7 ms·
Reddit bans Alt-Right Group
- danjoc 10y agoFreedom of speech* *To those who own the presses.
- Daishiman 10y agoWould you like some lube to beat up that dead horse?
- intro-b 10y agothis seems like a pretty standard enforcement of their policy - since real-life information was being shared on that community for the purposes of targeted harassment, banning has always been their primary recourse
- zdw 10y agoThe first amendment only applies to the government making rules restricting speech. Reddit is privately owned and run, so they get to make whatever rules they want.
- danjoc 10y agoThat's what I just said, but you won't be modded down for it like I was.
- twblalock 10y agoIt's definitely not what you said.
- greenbean123123 10y agoIt absolutely is what danjoc said. danjoc said that freedom of speech is only for those who own the press. zdw replied and said Reddit is privately owned and can do whatever they want. I presume that danjoc interpreted "privately owned" as an instance of "those who own the press", which does not seem to be a stretch at all. Do you still not see it?
- comex 10y agoEveryone always equates "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment. They're not the same. Free speech is a moral principle, which different people support to different extents, but of which the First Amendment is merely one, US-centric, embodiment. That said, Reddit didn't ban this subreddit for being alt-right, so the point is fairly moot.
- twblalock 10y ago"Freedom of speech is only for those who own the press" implies that only owners of the press have freedom of speech. That is not true -- everyone has freedom of speech vis a vis the government as zdw pointed out, whether they "own the press" or not.
- greenbean123123 10y agoFree speech outlined in the Constitution is constrained by how loud you can shout. Groups like the alt-right are fueled, in part, because of the belief that they are subjected to unfair and targeted censorship on platforms like Reddit. If they are not able to participate in the discussions being had there, other groups are able to control the narrative to the alt-right's detriment. Being able to defend yourself with your voice is a moot point because, in the age of the Internet, that is not where the discussions are taking place.
- nkozyra 10y agoThat has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- planckscnst 10y agoI think you are being downvoted because it is being perceived as implicating that reddit is making a political statement about Alt-right.
- danjoc 10y agoI think you're right about that. It's rarely a popular statement among nationalists in this country. Some people really do think they have free speech in every context and get angry when you point out they aren't really as free as they seem to think. The alt-righters would mod me down too, but it's a sharp pointy stick. I like to jab it into people to make them think.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> The first amendment There's more to free speech than one country's constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- woofyman 10y agoThen start you're own web site. Do you have unfettered free speech on HN?
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> Do you have unfettered free speech on HN? I'm hellbanned on HN and my only comments that reach your filter bubble are those manually approved by a moderator (out of a maximum of 4-5 I can make in a day, due to draconian rate limiting). So no, there's nothing resembling free speech here - just moderator approved speech in the PR extension of a VC firm.
- fooey 10y agoThere is no right to force a private business to broadcast your speech.
- scintill76 10y agoIs a printing business allowed to refuse to print gay wedding announcements, because they do not support gay weddings? Maybe you're consistent, but I feel like this would often draw out contradictory positions. Is it morally different if one is a paying customer and the other is a non-paying user?
- psyc 10y agoHonestly, how many more hundreds of times am I going to read this facile straw man, in these exact same tired words? You can't possibly believe you're saying anything original or enlightening regarding the actual issue, can you? Why am I on this site writing this comment? What am I doing with my life?
- molmalo 10y agoHonest question: If I was the owner of an ISP, and just for this exercise assume that I am providing my services in an area where there is at least one competitor (so I don't have a monopoly). And as a human being, I disliked certain topics; for this example, the topics are radical Islam websites, pornography sites and cat pictures. Now the question; As I am the owner of a private company, am I entitled to block access to all the sites that show pictures of Bin Laden, boobs or kitties? I might be sued by site owners and some of my clients... but isn't this situation similar to the way some cable network can choose to broadcast certain channels and not others? I am all in favor for free access to information, and against censure, even when I might dislike certain topics. But I can only see a blurry line between people's right to access something and the owner of a network to block said access.
- noir_lord 10y agoThat is to an extent what regulated as a utility was about (there was other parts), it's also why net neutrality is important for more that just a fair market argument.
