5 ms·

Props to Reddit for not caving to this. I really do not understand anyone that calls for this kind of heavy-handed moderation. I certainly understand the impuls

by md2020 5y ago

Props to Reddit for not caving to this. I really do not understand anyone that calls for this kind of heavy-handed moderation. I certainly understand the impulse to want it, but upon thinking for like, 30 seconds about the precedent it sets and what the long term effects might be I realize it’s a pretty bad idea. Next time around, it might be the speech that they DO agree with that other people are wanting to clamp down on, and I don’t think they’ll just roll over and take it. That tells me a shocking number of people are not doing the basic due diligence of thinking through an idea even a little bit before jumping to support it.

baja_blast 5y ago
I 100% agree, while it drives me nuts seeing vaccine disinformation, I think banning people only solidifies their views. It's best to keep the debate open so people can point out why they're incorrect. Personally I just want this Pandemic to be over as soon as possible, thus I want vaccination rates to go as high as possible, but I don't think banning disinformation will achieve that, it will only put fuel to the fire. Plus I remember when discussing the possibility of a lab leak was considered misinformation. Banning people who don't support the narrative or excepted wisdom could be abused to suppress people blowing the whistle on actual conspiracies.
- treesrule 5y ago
  My hot take about this is that banning this stuff before it spread would have tamped down on all the stupidity going around, but once people know about it doesn't really make a difference to ban it.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    Banning what though? What is "misinformation"? Today's misinformation might be tomorrows facts. This whole thing is really a group of people trying to jam their opinion down everybody else's mouth holes. It is truly frightening to me how many people are so eager to shut down any kind of debate. The science around covid and it's mitigations are far from settled.
    - grapist420 5y ago
      “Covid isn’t real and Covid vaccines will literally genocide and sterilize us” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/federal-judge-claims-the-covid-vaccine-kills-more-people-than-mass-shootings-do/ar-AAKNI7e https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/federal-judge-claims-... Stuff like this, and worse
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
        Why does that stuff need to be blocked or deleted? Most people, even very skeptical people, are smart enough to realize that stuff is BS. I mean what is all this clickbait outlier crap the media feeds everybody about that one poor sick covid kid who died? Then everybody thinks that kids are dying all over the place when that isn't even close to true. Should we ban all clickbait?
        grapist420 5y ago
        Not saying it should be. I prefer no censorship at all, including threats of violence, gore, naziism, pedo RP, etc. But giving an example of the sort of thing people are wanting removed.
        tw04 5y ago
        >Why does that stuff need to be blocked or deleted? Most people, even very skeptical people, are smart enough to realize that stuff is BS. Define "most"? 20% of Americans believe the covid vaccine contains a microchip so they can be tracked. There are so many reasons that is even worse than thinking that it could cause you to be sterilized that I think anyone trying to claim "people know better" aren't being honest with themselves. https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx54yn/a-shocking-number-of-americans-believe-the-dumbest-covid-vaccine-conspiracy https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx54yn/a-shocking-number-of-...
        grapist420 5y ago
        80% is most. And you can get any percent you want with bad low sample size polls. Come on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
BizarroLand 5y ago
"We won't stop people from spreading known misinformation because if we did maybe in the future we might possibly stop people from spreading known factual information" is such a terrible argument. The fact that a slippery slope can be identified within a premise does not mean that it exists, and straining at flies while you let a camel pass is an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years, and still we are no closer to recognizing it or solving it than we were back then.
- ds206 5y ago
  I think you have that backwards? For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know. With the invention of the internet, free information flow became the default. I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions. The problem is that we've never had free speech to this extent before. It's a new problem that hasn't been solved yet. I just don't think that censorship is the answer but a regression to the old ways.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    Books. Newspapers. Talking. The internet isn't a new thing under the sun. It's just the same old things faster and more widespread. There have always been liars and manipulators who enjoy subverting expectations and undermining honest people. They've mastered the art of seeming perfectly reasonable while demanding the impossible. They say things like, "For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know" and "I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions", and other such seemingly reasonable poppycock. The paradox of tolerance is mentioned quite often, in that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance as otherwise the intolerant will destroy the tolerant. In the same way, there is a paradox of information, that for information to be reliable and free flowing, it must be verifiable from trustworthy sources, and unverifiable and untrustworthy information has to be dammed off from the flow of information. If untrustworthy news is allowed to flourish, then liars and connivers will flourish as well, with Machiavellian intentions to profit off of the lies and confusion they sow along the way. It's happening now and if you don't believe me look at how many people have proudly proclaimed their desire to know untrue information as their right as a citizen of the internet, and how much distrust they have towards people like the CDC who gain nothing from lying to the population. They hold the innocent guilty until they prove themselves innocent and beyond reproach while the people investing in whatever the next quack covid treatment of the week will be they laud and sing praises for them, becoming their enlisted personal army. It's madness and it's all because we allow every lying huckster who can spin a good tale to keep on babbling and dogpile anyone who disagrees with this practice.
thomaskcr 5y ago
There was a point in the pandemic (very early) where saying people should be wearing masks would have been considered misinformation compared to official statements from the CDC. That should be the only argument against this required. Also early on, for way too long, human to human transmission was officially not happening per the WHO.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  And when the evidence showed that this advice was misplaced the people who were making those recommendations, in good faith, STOPPED DOING SO. I'm among them. Not that my own comments have a tremedous reach, but I take not intentionally being wrong very seriously. https://joindiaspora.com/posts/a654bef0b15c01385957002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/a654bef0b15c01385957002590d8e... https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3abaa5e03fca0138fcb6002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3abaa5e03fca0138fcb6002590d8e... Science isn't a pursuit of some ideological or traditional purity. It's a seeking of knowledge and truth. When evidence and understanding change, so does science. What you're advocating for is a group of voices who seem collectively alligned at precisely opposing whatever the weight of evidence demonstrates at any given point in time. And I can assure you that this is a poor guide to truth.
grapist420 5y ago
Reddit has already implemented mass arbitrary censorship of subreddits for no good reasons. Stuff like gun subs, r/shoplifting (which I mention not because I like shoplifting, but because it was legitimately informative to learn what they do and why they do it), all sorts of politics subs, plenty of satire subs, and even r/wateriniggas just for the soft nword. They’re ridiculously strict and while it’s good to not ban one, let’s not act like they’re good faith actors here.
- md2020 5y ago
  Oh of course not. My comment was only meant to say I think they did the right thing in this situation. I’m aware of Reddit’s actions in other situations and agree with you that they are inconsistent.
  - rat87 5y ago
    But they did the wrong thing here. For no good reason
    - grapist420 5y ago
      They left it up. It’s fine. We’ve all had a year to evaporatively cool our Covid beliefs into whatever they are and the learning rate has decreased by a factor of ten. Everyone there is already insane
rat87 5y ago
What props they made a pretty obviously wrong choice here. Banning antivax nonsense during a pandemic is no brainer. It is light moderation not heavy. I assume you have no objection to spam or troll moderation, how is this any heavier. If you think about it for a couple more minutes the weakness of your position may become more clear to you
- md2020 5y ago
  Users are currently being banned for even asking legitimate questions about the vaccine. Nonsense is nonsense, but labeling anyone who even questions vaccine safety as “promoting vaccine hesitancy” is overreacting and arouses suspicion.
yanderekko 5y ago
>I certainly understand the impulse to want it, but upon thinking for like, 30 seconds about the precedent it sets and what the long term effects might be I realize it’s a pretty bad idea. Unfortunately, I'm sure the powermoderators behind this would love to set the precedent that they can use their leverage to demand censorship and other changes to site policies. The pendulum will never actually swing the other way on Reddit, which is really the territory that they care about.

