4 ms·

Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech. If you want to argue Reddit has a right to do that, sure. But that's not the

Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech. If you want to argue Reddit has a right to do that, sure. But that's not the argument.

agumonkey 6y ago
was it discussion ? or more ?
- sebmellen 6y ago
  If you're asking this question, you don't understand the principles of freedom of speech. Read the Aaron Swartz essay linked above, and while you're at it, watch this, from Noam Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    I think your opinion is extremely myopic and biased, I don't care much of shutting down subreddits to be honest, especially if you get extremists ready to act all up and angry together. They're still very free to speak have no worry. Also if reddit didn't stop that, they'd be flagged as pro-racist. There was a need for a decision to be made, nothing else.
    - sebmellen 6y ago
      Well, I hope we can agree to disagree. I strongly and vehemently disagree with your characterization. I think suppression of speech is something that must be pushed back against or it will be tacitly accepted. Social media is the new public square, and Reddit tried to pretend it is a "platform", while it makes large-scale editorial decisions. /r/chapotraphouse was an extremely far-left, anti-racist subreddit banned in this latest spree. This was not about racism, it was about censorship. I am a free speech absolutist, just like Aaron (stated as such in the linked article), and just like Noam Chomsky. This absolutism is a liberal viewpoint, and lies at the core of Western democratic civilization.
      - agumonkey 6y ago
        I have no problem disagreeing and indeed our views are worlds apart. Social media means moot to me, I think internet has reached its limits long ago and better things are done without this. Now that reddit is hypocritical about its motto.. very plausible, and I personally, consider reddit as a toy, not a tool, nothing more. And you stated it yourself, both subs you mentionned became too extreme, this was the sole reason behind the removal. IIUC you're afraid that this is a precedent leading to more and more chatting place shutdowns and a new form of oppression ? Let me say this, we have obese levels of communication channels, the reality lies elsewhere, and if and when people will need to speak for serious matters, they'll have the means. It's nice to be absolutist but don't go blind.
        sebmellen 6y ago
        I am more against this because I believe it is emblematic of a broader societal sway towards the concept that speech can be violence, which is what I disagree with. Reddit is simply one of many high-profile cases of this ideology finding root and with real effect.
        agumonkey 6y ago
        What real effects ? I'm curious
dogma1138 6y ago
TBH the platform itself doesn’t lend particularly well to free speech by penalizing unpopular opinions through karma. Ironically I think HN is worse in this regard by greying out posts once they get to -1, I often find out that sorting by controversial on many topics gives you the most interesting read on reddit. I would actually love if both HN and Reddit allowed you to see a Karma graph for each post.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  Any upvote/downvote concept on online content is flawed because it does not show the historical score of a post over time. Even here on HN I can post something during GMT business hours that gets scored based on the views of HN's readership at that time, but when the US wakes up the score can change dramatically. Essentially, the US west coast can have the 'final say' because of its timezone and probably larger user base. It's really interesting to observe.
  - anticristi 6y ago
    Not sure this is a studied problem, but I feel English-speaking forums/social media/conferences are extremely biased towards the views of US west coast tech. With some issues, the rest of the world has moved on, e.g., by not selling guns / not arming the police. I find myself reading online articles in languages I don't command well, just to get a break from the one-and-only view.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Yes, it also on a wide scale leads to silos being formed where you only share content with people you know that will upvote it this is why reddit gets a subreddit on every subject and even then those communities tend to split over and over until they get their perfect echochamber. Heck there are two primary subreddits for the Labour party in the UK - Labour and LabourUK. A year ago someone asked what's the difference between Labour and LabourUK and this was pretty much the answer (I've quoted one comment but the same answer was repeated across that entire post): >r/LabourUK is a Blairite echo chamber for bitter right wingers, and if you dare criticise Israel they'll call you an antisemite and ban you. You can call for the destruction of the left as much as you want over there but don't dare say anything against the Blairites, that's another bannable offense. Not sufficiently sucking up to the mods, also a ban. >r/Labour is mainly frequented by supporters of the Labour Party and not by people who are praying for Labour to lose so they can replace Corbyn.
raverbashing 6y ago
> Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech In the same way as "anti-maskers" take wearing one as being choked by the neck and are feigning fainting, taking the trash out of your platform, be it T_D or CTH does not make it "restricting free speech"
- valvar 6y ago
  Do you have an actual argument, or is your view simply that it's not restricting free speech if it's bad speech?
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    They are private platforms, nobody owns anybody a soapbox. Freedom of speech is about legality. Restrictions of freedom of speech: litigation, prison, penalties or worse. Not "my favourite subreddit was deleted" And speech is not 100% free anywhere.
    - LiNeXT 6y ago
      > Freedom of speech is about legality It can often be about legality but it is absolutely not limited to that.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - watwut 6y ago
    It is the frequent brigading by the Donald sub that makes free speech argument sound hollow. That sub was not banned for supporting president or discussing politics, it was banned because it became nuisance too people who wanted to discuss their own things.
Avamander 6y ago
There was no discussion in r/thedonald, it was a echo chamber that actively banned dissent.

Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech. If you want to argue Reddit has a right to do that, sure. But that's not the argument.

agumonkey 6y ago

was it discussion ? or more ?

sebmellen 6y ago
If you're asking this question, you don't understand the principles of freedom of speech. Read the Aaron Swartz essay linked above, and while you're at it, watch this, from Noam Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  I think your opinion is extremely myopic and biased, I don't care much of shutting down subreddits to be honest, especially if you get extremists ready to act all up and angry together. They're still very free to speak have no worry. Also if reddit didn't stop that, they'd be flagged as pro-racist. There was a need for a decision to be made, nothing else.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    Well, I hope we can agree to disagree. I strongly and vehemently disagree with your characterization. I think suppression of speech is something that must be pushed back against or it will be tacitly accepted. Social media is the new public square, and Reddit tried to pretend it is a "platform", while it makes large-scale editorial decisions. /r/chapotraphouse was an extremely far-left, anti-racist subreddit banned in this latest spree. This was not about racism, it was about censorship. I am a free speech absolutist, just like Aaron (stated as such in the linked article), and just like Noam Chomsky. This absolutism is a liberal viewpoint, and lies at the core of Western democratic civilization.
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      I have no problem disagreeing and indeed our views are worlds apart. Social media means moot to me, I think internet has reached its limits long ago and better things are done without this. Now that reddit is hypocritical about its motto.. very plausible, and I personally, consider reddit as a toy, not a tool, nothing more. And you stated it yourself, both subs you mentionned became too extreme, this was the sole reason behind the removal. IIUC you're afraid that this is a precedent leading to more and more chatting place shutdowns and a new form of oppression ? Let me say this, we have obese levels of communication channels, the reality lies elsewhere, and if and when people will need to speak for serious matters, they'll have the means. It's nice to be absolutist but don't go blind.
      - sebmellen 6y ago
        I am more against this because I believe it is emblematic of a broader societal sway towards the concept that speech can be violence, which is what I disagree with. Reddit is simply one of many high-profile cases of this ideology finding root and with real effect.
        agumonkey 6y ago
        What real effects ? I'm curious

dogma1138 6y ago

TBH the platform itself doesn’t lend particularly well to free speech by penalizing unpopular opinions through karma. Ironically I think HN is worse in this regard by greying out posts once they get to -1, I often find out that sorting by controversial on many topics gives you the most interesting read on reddit. I would actually love if both HN and Reddit allowed you to see a Karma graph for each post.

secondcoming 6y ago
Any upvote/downvote concept on online content is flawed because it does not show the historical score of a post over time. Even here on HN I can post something during GMT business hours that gets scored based on the views of HN's readership at that time, but when the US wakes up the score can change dramatically. Essentially, the US west coast can have the 'final say' because of its timezone and probably larger user base. It's really interesting to observe.
- anticristi 6y ago
  Not sure this is a studied problem, but I feel English-speaking forums/social media/conferences are extremely biased towards the views of US west coast tech. With some issues, the rest of the world has moved on, e.g., by not selling guns / not arming the police. I find myself reading online articles in languages I don't command well, just to get a break from the one-and-only view.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Yes, it also on a wide scale leads to silos being formed where you only share content with people you know that will upvote it this is why reddit gets a subreddit on every subject and even then those communities tend to split over and over until they get their perfect echochamber. Heck there are two primary subreddits for the Labour party in the UK - Labour and LabourUK. A year ago someone asked what's the difference between Labour and LabourUK and this was pretty much the answer (I've quoted one comment but the same answer was repeated across that entire post): >r/LabourUK is a Blairite echo chamber for bitter right wingers, and if you dare criticise Israel they'll call you an antisemite and ban you. You can call for the destruction of the left as much as you want over there but don't dare say anything against the Blairites, that's another bannable offense. Not sufficiently sucking up to the mods, also a ban. >r/Labour is mainly frequented by supporters of the Labour Party and not by people who are praying for Labour to lose so they can replace Corbyn.

raverbashing 6y ago

> Shutting down platforms for discussion is quite literally restricting free speech In the same way as "anti-maskers" take wearing one as being choked by the neck and are feigning fainting, taking the trash out of your platform, be it T_D or CTH does not make it "restricting free speech"

valvar 6y ago
Do you have an actual argument, or is your view simply that it's not restricting free speech if it's bad speech?
- raverbashing 6y ago
  They are private platforms, nobody owns anybody a soapbox. Freedom of speech is about legality. Restrictions of freedom of speech: litigation, prison, penalties or worse. Not "my favourite subreddit was deleted" And speech is not 100% free anywhere.
  - LiNeXT 6y ago
    > Freedom of speech is about legality It can often be about legality but it is absolutely not limited to that.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- watwut 6y ago
  It is the frequent brigading by the Donald sub that makes free speech argument sound hollow. That sub was not banned for supporting president or discussing politics, it was banned because it became nuisance too people who wanted to discuss their own things.

Avamander 6y ago

There was no discussion in r/thedonald, it was a echo chamber that actively banned dissent.