12 ms·

Not dystopian sounding at all: Please do not name this individual, at all. Doing so may result in your account being banned by the admins. Please do n

Not dystopian sounding at all: Please do not name this individual, at all. Doing so may result in your account being banned by the admins. Please do not ask further questions about this, as doing so may result in your account being banned by the admins. Please do not discuss this incident on Reddit publicly or privately (e.g. on private subreddits and/or in private messages, chat etc.), as doing so may result in your account being banned by the admins. I fully understand and agree that the platform is privately owned, etc. etc., but this is getting strange(r) -- and quite normalized.

high_derivative 6y ago
And these employees are deleting subreddits (e.g. gender critical), suppress media they don't like..it's really surprising reddit has not found attention the same way twitter or facebook have. Maybe because of their political leanings.
- howinteresting 6y ago
  Some media should be suppressed and some media shouldn't be. The "gender critical" subreddit for example was full of hatred for trans people like myself. I don't believe that exercising your power to suppress something you don't like is inherently good or bad. It obviously depends on the contents of what is being suppressed.
  - debacle 6y ago
    History teaches us that moral authoritarianism, properly executed, is the stuff of nightmares. Society should progress, but not "at any cost" or "by any means."
    - howinteresting 6y ago
      Not at any cost, but this cost is plainly acceptable.
      - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
        "plainly" is an extremely loaded word in this context.
        howinteresting 6y ago
        No, plainly. It's not even close.
        i_haz_rabies 6y ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you won't always be right.
        howinteresting 6y ago
        I'm fine with some epistemic humility but not so much as to cause severe inaction. In this case it is completely justified.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      Truly, when Fanon said "by any means", his ultimate move would have been tearing some messages down from a semi-public bulletin board.
    - ivan_gammel 6y ago
      There are different reference points in history which teach us different things. Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. We all know that Americans are obsessed with the ultimate freedom of speech, but, just like some other provisions in American constitution, it’s a not well-thought idea. At the same time Western Europe, which constrains it more, has more democratic and more fair society (see for example Sweden).
      - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
        I don't trust anyone in the American context to determine the line between controversial speech and hate speech.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed. > it’s a not well-thought idea Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.
        ivan_gammel 6y ago
        >Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny. Germany 1930s is the most obvious one (and the reason, why freedom of speech is restricted in modern Germany), but there are many many others. On the other side, there is not much evidence that ultimate freedom of speech results in more prosperous and democratic society.
        DreamScatter 6y ago
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Political/social criticism should not be mislabeled as "hate". Trans-related issues are extremely complex no matter what anyone's personal POV might be, and keeping a critical attitude is entirely legitimate.
    - howinteresting 6y ago
      The specific policy and political recommendations of the people on the gender critical subreddit are very transphobic, and not even in a nuanced way. Fuck the meta level. I'm only interested in engaging with specifics.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        > The specific policy and political recommendations of the people on the gender critical subreddit are very transphobic There's plenty of actual transphobia occurring, out there in the real world - as in, real hateful violence and oppression being done to people who identify as trans or even just behave in non-gender-typical ways. So you're quite factually wrong about this. Gender-critical feminists do not even register on the radar.
        howinteresting 6y ago
