5 ms·

> It's a dangerous trend for both society and reddit itself. Wouldn't squashing the voices of the "right-wing contingent" just lead to an (already implied) ech

> It's a dangerous trend for both society and reddit itself. Wouldn't squashing the voices of the "right-wing contingent" just lead to an (already implied) echo chamber of leftist thought? Your one single comment sums up the problem I have with user-moderation systems like reddit (and HN).

so33 9y ago
>Wouldn't squashing the voices of the "right-wing contingent" just lead to an (already implied) echo chamber of leftist thought? That implies it's only possible to be "right-wing" or "leftist".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wvenable 9y ago
What ever happened to neutrality? Moderators shouldn't be promoting an ideology left or right. I understand that Reddit admins themselves don't want to promote an ideology either -- they want to remain neutral -- but they are sacrificing their platform to people who don't hold he same ideals. The biggest change I've noticed is just how political the city/country subreddits have become. A few years ago, they used to be more fun places but now nearly all the content is very hateful and polarizing.
- phil21 9y ago
  > they used to be more fun places but now nearly all the content is very hateful and polarizing. I don't think this is a reddit thing - it's a societal thing. Other platforms are also getting far more acerbic in general. City council meetings, local news, etc. It seems the country is in a period of time where politics is both forefront and rather contentious. I feel the stuff on-line is simply reflecting the greater societal trends - jut with the typical amplification everything on-line breeds.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    I think it's a societal thing because it's a Reddit thing. That typical amplification of everything online is leaking into real life.
- aldoushuxley001 9y ago
  It's literally impossible for moderators to be neutral, for anyone to be neutral. Even judges are well known for leaning to one side or the other.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    But even judges attempt to be neutral. There are law/rules and you attempt to judge every case/comment based on that. As a moderator, I don't simply delete comments because they don't fit my political views -- I'm capable of that and so are most other people. That's entirely different from people that are explicitly not trying to be neutral and are trying to promote a specific political ideology. I expect that majority of moderators on Reddit are not trying to promote anything. However there is definitely a growing contingent that don't want neutrality and they are taking over.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Sure it is possible. You can be neutral by banning nothing. Or at the very least only ban something when the authorities literally force you to do so.
    - wvenable 9y ago
      Banning nothing is fine if you want your community to die. In theory, everyone has equal ability to share their opinions and all have equal weight. In reality, you have a lot less influence than someone willing to post 24/7 everywhere they can. The quickest way to drive away reasonable people is to do nothing.
- FeepingCreature 9y ago
  See this excellent post: Neutral vs. Conservative - The Eternal Struggle http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative...
- pjc50 9y ago
  Neutrality is impossible. Either you ban people for racism or you don't.
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    Right, so people are arguing against that baseline rule. A baseline rule prohibiting threatening violence, most people agree with, but apparently it is a controversial attack on free speech if a private website wants to moderate the use of its platform to promote hatred against people based on the color of their skin. And banning racism is being held as an example of liberal bias! Amazing.
    - nabc45 9y ago
      Sticks and stones.
      - chillwaves 9y ago
        Not all speech is protected, for good reasons that cannot be blithely dismissed with a truism.
abritinthebay 9y ago
By "right-wing" he means the particularly virulent ur-fascist type of characters. If you don't think that is a problem then... well, I can't help you.
- FeepingCreature 9y ago
  Then he should say "virulent ur-fascists."
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Can’t argue with that, but contextually it was reasonably clear. Also it is a right wing position, just not the only one.
komali2 9y ago
There is "right wing" and there is "far right nationalism." Reddit has an issue with the latter. I have talked with many conservatives lamenting the loss of their given subreddits to trolls and /r/t_d devotees. Furthermore, it is the internet - I've never been convinced by any argument that HN or reddit or even facebook has any obligation to give "fair time" to far-right nationalism. For as long as Fox News exists and promotes itself as an actual news agency (HAH!), I don't think community-generated content websites need to bother. Why doesn't the far-right just "pull itself up by its boostraps" and make a reddit for the far-right? (sidenote, sometimes this does happen, and it almost always is full of the most comically hateful people: see voat)
- feadog 9y ago
  sidenote, sometimes this does happen, and it almost always is full of the most comically hateful people: see voat I'd feel much better if reddit and twitter were even handed with their condemnation of comically hateful people. As someone on the Left, what I've seen is that Left-leaning media bias tends to give indirect license to the most extreme authoritarian and even toxic fringes of the Left. It also fuels a reaction from the far Right. For as long as Fox News exists and promotes itself as an actual news agency (HAH!) The mechanism I cite above has been in operation at Fox, just in the other direction.
  - komali2 9y ago
    I'm not sure I agree, based on the near universal mockery of /r/shitredditsays since well before even the Kotakugate/gamerghazi/zoe quinn clusterfuck.
- stale2002 9y ago
  "Why doesn't the far-right just "pull itself up by its boostraps"" Umm, why would they do that when they can instead use reddit? Reddit sells itself as being a strong supporter of free speech. THEY SELF-identify as being a neutral platform. If the censorship supporters want to interact in a censored forum, then they can make their own subreddit and moderate it how ever they feel like, or make their own website. The right doesn't need to do anything, because reddit wants to be neutral.

