5 ms·

It is sad to see sites like reddit turn into police states. Any bit of skin or bad word and content is marked NSWF. Other topics not on paar with the main str

It is sad to see sites like reddit turn into police states. Any bit of skin or bad word and content is marked NSWF. Other topics not on paar with the main stream is banned or deleted by moderators. Topics that back a few years ago would have sparked a good and healthy discussion. Now people live in a filer bubble. Reality is too scary...

walterbell 8y ago
It’s a cycle. Smaller communities will arise.
f2n 8y ago
What's wrong with marking content NSFW? Its not censoring it, simply providing a warning to those who may be in a place where their screen is visible and that might not be appropriate.
- sschueller 8y ago
  The issue is that the bar is so low now you can't tell what is actually NSFW. In fact it is so low that being in reddit itself should count as NSFW.
- code_duck 8y ago
  I have seen this abused on sites like Twitter, where images with purely political content have been marked age-inappropriate.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Reddit doesn't block anyone from seeing NSFW content.
    - code_duck 8y ago
      Right, it's not quite the same because it's the submitter in reddit and the community on Twitter. I'm not trying to agree with the top parent comment about reddit. Twitter doesn't fully block NSFW content, either. They each have a system requiring a click to unveil or profile setting. The effect is to obscure the content, so that people just scrolling by won't see it. Someone has to notice it's hidden, trust that it something they do want to see and not a disturbing gore or porn pic, and then click to see it. That has the effect of reducing the reach of the media. It's similar to how people would make messages on the craigslist RnR forum disappear by abusing flagging. On Reddit, people opposing your message can use voting rings and automation to abuse downvoting, which has the effect of hiding content. They can complain that your image needs to be NSFW, and ask the moderators to change it. I believe moderators can set it for content, but if you are posting in their sub, you are at their mercy anyway.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  No, on Reddit, it doesn't simply provide a warning. It also (as of recent updates) blocks it entirely from search on the mobile site.
  - f2n 8y ago
    Well yes but if you use their trash mobile site then the lack of NSFW content is the least of your concerns.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  People usually don't want to voluntarily censor things from themselves. They want to impose their personal moral or political ideology on everyone else.
vorpalhex 8y ago
I used to be a huge reader of reddit's /r/politics. Enough that it was my primary aggregator - until I started to notice that a lot of the stories didn't seem to mesh with reality. So I switched to an RSS feed of the top 20 news publications - in an attempt to get a relatively unbiased feed (obviously still biased, but hopefully at least more moderate) and the picture I get in my political news is very different now. It's difficult because so many of these subreddits pretend to be neutral but are extremely biased one way or another - often in subtle ways that aren't disclosed or easily discovered.
- teachrdan 8y ago
  I've tried this and my problem is that conservative new sources, like Fox, seem to be objectively less reality-based. There are exceptions like the WSJ and the Economist, but for a UK Guardian-loving lefty like me, what conservative news publications would you recommend?
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    The Economist isn't a conservative news source by almost any possible metric. They are actually very socially liberal (and generally economically centrist). A lot of their positions (taxation, free education, government spending in infrastructure, universal healthcare, etc.) would be classified as left-leaning or left. Additionally, I've seen that leftist news sources aren't by any means behind rightist ones in terms of fake news. They just focus on different sets of fake news. Maybe the fact that you find rightist news more biased is just a result of your own bias. You overlook the bias in the publications that are aligned with your beliefs.
  - lazerpants 8y ago
    Maybe try the National Review? I disagree with a lot of their conservative stances but they are typically well thought out and often at odds with Fox and the completely loony alt-right news sites. But NR is more of a news-magazine, they don't cover everything and don't necessarily cover breaking news. For example, they advocate protecting marijuana legalizing states at the federal level. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-should-be-left-to-states/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-shou...). https://www.nationalreview.com/ https://www.nationalreview.com/
peteretep 8y ago
> Any bit of skin or bad word and content is marked NSWF. Trying to make a point about a site that explicitly allows its users to post photos of themselves naked and having sex as being too prudish seems weird.
zzzcpan 8y ago
Technically it is possible to implement a sort of opt-out or even opt-in moderation instead of mandatory moderation for everyone. The problem is the authorities don't like that and will eventually force the owner to censor something for everyone as long as there is at least some amount of centralized control left to the owner.
colordrops 8y ago
Not sure why you are getting down voted. The sea change at reddit is obvious to any long time user. Rational, objective, fact based unemotional comments that don't mesh with the prevailing narrative will be met with insults and a downvote brigade. I used to spend all day on reddit and now I visit maybe once a week to check a TV show subreddit.
- intended 8y ago
  Its eternal September. It will always happen.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> Other topics not on paar with the main stream is banned or deleted by moderators. Topics that back a few years ago would have sparked a good and healthy discussion. Like the quality discussion in r/fatpeoplehate? Or the wholesome debates in r/jailbait? And I think you're confusing admins and moderators. Moderators sometimes do delete certain threads in subreddits they control - but that's what moderation is.

