6 ms·

Exactly this. Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. I support your right to speak, but does

Exactly this. Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. I support your right to speak, but doesn’t mean I want to listen to you. IMO the only parts of the internet that should be absolutely required to allow unfiltered (legal, protected) speech, should be ISP’s, and maybe datacenters that rent out physical rack space. Everyone else should absolutely consider it their right to exercise moderation on their platform (throw out the rude patrons, as it were.)

MinusGix 6y ago
I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. I agree that not having moderation isn't something we can do, for staying on topic or getting rid of certain users. The benefit of Reddit in this is that sub-communities can be made with harsher moderation policies than the outside Reddit, which allows getting rid of users they don't want. Since this is small sub-communities, if the users who disliked that subreddit really wanted they could make their own alternative and still be accessible to the wider Reddit. This would help avoid the problems of Voat becoming full of people on the extremist end of the spectrum. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but being shared around reddit and accessible through the same account would make it a lot easier to dilute things like that.
- creato 6y ago
  > I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. It's not about scale, it's about alternatives. It's easy to just not go to reddit if you don't want to. If your ISP bans reddit (or hackernews?), and it's the only reasonable price/performance ISP you have access to, that's a much bigger problem.
- ninkendo 6y ago
  > I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. Massively disagree here. Nobody owes anyone a platform. YouTube doesn’t need to host hate speech. Twitter doesn’t need to let people spread false claims about election fraud. They are perfectly within their rights (and I’d argue, their responsibility) to set standards for discourse and acceptable behavior on their platforms. If you want a site that will host your alternate-reality qanon bullshit, you can always host it yourself.
Throwaway1771 6y ago
In many cases, the free speech (shocking stuff) is a litmus test for the compromised nature of the platform. It's important, historically, to test this regularly, and thoroughly. Voat/4Chan et al MUST be viewed in this context. Must!
- ninkendo 6y ago
  > Voat/4Chan et al MUST be viewed in this context. Nah. It really musn’t. We’re all a lot happier without you on our platforms. Qanon can always pay for his own hosting.
  - Throwaway1771 6y ago
    You don't think people who run, or are users of, 4Chan/Voat/IRC channels etc actually care about your preferences...?
  - Throwaway1771 6y ago
    What I mean to say is: those aren't "your platforms" - and you DON'T speak for the entire internet. Even if you feel that way.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it. It has never, ever been about the social consequences of any particular one person's speech. Insulting your boss and getting fired isn't an abridgement of free speech, neither is getting banned from the neighborhood pub for racist monologues.
- verroq 6y ago
  >Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it No I don’t remember. You can have “free speech” except the social consequences are that your neighbours lynch you in the streets. No I don’t recall it like that. Free speech has always been absolute because the majority opinion is immune from social consequences. It is the minority opinion that requires protection.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Aside from the extreme hypothetical you made up, there are other laws against lynching, you know. That has nothing to do with free speech.
    - verroq 6y ago
      Lynching has always been a crime and that’s why nobody was lynched ever. The mob already has protection because their numbers. It is everyone but the mob that needs the protection.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        “Laws don’t work, which is why we need more laws” is quite an argument.
        verroq 6y ago
        Me: “there isn’t enough done to protect dissenting voices” You: “so we should do nothing and give them up to the lynch mob, laws don’t work anyway, this is what I call freedom of speech but not from consequences”

MinusGix 6y ago

I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. I agree that not having moderation isn't something we can do, for staying on topic or getting rid of certain users. The benefit of Reddit in this is that sub-communities can be made with harsher moderation policies than the outside Reddit, which allows getting rid of users they don't want. Since this is small sub-communities, if the users who disliked that subreddit really wanted they could make their own alternative and still be accessible to the wider Reddit. This would help avoid the problems of Voat becoming full of people on the extremist end of the spectrum. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but being shared around reddit and accessible through the same account would make it a lot easier to dilute things like that.

creato 6y ago
> I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. It's not about scale, it's about alternatives. It's easy to just not go to reddit if you don't want to. If your ISP bans reddit (or hackernews?), and it's the only reasonable price/performance ISP you have access to, that's a much bigger problem.
ninkendo 6y ago
> I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. Massively disagree here. Nobody owes anyone a platform. YouTube doesn’t need to host hate speech. Twitter doesn’t need to let people spread false claims about election fraud. They are perfectly within their rights (and I’d argue, their responsibility) to set standards for discourse and acceptable behavior on their platforms. If you want a site that will host your alternate-reality qanon bullshit, you can always host it yourself.

Throwaway1771 6y ago

In many cases, the free speech (shocking stuff) is a litmus test for the compromised nature of the platform. It's important, historically, to test this regularly, and thoroughly. Voat/4Chan et al MUST be viewed in this context. Must!

ninkendo 6y ago
> Voat/4Chan et al MUST be viewed in this context. Nah. It really musn’t. We’re all a lot happier without you on our platforms. Qanon can always pay for his own hosting.
- Throwaway1771 6y ago
  You don't think people who run, or are users of, 4Chan/Voat/IRC channels etc actually care about your preferences...?
- Throwaway1771 6y ago
  What I mean to say is: those aren't "your platforms" - and you DON'T speak for the entire internet. Even if you feel that way.

ashtonkem 6y ago

> Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it. It has never, ever been about the social consequences of any particular one person's speech. Insulting your boss and getting fired isn't an abridgement of free speech, neither is getting banned from the neighborhood pub for racist monologues.

verroq 6y ago
>Always remember that "free speech" is 100% about the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted for it No I don’t remember. You can have “free speech” except the social consequences are that your neighbours lynch you in the streets. No I don’t recall it like that. Free speech has always been absolute because the majority opinion is immune from social consequences. It is the minority opinion that requires protection.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Aside from the extreme hypothetical you made up, there are other laws against lynching, you know. That has nothing to do with free speech.
  - verroq 6y ago
    Lynching has always been a crime and that’s why nobody was lynched ever. The mob already has protection because their numbers. It is everyone but the mob that needs the protection.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      “Laws don’t work, which is why we need more laws” is quite an argument.
      - verroq 6y ago
        Me: “there isn’t enough done to protect dissenting voices” You: “so we should do nothing and give them up to the lynch mob, laws don’t work anyway, this is what I call freedom of speech but not from consequences”