so33 9y ago

>Wouldn't squashing the voices of the "right-wing contingent" just lead to an (already implied) echo chamber of leftist thought? That implies it's only possible to be "right-wing" or "leftist".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

wvenable 9y ago

What ever happened to neutrality? Moderators shouldn't be promoting an ideology left or right. I understand that Reddit admins themselves don't want to promote an ideology either -- they want to remain neutral -- but they are sacrificing their platform to people who don't hold he same ideals. The biggest change I've noticed is just how political the city/country subreddits have become. A few years ago, they used to be more fun places but now nearly all the content is very hateful and polarizing.

phil21 9y ago
> they used to be more fun places but now nearly all the content is very hateful and polarizing. I don't think this is a reddit thing - it's a societal thing. Other platforms are also getting far more acerbic in general. City council meetings, local news, etc. It seems the country is in a period of time where politics is both forefront and rather contentious. I feel the stuff on-line is simply reflecting the greater societal trends - jut with the typical amplification everything on-line breeds.
- wvenable 9y ago
  I think it's a societal thing because it's a Reddit thing. That typical amplification of everything online is leaking into real life.
aldoushuxley001 9y ago
It's literally impossible for moderators to be neutral, for anyone to be neutral. Even judges are well known for leaning to one side or the other.
- wvenable 9y ago
  But even judges attempt to be neutral. There are law/rules and you attempt to judge every case/comment based on that. As a moderator, I don't simply delete comments because they don't fit my political views -- I'm capable of that and so are most other people. That's entirely different from people that are explicitly not trying to be neutral and are trying to promote a specific political ideology. I expect that majority of moderators on Reddit are not trying to promote anything. However there is definitely a growing contingent that don't want neutrality and they are taking over.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Sure it is possible. You can be neutral by banning nothing. Or at the very least only ban something when the authorities literally force you to do so.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    Banning nothing is fine if you want your community to die. In theory, everyone has equal ability to share their opinions and all have equal weight. In reality, you have a lot less influence than someone willing to post 24/7 everywhere they can. The quickest way to drive away reasonable people is to do nothing.
FeepingCreature 9y ago
See this excellent post: Neutral vs. Conservative - The Eternal Struggle http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative...
pjc50 9y ago
Neutrality is impossible. Either you ban people for racism or you don't.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  Right, so people are arguing against that baseline rule. A baseline rule prohibiting threatening violence, most people agree with, but apparently it is a controversial attack on free speech if a private website wants to moderate the use of its platform to promote hatred against people based on the color of their skin. And banning racism is being held as an example of liberal bias! Amazing.
  - nabc45 9y ago
    Sticks and stones.
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      Not all speech is protected, for good reasons that cannot be blithely dismissed with a truism.

abritinthebay 9y ago

By "right-wing" he means the particularly virulent ur-fascist type of characters. If you don't think that is a problem then... well, I can't help you.

FeepingCreature 9y ago
Then he should say "virulent ur-fascists."
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Can’t argue with that, but contextually it was reasonably clear. Also it is a right wing position, just not the only one.

komali2 9y ago

There is "right wing" and there is "far right nationalism." Reddit has an issue with the latter. I have talked with many conservatives lamenting the loss of their given subreddits to trolls and /r/t_d devotees. Furthermore, it is the internet - I've never been convinced by any argument that HN or reddit or even facebook has any obligation to give "fair time" to far-right nationalism. For as long as Fox News exists and promotes itself as an actual news agency (HAH!), I don't think community-generated content websites need to bother. Why doesn't the far-right just "pull itself up by its boostraps" and make a reddit for the far-right? (sidenote, sometimes this does happen, and it almost always is full of the most comically hateful people: see voat)

feadog 9y ago
sidenote, sometimes this does happen, and it almost always is full of the most comically hateful people: see voat I'd feel much better if reddit and twitter were even handed with their condemnation of comically hateful people. As someone on the Left, what I've seen is that Left-leaning media bias tends to give indirect license to the most extreme authoritarian and even toxic fringes of the Left. It also fuels a reaction from the far Right. For as long as Fox News exists and promotes itself as an actual news agency (HAH!) The mechanism I cite above has been in operation at Fox, just in the other direction.
- komali2 9y ago
  I'm not sure I agree, based on the near universal mockery of /r/shitredditsays since well before even the Kotakugate/gamerghazi/zoe quinn clusterfuck.
stale2002 9y ago
"Why doesn't the far-right just "pull itself up by its boostraps"" Umm, why would they do that when they can instead use reddit? Reddit sells itself as being a strong supporter of free speech. THEY SELF-identify as being a neutral platform. If the censorship supporters want to interact in a censored forum, then they can make their own subreddit and moderate it how ever they feel like, or make their own website. The right doesn't need to do anything, because reddit wants to be neutral.