        Structural transphobia such as the medical gatekeeping GCs want to preserve, and incidents of violence, are both actual transphobia. Focusing on the latter and ignoring the former is also transphobic.
        debacle 6y ago
        I might disagree with you on one point - Gender critical feminists, whose detractors have kindly labeled "TERFs," threaten the philosophical underpinnings of the trans movement in a way that trans hate does not.
        stonecraftwolf 6y ago
        You have no idea what you’re talking about. “Gender critical” people (they are not feminists) regularly harass trans people, including kids, to the point of suicide. They lobby for discriminatory legislation that makes life-saving medical care difficult or impossible to access for trans people. They are instrumental in spreading bewilderingly unscientific anti-trans propaganda with the deliberate effect of harming and demonizing trans people, with the predictable effect of inspiring more hate crimes. They organize in order to harass and abuse trans people out of employment and housing. They just straight up lie. And if you were to peruse that subreddit, you’d also see them regularly joke about lying to AFAB trans people in order to exploit them for sex because those were the “hot butches” in a way that was incredibly hateful and, honestly, pretty rapey. These people are abusers and bigots. They’re no different than any other hate group, except that they often use the language of victimhood to cloak their primary mode of social aggression. (This is the mode of aggression that it is most acceptable for AFAB people to express, so they get really, really good at it. It has a lot in common with the dynamics of emotional abuse, and, for lack of a better term, mean girling (which is, especially after adolescence, a particularly effective form of abuse)). So you have no idea what you’re talking about, but based on your other comments in this thread — you genuinely seem to think homosexuality is a modern invention? And that it came out of some sort of predatory behavior? — it seems this is a willful ignorance that accommodates the hate and disgust you already feel for certain minorities.
- jonfw 6y ago
  People have been complaining about reddit's moderation for years, but I think due to the anonymity it's not being looked at the same way as twitter or Facebook. It's closer to a tabloid than a newspaper
  - grawprog 6y ago
    >It's closer to a tabloid than a newspaper Except it's owned by one of the larger media companies out there and has ties to most of them through their connections to the associated press. They're closer to actual publishers than twitter or Facebook are to be honest.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    It definitely has it's issues but it's not on the level of facebook or twitter just yet. I can kind of see them circling their wagons to protect a staff member given past reddit overreactions that end up with the staff member getting doxed and death threats all over the internet. Mostly because of the pile on mentality of a lot of redditors.
zpeti 6y ago
https://retalk.com https://retalk.com is waiting with open arms.
- Jaepa 6y ago
  Alright lets go through the Reddit Alternative checklist. [x] Link to David Duke's article and positive discussion of it. [x] Bonus points for whites are the real victim of displacing native Americans narrative. [x] Multiple posts about pissing off the lefties. [x] Weird anti Bill Gates articles [x] Multiple GatewayPundit articles on the front page. [x] Calls for Trump social media. [x] Random LockdownSceptics.org AMA. ... So just like every other one then?
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    Thanks for talking it up, wouldn't have noticed the link otherwise.
ping_pong 6y ago
Aimee Challenor is apparently a Reddit employee. This is why Reddit is banning her mention. Seems extremely sus to me and why we can't rely on private companies to protect things like free speech and equal access to information.
- dencodev 6y ago
  It's almost like the people who thought of the first amendment didn't see 99% of speech going through private companies at some point in the future. My snark isn't pointed at you, just at the people whose talking point is "first amendment is about the government!"
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    They own(ed) the companies.
- minusSeven 6y ago
  I guess they don't understand streisand effect. If you explicitly ban people will follow that rule but what happens when people get around by using some made up name different from original. Are admins going to read every comment on the platform to uphold this rule?