by md2020 5y ago

baja_blast 5y ago

I 100% agree, while it drives me nuts seeing vaccine disinformation, I think banning people only solidifies their views. It's best to keep the debate open so people can point out why they're incorrect. Personally I just want this Pandemic to be over as soon as possible, thus I want vaccination rates to go as high as possible, but I don't think banning disinformation will achieve that, it will only put fuel to the fire. Plus I remember when discussing the possibility of a lab leak was considered misinformation. Banning people who don't support the narrative or excepted wisdom could be abused to suppress people blowing the whistle on actual conspiracies.

treesrule 5y ago
My hot take about this is that banning this stuff before it spread would have tamped down on all the stupidity going around, but once people know about it doesn't really make a difference to ban it.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Banning what though? What is "misinformation"? Today's misinformation might be tomorrows facts. This whole thing is really a group of people trying to jam their opinion down everybody else's mouth holes. It is truly frightening to me how many people are so eager to shut down any kind of debate. The science around covid and it's mitigations are far from settled.
  - grapist420 5y ago
    “Covid isn’t real and Covid vaccines will literally genocide and sterilize us” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/federal-judge-claims-the-covid-vaccine-kills-more-people-than-mass-shootings-do/ar-AAKNI7e https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/federal-judge-claims-... Stuff like this, and worse
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      Why does that stuff need to be blocked or deleted? Most people, even very skeptical people, are smart enough to realize that stuff is BS. I mean what is all this clickbait outlier crap the media feeds everybody about that one poor sick covid kid who died? Then everybody thinks that kids are dying all over the place when that isn't even close to true. Should we ban all clickbait?
      - grapist420 5y ago
        Not saying it should be. I prefer no censorship at all, including threats of violence, gore, naziism, pedo RP, etc. But giving an example of the sort of thing people are wanting removed.
      - tw04 5y ago
        >Why does that stuff need to be blocked or deleted? Most people, even very skeptical people, are smart enough to realize that stuff is BS. Define "most"? 20% of Americans believe the covid vaccine contains a microchip so they can be tracked. There are so many reasons that is even worse than thinking that it could cause you to be sterilized that I think anyone trying to claim "people know better" aren't being honest with themselves. https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx54yn/a-shocking-number-of-americans-believe-the-dumbest-covid-vaccine-conspiracy https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx54yn/a-shocking-number-of-...
        grapist420 5y ago
        80% is most. And you can get any percent you want with bad low sample size polls. Come on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

