3 ms·

> Go look it up. I did. I found definitions that agree and disagree with both readings. So let me put it another way. People use "censorship" because they see

> Go look it up. I did. I found definitions that agree and disagree with both readings. So let me put it another way. People use "censorship" because they see a subversion of a moral duty by someone to tolerate speech they would rather not tolerate. But when you do that, you infringe their rights to not listen and to reject speech by negating it. I don't have to tolerate someone in my home saying words I disagree with. I have a right to eject them. Is that censorship? And if, by ejecting them, I have stated a political opinion, isn't preventing my expression also censorship? The counterargument is: oh, but reddit is somehow a public thing, they have some sort of social obligation. Your private home is different. Why? According to whom? Under what legal, constitutional or moral authority? In many countries the government is constrained or prevented from regulating some or all speech because, in the final analysis, there is nowhere else a citizen can go. But private speech is about private property. If reddit exercise their right to eject people they don't want on their property, the ejected folks are within their rights to do anything they want with their property.

mindslight 8y ago
It's fallacious to equate an individual making a personal judgment with a company imposing a decision on a large scale. While this fallacy runs deep in US culture (cf Steinbeck's quote about "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"), it is still a grave mistake. In general, it's nonsensical to treat rights as axiomatic primitives that can be unquestioningly layered upon. For example, if we assert that the owner of private property has an unrestrained right to force someone residing on that property to enter into a contract (or GTFO), then we can describe even North Korea as a perfect libertopia where Dear Leader holds title to all real estate. Clearly, the overarching qualitative situation is what's important. A mechanical conduit bears very little burden for tolerating speech. Which is why we expect ISPs to pass packets without policing their content. Reddit set itself up as a similar general conduit (with subreddit administrators controlling communities), and so yes we should expect the same. But really, the problem is that an environment of censorship will just not end well. Back to your example - rather than kicking someone out of your home, maybe you should try talking to them. I guarantee that kicking them out won't change their mind. Wonder why we're seeing such extreme polarization these days? It starts with this idea of giving people the social death penalty for having views we disagree with.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  > In general, it's nonsensical to treat rights as axiomatic primitives that can be unquestioningly layered upon. It's as nonsensical to refuse to say where the line is drawn. > then we can describe even North Korea as a perfect libertopia where Dear Leader holds title to all real estate. Are we actually comparing private property and free speech to an unlimited totalitarian state? > A mechanical conduit bears very little burden for tolerating speech. Which is why we expect ISPs to pass packets without policing their content. Reddit set itself up as a similar general conduit (with subreddit administrators controlling communities), and so yes we should expect the same. Websites can and do evict people. Newspapers can and do fire journalists and columnists. Universities can and do decline to offer tenure. People can and do walk out of theatres. Reddit can and has refused to spend their money, their time and their sense of right and wrong on something they reject. There's also the small matter that the terms of service say clearly that reddit can do this. Just because folks wish those weren't the terms, doesn't unmake them. > Back to your example - rather than kicking someone out of your home, maybe you should try talking to them. I guarantee that kicking them out won't change their mind. I have no obligation to change their mind. I have no obligation to listen to them. An unwelcome visitor is, in law and right, a trespasser. > It starts with this idea of giving people the social death penalty for having views we disagree with. I think there is room for sensible debate, but it is not license to demand unlimited permissiveness and resources from others. It just isn't. Calling it an "environment of censorship" is hyperbole.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > It's as nonsensical to refuse to say where the line is drawn. The rest of my comment is arguing for where I think the qualitative line is... > Are we actually comparing private property and free speech to an unlimited totalitarian state? Yes. Kim Jong-un himself has some of the best-maintained private property and free speech rights. The field of CS is very comfortable with logical reductions - don't play coy. > I have no obligation to change their mind. I have no obligation to listen to them. An unwelcome visitor is, in law and right, a trespasser. Ostensibly you've invited this person into your home for some reason. But if they express a disagreeable view, and they're not already beating their feet, then they're a trespasser? Do you really not see how ridiculously binary and supremely divisive this is? If you argue and they're invited back, maybe they'll attempt to square their views with civility/commonsense/reality before speaking them again. If you banish them from your life, then you're all but guaranteeing their only friends will be their echo chamber. > Calling it an "environment of censorship" is hyperbole. It's accurate - scroll down the responses on the OP and most everybody is cheering it on. We used to make fun of stupid ideas (including general censorship itself). Now we celebrate the pruning of a community because doing so undermines the opposing political ignorance team.