  - true_religion 6y ago
    I believe they just don't want it to be talked about on their platform. They're not trying for general censorship. In fact, the person's name is already listed in newspapers.
    - lamontcg 6y ago
      Pretty obviously what happened is they've had incidents in the past where a blogger would publish an article on one of their employees and then redditors would start spamming that article on reddit to dox them -- in a coordinated action so the blog article was written for the purpose of doxxing the employee. So they have a bot which bans links to article which mention reddit employees by name which hands out auto-bans to prevent that behavior. What went wrong was that the code didn't have any allowance for newspaper articles, or somehow incorrectly classified that article. That problem being made more difficult because the definition of what is a "news site" or "journalist" these days is vague. This sounds like its the same category of problem that Memphis was with twitter. And its a bit odd that this technology-oriented site is getting caught up in the political outrage and entirely missing the fact that a bot did the bans and that reddit acted to revert those actions. Do we now think that programming and algorithmic bugs never happen and that the outcomes of algorithms are always deliberately premeditated actions and never unintended consequences?
outworlder 6y ago
> or in private messages We do know that there's nothing 'private' about any social media platforms, but some people still believe that to be the case. Now they are blatantly publicizing that private chats are being read. Anyone remembers the outrage when gmail was analyzing emails to provide ads? What happened to that?
- tossaway90302 6y ago
  >Now they are blatantly publicizing that private chats are being read. Who is publicizing it? This is purely speculation by moderators who are not reddit employess.
  - frogpelt 6y ago
    If private message content is being moderated, it is not private.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      Moderators cannot see private message content.
      - goatinaboat 6y ago
        Moderators cannot see private message content. Maybe ordinary mods but Reddit employees?
        Quillbert182 6y ago
        Yes, that's right.
        shagie 6y ago
        Some Reddit employees certainly can see message content. This shows up in /r/redditrequest . Some times the system will flag a request for manual review. In that case, the following message is in the request: > Thanks for submitting this request! It’s been flagged for manual review (not a bad thing!). This might delay a decision by a couple weeks. In the meantime, please politely message the moderators of r/whatever and reply to this comment with a link to that message. Only you, the mods of r/whatever, and some admins will be able to view the message content. Including a link to this message will help speed the process along.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
proc0 6y ago
Voldemort!
axguscbklp 6y ago
r/europe removed all of the comments on a related thread supposedly to protect people from getting baited into losing their accounts: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/mbbb56/aimee_challenor_and_the_danger_of_transgender/ https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/mbbb56/aimee_challe...
retpirato 6y ago
This is why I don't & never will have a reddit account. I have heard the mods are very quick to ban people & even whole subreddits for ridiculous reasons. That & security reasons. It's astonishing how much personal information becomes available from being on reddit. See www.redective.com.
morpheos137 6y ago
Reddit is an Orwellian shitshow. When you are an IRL public figure you lose your expectation of privacy when you are engaged in public controversy that is discussed in the press.
idisagree 6y ago
What did you expect? People fostered this environment, did you really think it was going to just stop at some arbitrary point? Now that there's a child abuse coverup involved now we all care about censorship? Give me a break. The sjw mob created this situation. Reddit is a known hive of ideological extremism.
- easytiger 6y ago
  What i don't get is giving this job to a person i wouldn't hire to wash my car... let alone judge other people's speech and have access to their private DMs and IP addrs. Absolutely questionable behaviour. If reddit were to become as "regulated" as say facebook (an identical platform from a philosophical perspective) it would be in very deep water right now