walterbell 8y ago

It’s a cycle. Smaller communities will arise.

f2n 8y ago

What's wrong with marking content NSFW? Its not censoring it, simply providing a warning to those who may be in a place where their screen is visible and that might not be appropriate.

sschueller 8y ago
The issue is that the bar is so low now you can't tell what is actually NSFW. In fact it is so low that being in reddit itself should count as NSFW.
code_duck 8y ago
I have seen this abused on sites like Twitter, where images with purely political content have been marked age-inappropriate.
- gowld 8y ago
  Reddit doesn't block anyone from seeing NSFW content.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Right, it's not quite the same because it's the submitter in reddit and the community on Twitter. I'm not trying to agree with the top parent comment about reddit. Twitter doesn't fully block NSFW content, either. They each have a system requiring a click to unveil or profile setting. The effect is to obscure the content, so that people just scrolling by won't see it. Someone has to notice it's hidden, trust that it something they do want to see and not a disturbing gore or porn pic, and then click to see it. That has the effect of reducing the reach of the media. It's similar to how people would make messages on the craigslist RnR forum disappear by abusing flagging. On Reddit, people opposing your message can use voting rings and automation to abuse downvoting, which has the effect of hiding content. They can complain that your image needs to be NSFW, and ask the moderators to change it. I believe moderators can set it for content, but if you are posting in their sub, you are at their mercy anyway.
dragonwriter 8y ago
No, on Reddit, it doesn't simply provide a warning. It also (as of recent updates) blocks it entirely from search on the mobile site.
- f2n 8y ago
  Well yes but if you use their trash mobile site then the lack of NSFW content is the least of your concerns.
lopmotr 8y ago
People usually don't want to voluntarily censor things from themselves. They want to impose their personal moral or political ideology on everyone else.

vorpalhex 8y ago

I used to be a huge reader of reddit's /r/politics. Enough that it was my primary aggregator - until I started to notice that a lot of the stories didn't seem to mesh with reality. So I switched to an RSS feed of the top 20 news publications - in an attempt to get a relatively unbiased feed (obviously still biased, but hopefully at least more moderate) and the picture I get in my political news is very different now. It's difficult because so many of these subreddits pretend to be neutral but are extremely biased one way or another - often in subtle ways that aren't disclosed or easily discovered.

teachrdan 8y ago
I've tried this and my problem is that conservative new sources, like Fox, seem to be objectively less reality-based. There are exceptions like the WSJ and the Economist, but for a UK Guardian-loving lefty like me, what conservative news publications would you recommend?
- ucaetano 8y ago
  The Economist isn't a conservative news source by almost any possible metric. They are actually very socially liberal (and generally economically centrist). A lot of their positions (taxation, free education, government spending in infrastructure, universal healthcare, etc.) would be classified as left-leaning or left. Additionally, I've seen that leftist news sources aren't by any means behind rightist ones in terms of fake news. They just focus on different sets of fake news. Maybe the fact that you find rightist news more biased is just a result of your own bias. You overlook the bias in the publications that are aligned with your beliefs.
- lazerpants 8y ago
  Maybe try the National Review? I disagree with a lot of their conservative stances but they are typically well thought out and often at odds with Fox and the completely loony alt-right news sites. But NR is more of a news-magazine, they don't cover everything and don't necessarily cover breaking news. For example, they advocate protecting marijuana legalizing states at the federal level. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-should-be-left-to-states/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-shou...). https://www.nationalreview.com/ https://www.nationalreview.com/

peteretep 8y ago

> Any bit of skin or bad word and content is marked NSWF. Trying to make a point about a site that explicitly allows its users to post photos of themselves naked and having sex as being too prudish seems weird.

zzzcpan 8y ago

Technically it is possible to implement a sort of opt-out or even opt-in moderation instead of mandatory moderation for everyone. The problem is the authorities don't like that and will eventually force the owner to censor something for everyone as long as there is at least some amount of centralized control left to the owner.

colordrops 8y ago

Not sure why you are getting down voted. The sea change at reddit is obvious to any long time user. Rational, objective, fact based unemotional comments that don't mesh with the prevailing narrative will be met with insults and a downvote brigade. I used to spend all day on reddit and now I visit maybe once a week to check a TV show subreddit.

intended 8y ago
Its eternal September. It will always happen.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> Other topics not on paar with the main stream is banned or deleted by moderators. Topics that back a few years ago would have sparked a good and healthy discussion. Like the quality discussion in r/fatpeoplehate? Or the wholesome debates in r/jailbait? And I think you're confusing admins and moderators. Moderators sometimes do delete certain threads in subreddits they control - but that's what moderation is.