3 ms·
You call it censorship. But to what extent is Reddit -- or any person or organizationan -- required to provide a platform for speech or expressions they find ab
by jmull 9y ago
You call it censorship. But to what extent is Reddit -- or any person or organizationan -- required to provide a platform for speech or expressions they find abhorant or contrary to their values?
Would it be OK with you if I put a bumper sticker on your car? "Silence hate speech!" or "Jews will not replace me!" or whatever it is that you might find uncomfortable?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jmull 9y agoSo... if you downvote this to make it grey out or disappear, doesn't that mean you think it's OK to supresss ideas on a public forum you don't agree with? Heh.
- mulmen 9y agoMy understanding of HN votes is that they are supposed to reflect the quality of the contribution to the conversation, not agreement or disagreement.
- jmull 9y agoSure. Then the question simply becomes whether it's OK to suppress ideas on a public forum because they are deemed by some to be a low-quality contribution. It seems to me this is dancing around semantics to avoid the question, especially considering the problematic nature of the distinction between something that one considers low-quality vs. something one disagrees with.
- mulmen 9y agoThey're fundamentally different questions. I have conversations with a lot of people on a lot of topics, some of those conversations are more substantive than others. Even if I disagree with someone it's easy to tell when a new idea has been presented and how well it has been articulated. My understanding of this voting system is that we are meant to use it to encourage meaningful conversation, not to motivate our own agenda. Is it possible to abuse this system? Of course it is. That's why I am engaging you in this conversation to perpetuate the idea that the voting system is actually a meta-vote about the quality of the conversation.