high_derivative 6y ago

And these employees are deleting subreddits (e.g. gender critical), suppress media they don't like..it's really surprising reddit has not found attention the same way twitter or facebook have. Maybe because of their political leanings.

howinteresting 6y ago
Some media should be suppressed and some media shouldn't be. The "gender critical" subreddit for example was full of hatred for trans people like myself. I don't believe that exercising your power to suppress something you don't like is inherently good or bad. It obviously depends on the contents of what is being suppressed.
- debacle 6y ago
  History teaches us that moral authoritarianism, properly executed, is the stuff of nightmares. Society should progress, but not "at any cost" or "by any means."
  - howinteresting 6y ago
    Not at any cost, but this cost is plainly acceptable.
    - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
      "plainly" is an extremely loaded word in this context.
      - howinteresting 6y ago
        No, plainly. It's not even close.
        i_haz_rabies 6y ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you won't always be right.
        howinteresting 6y ago
        I'm fine with some epistemic humility but not so much as to cause severe inaction. In this case it is completely justified.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    Truly, when Fanon said "by any means", his ultimate move would have been tearing some messages down from a semi-public bulletin board.
  - ivan_gammel 6y ago
    There are different reference points in history which teach us different things. Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. We all know that Americans are obsessed with the ultimate freedom of speech, but, just like some other provisions in American constitution, it’s a not well-thought idea. At the same time Western Europe, which constrains it more, has more democratic and more fair society (see for example Sweden).
    - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
      I don't trust anyone in the American context to determine the line between controversial speech and hate speech.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed. > it’s a not well-thought idea Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.
      - ivan_gammel 6y ago
        >Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny. Germany 1930s is the most obvious one (and the reason, why freedom of speech is restricted in modern Germany), but there are many many others. On the other side, there is not much evidence that ultimate freedom of speech results in more prosperous and democratic society.
        DreamScatter 6y ago
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Political/social criticism should not be mislabeled as "hate". Trans-related issues are extremely complex no matter what anyone's personal POV might be, and keeping a critical attitude is entirely legitimate.
  - howinteresting 6y ago
    The specific policy and political recommendations of the people on the gender critical subreddit are very transphobic, and not even in a nuanced way. Fuck the meta level. I'm only interested in engaging with specifics.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      > The specific policy and political recommendations of the people on the gender critical subreddit are very transphobic There's plenty of actual transphobia occurring, out there in the real world - as in, real hateful violence and oppression being done to people who identify as trans or even just behave in non-gender-typical ways. So you're quite factually wrong about this. Gender-critical feminists do not even register on the radar.
      - howinteresting 6y ago
        Structural transphobia such as the medical gatekeeping GCs want to preserve, and incidents of violence, are both actual transphobia. Focusing on the latter and ignoring the former is also transphobic.
      - debacle 6y ago
        I might disagree with you on one point - Gender critical feminists, whose detractors have kindly labeled "TERFs," threaten the philosophical underpinnings of the trans movement in a way that trans hate does not.
      - stonecraftwolf 6y ago
        You have no idea what you’re talking about. “Gender critical” people (they are not feminists) regularly harass trans people, including kids, to the point of suicide. They lobby for discriminatory legislation that makes life-saving medical care difficult or impossible to access for trans people. They are instrumental in spreading bewilderingly unscientific anti-trans propaganda with the deliberate effect of harming and demonizing trans people, with the predictable effect of inspiring more hate crimes. They organize in order to harass and abuse trans people out of employment and housing. They just straight up lie. And if you were to peruse that subreddit, you’d also see them regularly joke about lying to AFAB trans people in order to exploit them for sex because those were the “hot butches” in a way that was incredibly hateful and, honestly, pretty rapey. These people are abusers and bigots. They’re no different than any other hate group, except that they often use the language of victimhood to cloak their primary mode of social aggression. (This is the mode of aggression that it is most acceptable for AFAB people to express, so they get really, really good at it. It has a lot in common with the dynamics of emotional abuse, and, for lack of a better term, mean girling (which is, especially after adolescence, a particularly effective form of abuse)). So you have no idea what you’re talking about, but based on your other comments in this thread — you genuinely seem to think homosexuality is a modern invention? And that it came out of some sort of predatory behavior? — it seems this is a willful ignorance that accommodates the hate and disgust you already feel for certain minorities.
jonfw 6y ago
People have been complaining about reddit's moderation for years, but I think due to the anonymity it's not being looked at the same way as twitter or Facebook. It's closer to a tabloid than a newspaper
- grawprog 6y ago
  >It's closer to a tabloid than a newspaper Except it's owned by one of the larger media companies out there and has ties to most of them through their connections to the associated press. They're closer to actual publishers than twitter or Facebook are to be honest.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It definitely has it's issues but it's not on the level of facebook or twitter just yet. I can kind of see them circling their wagons to protect a staff member given past reddit overreactions that end up with the staff member getting doxed and death threats all over the internet. Mostly because of the pile on mentality of a lot of redditors.

zpeti 6y ago

https://retalk.com https://retalk.com is waiting with open arms.

Jaepa 6y ago
Alright lets go through the Reddit Alternative checklist. [x] Link to David Duke's article and positive discussion of it. [x] Bonus points for whites are the real victim of displacing native Americans narrative. [x] Multiple posts about pissing off the lefties. [x] Weird anti Bill Gates articles [x] Multiple GatewayPundit articles on the front page. [x] Calls for Trump social media. [x] Random LockdownSceptics.org AMA. ... So just like every other one then?
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Thanks for talking it up, wouldn't have noticed the link otherwise.