- CharlesW 10y agoFreedom of speech* *Doesn't mean freedom from consequences
- psyc 10y agoWhy do you bother posting cliched platitudes that a bot could post?
- noir_lord 10y agoFreedom of speech means protection against the Government, Reddit is a private organisation and it doesn't apply. Also Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences.
- tyre 10y agoThe 1st Amendment of the United States applies to Congress, not everything. Even in that context, freedom of speech has limits (e.g. libel, slander, child pornography, sexual harassment, etc.). It's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech.
- solipsism 10y agoIt's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech In the US it is, in general, unconstitutional to ban hate speech (except when it also happens to be unprotected speech, such as a threat). But that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand, of course, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
- striking 10y agoIt's a ban on doxxing, not on hate speech. There are plenty of things on reddit people consider hate speech, but they remain. r/altright was worse than plain hate speech, it was simply hate (in the form of harassment, through doxxing).
- chc 10y agoI'm pretty sure there aren't many people who consider a right to harass to be essential to freedom of speech.
- charonn0 10y agoThe reddit software is open source, so I'm not sure "the presses" applies. What you probably meant was "the audience", and no one has a right to that. [0]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit https://github.com/reddit/reddit
- Dobbs 10y ago/r/altright was banned for doxing. An example can be found on imgur http://imgur.com/a/pZ8yN http://imgur.com/a/pZ8yN where you can see not only doxing, but crowd funding to support doxing of an individual they disagreed with.
- microcolonel 10y agoI would disagree with somebody sucker-punching a community member in the face. If there are no other targets this seems entirely legitimate. The ban also seems slightly prejudicial, because on the other side there is /r/antifa where people are bragging[1] about the assault which /r/altright was trying to solve with this bounty. Granted, /r/antifa seems to be mostly dissent against this stuff, so it wouldn't be a subreddit shutdown. I think that assaulting people you disagree with is a far more serious charge than posting a reward for information which leads to the arrest of a criminal. The latter is something befitting of a police agency. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/antifa/comments/5r5rlp/ https://www.reddit.com/r/antifa/comments/5r5rlp/
- diyorgasms 10y ago/r/antifa is run by neo-nazi squatters who want to make antifa look bad. They probably should be shut down, and there are other places actual activists organize.
- microcolonel 10y agoNot to get too far into it, but it's hard to make antifa look any worse than they actually are. A bunch of cowardly, destructive, eyes-shut communist nincompoops parading around in crowds because they are too timid to stand alone for their indefensibly stupid beliefs; that is, if they're not just there to fit in. I don't think you have to be a neo-nazi to appreciate how pathetic and sad antifa are. I do not think you have to be a neo-nazi to have a knowing laugh about the thumb-sucking intellectual fragility they represent.
- unprepare 10y agoif you want to investigate criminal activity, become a police officer. >Vigilante justice often describes the actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vigilante_justice https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vigilante_justice
- neotek 10y agoGood.
- heydonovan 10y ago[deleted as per incorrect information]
- bla2 10y ago"has a reputation" is pretty strong; their CEO did it like 4 times in a few hours. That's not a small thing, but there was appropriate outrage and an apology. Also, breitbart link, really?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- scentedmeat 10y agoWell, they do have a reputation for deleting sub-reddits they don't like. It would be better, I think, just to come out and say, "we will delete sub-reddits we disagree with."
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ajkjk 10y agoSome explanation here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/5ri97o/raltright_has_been_banned_discuss_this_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/5ri97o/ralt... "There is a website I can't link that is taking money to crowdfund doxxing efforts. After the admins banned that domain, the mods on /r/altright continued to manually approve submissions to that site and added them as sticky/announcement posts. My guess is that is the reasoning behind the ban." So they got banned for repeatedly and intentionally, with moderator support, circumventing Reddit's rules -- not for 'suppression of free speech' or anything like that. I'm sure the admins were glad to be rid of them, but, they really brought it on themselves.