mindslight 8y ago

It's fallacious to equate an individual making a personal judgment with a company imposing a decision on a large scale. While this fallacy runs deep in US culture (cf Steinbeck's quote about "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"), it is still a grave mistake. In general, it's nonsensical to treat rights as axiomatic primitives that can be unquestioningly layered upon. For example, if we assert that the owner of private property has an unrestrained right to force someone residing on that property to enter into a contract (or GTFO), then we can describe even North Korea as a perfect libertopia where Dear Leader holds title to all real estate. Clearly, the overarching qualitative situation is what's important. A mechanical conduit bears very little burden for tolerating speech. Which is why we expect ISPs to pass packets without policing their content. Reddit set itself up as a similar general conduit (with subreddit administrators controlling communities), and so yes we should expect the same. But really, the problem is that an environment of censorship will just not end well. Back to your example - rather than kicking someone out of your home, maybe you should try talking to them. I guarantee that kicking them out won't change their mind. Wonder why we're seeing such extreme polarization these days? It starts with this idea of giving people the social death penalty for having views we disagree with.

jacques_chester 8y ago
> In general, it's nonsensical to treat rights as axiomatic primitives that can be unquestioningly layered upon. It's as nonsensical to refuse to say where the line is drawn. > then we can describe even North Korea as a perfect libertopia where Dear Leader holds title to all real estate. Are we actually comparing private property and free speech to an unlimited totalitarian state? > A mechanical conduit bears very little burden for tolerating speech. Which is why we expect ISPs to pass packets without policing their content. Reddit set itself up as a similar general conduit (with subreddit administrators controlling communities), and so yes we should expect the same. Websites can and do evict people. Newspapers can and do fire journalists and columnists. Universities can and do decline to offer tenure. People can and do walk out of theatres. Reddit can and has refused to spend their money, their time and their sense of right and wrong on something they reject. There's also the small matter that the terms of service say clearly that reddit can do this. Just because folks wish those weren't the terms, doesn't unmake them. > Back to your example - rather than kicking someone out of your home, maybe you should try talking to them. I guarantee that kicking them out won't change their mind. I have no obligation to change their mind. I have no obligation to listen to them. An unwelcome visitor is, in law and right, a trespasser. > It starts with this idea of giving people the social death penalty for having views we disagree with. I think there is room for sensible debate, but it is not license to demand unlimited permissiveness and resources from others. It just isn't. Calling it an "environment of censorship" is hyperbole.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > It's as nonsensical to refuse to say where the line is drawn. The rest of my comment is arguing for where I think the qualitative line is... > Are we actually comparing private property and free speech to an unlimited totalitarian state? Yes. Kim Jong-un himself has some of the best-maintained private property and free speech rights. The field of CS is very comfortable with logical reductions - don't play coy. > I have no obligation to change their mind. I have no obligation to listen to them. An unwelcome visitor is, in law and right, a trespasser. Ostensibly you've invited this person into your home for some reason. But if they express a disagreeable view, and they're not already beating their feet, then they're a trespasser? Do you really not see how ridiculously binary and supremely divisive this is? If you argue and they're invited back, maybe they'll attempt to square their views with civility/commonsense/reality before speaking them again. If you banish them from your life, then you're all but guaranteeing their only friends will be their echo chamber. > Calling it an "environment of censorship" is hyperbole. It's accurate - scroll down the responses on the OP and most everybody is cheering it on. We used to make fun of stupid ideas (including general censorship itself). Now we celebrate the pruning of a community because doing so undermines the opposing political ignorance team.