ping_pong 6y ago

Aimee Challenor is apparently a Reddit employee. This is why Reddit is banning her mention. Seems extremely sus to me and why we can't rely on private companies to protect things like free speech and equal access to information.

dencodev 6y ago
It's almost like the people who thought of the first amendment didn't see 99% of speech going through private companies at some point in the future. My snark isn't pointed at you, just at the people whose talking point is "first amendment is about the government!"
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  They own(ed) the companies.
minusSeven 6y ago
I guess they don't understand streisand effect. If you explicitly ban people will follow that rule but what happens when people get around by using some made up name different from original. Are admins going to read every comment on the platform to uphold this rule?
- true_religion 6y ago
  I believe they just don't want it to be talked about on their platform. They're not trying for general censorship. In fact, the person's name is already listed in newspapers.
  - lamontcg 6y ago
    Pretty obviously what happened is they've had incidents in the past where a blogger would publish an article on one of their employees and then redditors would start spamming that article on reddit to dox them -- in a coordinated action so the blog article was written for the purpose of doxxing the employee. So they have a bot which bans links to article which mention reddit employees by name which hands out auto-bans to prevent that behavior. What went wrong was that the code didn't have any allowance for newspaper articles, or somehow incorrectly classified that article. That problem being made more difficult because the definition of what is a "news site" or "journalist" these days is vague. This sounds like its the same category of problem that Memphis was with twitter. And its a bit odd that this technology-oriented site is getting caught up in the political outrage and entirely missing the fact that a bot did the bans and that reddit acted to revert those actions. Do we now think that programming and algorithmic bugs never happen and that the outcomes of algorithms are always deliberately premeditated actions and never unintended consequences?

outworlder 6y ago

> or in private messages We do know that there's nothing 'private' about any social media platforms, but some people still believe that to be the case. Now they are blatantly publicizing that private chats are being read. Anyone remembers the outrage when gmail was analyzing emails to provide ads? What happened to that?

tossaway90302 6y ago
>Now they are blatantly publicizing that private chats are being read. Who is publicizing it? This is purely speculation by moderators who are not reddit employess.
- frogpelt 6y ago
  If private message content is being moderated, it is not private.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    Moderators cannot see private message content.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      Moderators cannot see private message content. Maybe ordinary mods but Reddit employees?
      - Quillbert182 6y ago
        Yes, that's right.
      - shagie 6y ago
        Some Reddit employees certainly can see message content. This shows up in /r/redditrequest . Some times the system will flag a request for manual review. In that case, the following message is in the request: > Thanks for submitting this request! It’s been flagged for manual review (not a bad thing!). This might delay a decision by a couple weeks. In the meantime, please politely message the moderators of r/whatever and reply to this comment with a link to that message. Only you, the mods of r/whatever, and some admins will be able to view the message content. Including a link to this message will help speed the process along.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

proc0 6y ago

Voldemort!

axguscbklp 6y ago

r/europe removed all of the comments on a related thread supposedly to protect people from getting baited into losing their accounts: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/mbbb56/aimee_challenor_and_the_danger_of_transgender/ https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/mbbb56/aimee_challe...

retpirato 6y ago

This is why I don't & never will have a reddit account. I have heard the mods are very quick to ban people & even whole subreddits for ridiculous reasons. That & security reasons. It's astonishing how much personal information becomes available from being on reddit. See www.redective.com.

morpheos137 6y ago

Reddit is an Orwellian shitshow. When you are an IRL public figure you lose your expectation of privacy when you are engaged in public controversy that is discussed in the press.

idisagree 6y ago

What did you expect? People fostered this environment, did you really think it was going to just stop at some arbitrary point? Now that there's a child abuse coverup involved now we all care about censorship? Give me a break. The sjw mob created this situation. Reddit is a known hive of ideological extremism.

easytiger 6y ago
What i don't get is giving this job to a person i wouldn't hire to wash my car... let alone judge other people's speech and have access to their private DMs and IP addrs. Absolutely questionable behaviour. If reddit were to become as "regulated" as say facebook (an identical platform from a philosophical perspective) it would be in very deep water right now