- askljkdjklsj 10y agoWhat's the actual incident? Does anybody have details? Wesearchr was banned from twitter for looking for information about the guy who sucker-punched Richard Spencer live on video. Is this ban for the same incident? This seems a little different from how I normally use the term "doxxing", which is posting real-life information about a person who would prefer to remain anonymous. I mean, I'm sure the guy who assaulted Spencer would prefer to remain anonymous, but others have good reason to oppose that.
- fooey 10y agoDoxxing is a violation of TOS regardless if it's for "good" or for "bad" reasons. Mods of such a controversial sub flagrantly participating in doxxing is basically forcing the admins to ban them.
- AckSyn 10y agoIn my experience moderating a popular (default) subreddit, the admins and other mods will brush under the carpet actions done by the political left that would have the political right put under notice/(shadow)banned/sub-closed, and it's gotten worse exponentially show since the heat of the election season last summer. Searching for someone who committed a crime vs senseless "doxxing" (someone who hasn't committed a crime) are two different things. However, when it suits the reddit admin's purposes they'll outright ignore it or use a heavy hand and ban people/communities. They're heavy leftists, so you can guess where this tends to lead things on that site.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- singold 10y agoIf it is a violation of tos shouldn't they ban the user instead of deleting the subrredit? Edit: now i've read the comment by 'ajkjk and that makes more sense
- baudolino 10y agosix weeks ago I would have regarded the idea of doing this as inimical to the principles of free discourse and debate that I feel are fundamental to democracy and indeed to small-l liberal civilization in general. now I find myself wondering whether my principles are being contaminated by the immense personal anger I feel, or whether perhaps my principles weren't as rationally derived as I had previously believed.
- solipsism 10y agosix weeks ago I would have regarded the idea of doing this as inimical to the principles of free discourse and debate that I feel are fundamental to democracy and indeed to small-l liberal civilization in general Then you probably have not read the article. EDIT: inserted critical "not"
- baudolino 10y agoI did, in fact. What do you mean?
- epistasis 10y agoThen you may find this concept interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Living in an open society does not mean tolerating those who aim to end the open society. The altright, as a rewarming of white nationalism, which is a rewarming of Nazism, seems to not be such a huge fan of our open society.
- vixen99 10y agoWhat assumption laden, lazy use of words. You throw them around as smears and pretend they have specific meaning rather than the emotive symbols they are. Nigel Farage who convinced a majority of Brits to exit the EU is generally regarded as being altright. Do we therefore conclude that this British majority went along with someone who supports a 'rewarming of Nazism'. This is vile garbage. Identifying targets precisely and offering arguments is preferable to sloppy innuendo.
- razakel 10y agoI don't think they really had much of a choice. It doesn't look good for a media company to allow neo-Nazi content to be posted.
- diego 10y agoThe important part: the group was not banned for their beliefs or their speech. It was banned for violating the TOS, in particular for doxxing.
- sergiotapia 10y agoThey were trying to find out the identity of the person who assaulted a man in the airport and report them to the police. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf008xA1x1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf008xA1x1Q
- Dobbs 10y agoThat is just about the textbook definition of doxxing. Hunting down the real life information about a person and posting it on the internet. This has blown up in reddit's face before (boston bomber) and so the site has a very very strict anti-doxing rule. It isn't up to reddit to hunt down that individual, it is up to the police.
- enkid 10y agoEfforts like that during the Boston marathon bombing had them ID an innocent person, which got picked up by some media outlets.
- omginternets 10y ago"Doxxing for a cause is still doxxing." I think that's the policy that's being applied.
- shard972 10y agoThen why on earth is /r/shitredditsays still around? They have been getting in trouble for doxxing for years along with constantly brigading which apparently is another bannable offense. As someone who has been dogpiled by that sub with people attempting to doxx me for the crime of having a different opinion in /r/worldnews, I have absolutely no idea why reddit turns a blind eye.
- et-al 10y agoAnyone remember when they shut down /r/fatpeoplehate? The hate just spilled to other parts of the site. I'd be concerned of the same thing happening with this.
- sergiotapia 10y agoThe admin Spez removed the subreddit because they were trying to figure out who punched this guy at the airport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf008xA1x1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf008xA1x1Q
- dosgonlogs 10y agono, shame on those who dox with malicious intent, and they got what they deserved for violating the T&C of Reddit, but still deserve a kick in the short and curly's for doxing. Alt Right is a turd blossoming community filled with misinformed hateful people of little merit, who have incredibly fragile egos.
