4 ms·

How could banning the_donald possibly be considered anything other than censorship?

diogenescynic 9y ago
Because reddit isn’t the government? If they don’t like it, they can tell you to take it somewhere else. Just like they did to /r/deepfakes
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Censorship is not something only governments can do. I think we’re well beyond the point it’s time to have a national conversation about how these private companies exist as the public commons nowadays. They make these entirely capricious and disgustingly transparent swings between “Place for open discussion and free speech” (actually the founders exact words in many an interview in Reddit’s case) when the owners want attention and hype and warm fuzzies from the user base, “private company” when it suits their needs or they’re challenged on their principles.
  - zaccus 9y ago
    That's their prerogative though. They can be capricious if they want, and you're free to not use the service if you don't like it. Reddit is beholden to their shareholders, not their users.
    - lulmerchant 9y ago
      My point is that it's still censorship, whether done by a private company or by a government, and whether they have the legal right to do so or not.
      - zaccus 9y ago
        And my point is that it doesn't matter. Companies censor stuff all the time. Reddit can censor whatever they want.
        lulmerchant 9y ago
        Legally this is most likely correct. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you support political censorship (which you might have a good reason to do), then you have to own that. You can't support political censorship and then justify it by saying it's not censorship.
- lulmerchant 9y ago
  You're correct, they do have the legal right to censor anything they like.
- orionblastar 9y ago
  This site: http://voat.co http://voat.co is where the right wingers go after being banned from Reddit and also http://gab.ai http://gab.ai when banned from Twitter.
root_axis 9y ago
First of all, "censorship" is an extremely loaded word because it carries the implication that the message being broadcast necessarily deserves to be heard, but this is not always the case. If I logged onto your blog and wrote "fuck you" in the comments, you wouldn't be censoring me by deleting it. The world censorship also carries implications about the motives of the supposed "censor" by alluding to the notion that their actions are motivated by a desire to silence a message that they fear or disagree with when other explanations could be more likley. For example, maybe you don't care if the message is heard, but you just don't want to hear it in your house... if you then kick me out your house, that doesn't mean I'm being censored, it means that what happens on your property is your prerogative. Maybe you didn't even hear the message and just don't like my tone or maybe you did hear the message and find it to be worthless, it's not censorship if I ban you for stating that aliens orchestrated 9/11. Banning anyone from reddit is not censorship because they were never entitled to the use of reddit's privately owned property and reddit's actions do not impede their free expression through the use of their own resources.

Because reddit isn’t the government? If they don’t like it, they can tell you to take it somewhere else. Just like they did to /r/deepfakes

Karunamon 9y ago
Censorship is not something only governments can do. I think we’re well beyond the point it’s time to have a national conversation about how these private companies exist as the public commons nowadays. They make these entirely capricious and disgustingly transparent swings between “Place for open discussion and free speech” (actually the founders exact words in many an interview in Reddit’s case) when the owners want attention and hype and warm fuzzies from the user base, “private company” when it suits their needs or they’re challenged on their principles.
- zaccus 9y ago
  That's their prerogative though. They can be capricious if they want, and you're free to not use the service if you don't like it. Reddit is beholden to their shareholders, not their users.
  - lulmerchant 9y ago
    My point is that it's still censorship, whether done by a private company or by a government, and whether they have the legal right to do so or not.
    - zaccus 9y ago
      And my point is that it doesn't matter. Companies censor stuff all the time. Reddit can censor whatever they want.
      - lulmerchant 9y ago
        Legally this is most likely correct. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you support political censorship (which you might have a good reason to do), then you have to own that. You can't support political censorship and then justify it by saying it's not censorship.
lulmerchant 9y ago
You're correct, they do have the legal right to censor anything they like.
orionblastar 9y ago
This site: http://voat.co http://voat.co is where the right wingers go after being banned from Reddit and also http://gab.ai http://gab.ai when banned from Twitter.

root_axis 9y ago

First of all, "censorship" is an extremely loaded word because it carries the implication that the message being broadcast necessarily deserves to be heard, but this is not always the case. If I logged onto your blog and wrote "fuck you" in the comments, you wouldn't be censoring me by deleting it. The world censorship also carries implications about the motives of the supposed "censor" by alluding to the notion that their actions are motivated by a desire to silence a message that they fear or disagree with when other explanations could be more likley. For example, maybe you don't care if the message is heard, but you just don't want to hear it in your house... if you then kick me out your house, that doesn't mean I'm being censored, it means that what happens on your property is your prerogative. Maybe you didn't even hear the message and just don't like my tone or maybe you did hear the message and find it to be worthless, it's not censorship if I ban you for stating that aliens orchestrated 9/11. Banning anyone from reddit is not censorship because they were never entitled to the use of reddit's privately owned property and reddit's actions do not impede their free expression through the use of their own resources.