3 ms·
How so? Calling for someone to be murdered is understandably against their policy. As is doxxing someone. The user accounts that upvote the call for murder o
by tw04 6y ago
How so? Calling for someone to be murdered is understandably against their policy. As is doxxing someone. The user accounts that upvote the call for murder or upvote the doxxing details KNOW that the post is against their policy and decided to participate anyway.
I hate how these conversations always devolve to "well they're just trying to control what everyone says!" as if it's black and white and not shades of gray. No, they're trying to prevent assholes from spilling over into people's real lives, because the alternative is becoming 4chan. Where all that "upvoted" content results in ACTUAL PEOPLE BEING KILLED.
I hope most people on HN don't agree with the train of thought that websites have no duty to their fellow man to not normalize hate speech. "Where does it stop" - it stops at not doxxing people and not calling for people to be murdered, per their TOS.
- chippy 6y agoYes, it's shades of gray. For example, lets compare a similar service. Twitter is currently censoring some of the President of the US's tweets. They were not doing that a few months ago. So it's not black and white where twitter and acceptability is, and, like with society, it changes over time. Thus, people are concerned that merely interacting with something is enough to be labelled anathema, because of the shades of gray.
- mikeyouse 6y agoThey're not censoring them at all - they're adding more context below them that some of the content is misleading. You can still read every insane word in its original context.
- bcrosby95 6y agohttps://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy Calling for murder and doxxing isn't the only thing against the content policy. Lots of those policies will have a very subjective line in the sand.
- deft 6y agoTheres no upvoting on 4chan and bumping a thread (or on reddit upvoting) does not kill and cannot kill anyone. The people making the threads end up killing people (very rarely) not the randoms that reply (or upvote). You don't even know what the account upvoted, and upvoting isn't hate speech (or calling for someone to be murdered). Do you have a bunch of unknown information on this or are you just defending reddit's continued slide to dystopian horror for no reason?
- mikeyouse 6y ago"Slide to dystopian horror"? For banning a bunch of garbage subs and the people that upvote the garbage? Hyperbolic much?
- cheschire 6y agoWhy should your (and their) definition of garbage be the only acceptable one?
- mikeyouse 6y agoBecause they own the website and can do what they please with it? And "their" definition of garbage is banning things like "pics of dead girls" and "fat people hate". You're welcome to your own definition on whatever billion-user website you happen to administer.
- wnoise 6y agoThe problem is that there's no reason to believe that this policy will be limited strictly to obvious garbage. Unpopular, but not garbage views will inevitably be hit too. Maybe that's worth taking out the garbage, but collateral damage is still a negative.
- mikeyouse 6y agoIt's amusing how much HN mocks the police for their stance that everything that enables privacy could enable child exploitation imagery while at the same time insisting that anything that resembles moderation will end in dystopian thought policing. Sometimes slopes just aren't that slippery.
- jlawson 6y agoYou're forming a motte and bailey argument here... inside another motte and bailey argument. Motte #1: doxxing, calls to murder specific individuals Bailey #1: 'hate speech'. And your bailey itself is a motte and bailey! Motte #2: speech that incites violence or hate against a given group Bailey #2: "All lives matter", "It's ok to be white" banned, "#killallmen", "all white people are racist" Ok. It's always like this. I'd love a pro-censorship advocate to actually advocate what they want instead of endlessly cloaking it in these sorts of smokescreens and sneer labels. If 'hate speech' ever defended all people equally it wouldn't get so much pushback as a concept, but it was always a special protection for groups favored by those in power. Address that.