- shard972 10y agoI don't remember reddit banning anyone when a subreddit falsely accused some kid of being the boston bomber. Infact I don't remember the admins even saying a word about it.
- charonn0 10y ago> removed the subreddit because they were trying to figure out who punched this guy at the airport This is what is called doxxing, and it's a direct violation of the TOS.
- marricks 10y agoPeople jump to compare to digg or clamping down on "free speech" but groups that dox or participate in harassment don't deserve to be sheltered. Sure, reddit started as a sort of "libertarian dream" but it's pretty clear at this point that some groups choose to abuse that.
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> groups that dox or participate in harassment don't deserve to be sheltered Like HN users digging for info on Peter Thiel without being accredited as journalists and making public requests to harass the Trump administration? As a rule of thumb, whenever you feel like justifying abuse, think really hard how it can be applied to you.
- carsongross 10y agoWell this should be a sane, civil conversation...
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> It is not immediately clear what specific alleged disclosure prompted the ban. I'm sure they'll come up with something. Relevant discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/5riav8/the_admins_just_banned_raltright/ https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/5riav8/the_admins... (as always on Reddit, don't vote if you arrive with an external HTTP Referer header or you risk being banned 3 days on the whole site for participating in a voting brigade)
- davexunit 10y agoGood riddance.
- arjie 10y agoWho honestly gives a shit? Not me. There are a veritable army of unproductive losers who spend all their time on the Internet. Nearly every occasion where I've seen people complain about "censorship" from a website, it's unproductive drivel from these people. Good riddance, I say. When productive people don't like their speech being suppressed they create lobste.rs. But these people aren't productive at all. They're useless wastrels, for whom the psychological kick of receiving an upvote from their feeble-minded brethren is sufficient to drag them through the day. I will continue to use reddit for /r/rust and whatnot and it will be good. Normally, I wouldn't even enter this conversation but there's this trend where people assume that these worthless fools are the majority simply because they spend every waking hour whining about some thing or the other. And then people act as if they must be placated. When really they should just go away.
- hackuser 10y agoNote that they were banned for doxxing, not for intolerance or hatred. Generally I strongly favor free speech and believe the answer to 'bad' speech is more speech. However, there always are limits such as slander, harmful deception (yelling 'fire' in a crowd), provocation to crime ('assault the man in the front row!'), and more. I think there may be a way to clearly and justly draw a line for white supremacist and other hate speech, if and when we want to do it. Tolerate all but intolerance itself. There is some theoretical support: * Think of tolerance as a social contract: I tolerate you if you tolerate me; or, everyone tolerates you if you tolerate everyone. If you break that contract then you have no claim on everyone else's toleration. * Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.[0] On the other hand, the always incredible Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes some good arguments against it, especially that humanity will abuse this new authority.[1] Partly for that reason and partly to err on the side of individual liberty, I would apply this rule only when there is a practical necessity. One requirement would be that the intolerant group poses a threat. For example, a group of intolerant Jainists in Los Angeles isn't a threat - they are too few to threaten anyone in that environment. In a tiny town where they are the majority, or in a locked room with one Confucian about whom they are saying intolerant things, it would be a threat. But this all is my personal analysis; I'd be interested in some established standards such as workplace law, neo-Nazi speech in Germany, etc. ---- [0] I can't find an authoritative source or discussion, but Wikipedia covers it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ - Search the page for "paradox of drawing the limits"
- JohnTHaller 10y agoaltright was doxxing, which is against the ToS. Doxxing, regardless of who, is generally a bad idea. For background, see the reddit Boston bomber debacle. You're going to get it wrong and end up harassing or harming innocent people.
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> Doxxing, regardless of who, is generally a bad idea. Maybe, but allowing professionals to have a monopoly on journalism is even worse.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- PlumNutPrime 10y agoTry a platform that lets you run your groups like you want: www.plumgroups.com. Setup interest/location based groups and/or install the Chrome extension to comment on every site you visit. Post anonymously or use you Plum Name.