilling effect is very real.