3 ms·

Theres 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 peop

by deft 6y ago

Theres 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 ago
  Why should your (and their) definition of garbage be the only acceptable one?
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    Because 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    It'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.
    - wnoise 6y ago
      Everything that enables privacy absolutely could enable child exploitation imagery. But privacy as a whole is too fucking valuable to give up to make prosecuting some crimes easier. In the US, that's the whole point of the fourth amendment -- warrants with probable cause and specificity requirements are the proper escape hatch, not bulk data sifting. Not all crime can or should be caught at any cost whatsoever. Moderation need not end in dystopian thought policing. Reddit has had moderation for quite some time. Indeed voting was there from the beginning, and is a primitive crowdsourced form of moderation, with many obvious flaws, including groupthink. Forum moderation's whole point is to constrain what can be said. It can be used for good or ill. Extending it to bans from agreeing with wrongthink is a step beyond the status quo. Maybe it'll balance out to be good on net, maybe bad, but don't pretend it's not novel or that it's obviously good on balance, and no one should be concerned.

by deft 6y ago

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 ago
Why should your (and their) definition of garbage be the only acceptable one?
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Because 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 ago
The 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 ago
  It'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.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    Everything that enables privacy absolutely could enable child exploitation imagery. But privacy as a whole is too fucking valuable to give up to make prosecuting some crimes easier. In the US, that's the whole point of the fourth amendment -- warrants with probable cause and specificity requirements are the proper escape hatch, not bulk data sifting. Not all crime can or should be caught at any cost whatsoever. Moderation need not end in dystopian thought policing. Reddit has had moderation for quite some time. Indeed voting was there from the beginning, and is a primitive crowdsourced form of moderation, with many obvious flaws, including groupthink. Forum moderation's whole point is to constrain what can be said. It can be used for good or ill. Extending it to bans from agreeing with wrongthink is a step beyond the status quo. Maybe it'll balance out to be good on net, maybe bad, but don't pretend it's not novel or that it's obviously good on balance, and no one should be concerned.