BizarroLand 5y ago

"We won't stop people from spreading known misinformation because if we did maybe in the future we might possibly stop people from spreading known factual information" is such a terrible argument. The fact that a slippery slope can be identified within a premise does not mean that it exists, and straining at flies while you let a camel pass is an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years, and still we are no closer to recognizing it or solving it than we were back then.

ds206 5y ago
I think you have that backwards? For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know. With the invention of the internet, free information flow became the default. I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions. The problem is that we've never had free speech to this extent before. It's a new problem that hasn't been solved yet. I just don't think that censorship is the answer but a regression to the old ways.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Books. Newspapers. Talking. The internet isn't a new thing under the sun. It's just the same old things faster and more widespread. There have always been liars and manipulators who enjoy subverting expectations and undermining honest people. They've mastered the art of seeming perfectly reasonable while demanding the impossible. They say things like, "For thousands of years, you were only told what the people in power wanted you to know" and "I think this may be the first time in history that an average person can come to their own conclusions", and other such seemingly reasonable poppycock. The paradox of tolerance is mentioned quite often, in that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance as otherwise the intolerant will destroy the tolerant. In the same way, there is a paradox of information, that for information to be reliable and free flowing, it must be verifiable from trustworthy sources, and unverifiable and untrustworthy information has to be dammed off from the flow of information. If untrustworthy news is allowed to flourish, then liars and connivers will flourish as well, with Machiavellian intentions to profit off of the lies and confusion they sow along the way. It's happening now and if you don't believe me look at how many people have proudly proclaimed their desire to know untrue information as their right as a citizen of the internet, and how much distrust they have towards people like the CDC who gain nothing from lying to the population. They hold the innocent guilty until they prove themselves innocent and beyond reproach while the people investing in whatever the next quack covid treatment of the week will be they laud and sing praises for them, becoming their enlisted personal army. It's madness and it's all because we allow every lying huckster who can spin a good tale to keep on babbling and dogpile anyone who disagrees with this practice.

thomaskcr 5y ago

There was a point in the pandemic (very early) where saying people should be wearing masks would have been considered misinformation compared to official statements from the CDC. That should be the only argument against this required. Also early on, for way too long, human to human transmission was officially not happening per the WHO.

dredmorbius 5y ago
And when the evidence showed that this advice was misplaced the people who were making those recommendations, in good faith, STOPPED DOING SO. I'm among them. Not that my own comments have a tremedous reach, but I take not intentionally being wrong very seriously. https://joindiaspora.com/posts/a654bef0b15c01385957002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/a654bef0b15c01385957002590d8e... https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3abaa5e03fca0138fcb6002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3abaa5e03fca0138fcb6002590d8e... Science isn't a pursuit of some ideological or traditional purity. It's a seeking of knowledge and truth. When evidence and understanding change, so does science. What you're advocating for is a group of voices who seem collectively alligned at precisely opposing whatever the weight of evidence demonstrates at any given point in time. And I can assure you that this is a poor guide to truth.

grapist420 5y ago

Reddit has already implemented mass arbitrary censorship of subreddits for no good reasons. Stuff like gun subs, r/shoplifting (which I mention not because I like shoplifting, but because it was legitimately informative to learn what they do and why they do it), all sorts of politics subs, plenty of satire subs, and even r/wateriniggas just for the soft nword. They’re ridiculously strict and while it’s good to not ban one, let’s not act like they’re good faith actors here.

md2020 5y ago
Oh of course not. My comment was only meant to say I think they did the right thing in this situation. I’m aware of Reddit’s actions in other situations and agree with you that they are inconsistent.
- rat87 5y ago
  But they did the wrong thing here. For no good reason
  - grapist420 5y ago
    They left it up. It’s fine. We’ve all had a year to evaporatively cool our Covid beliefs into whatever they are and the learning rate has decreased by a factor of ten. Everyone there is already insane

rat87 5y ago

What props they made a pretty obviously wrong choice here. Banning antivax nonsense during a pandemic is no brainer. It is light moderation not heavy. I assume you have no objection to spam or troll moderation, how is this any heavier. If you think about it for a couple more minutes the weakness of your position may become more clear to you

md2020 5y ago
Users are currently being banned for even asking legitimate questions about the vaccine. Nonsense is nonsense, but labeling anyone who even questions vaccine safety as “promoting vaccine hesitancy” is overreacting and arouses suspicion.

yanderekko 5y ago

>I certainly understand the impulse to want it, but upon thinking for like, 30 seconds about the precedent it sets and what the long term effects might be I realize it’s a pretty bad idea. Unfortunately, I'm sure the powermoderators behind this would love to set the precedent that they can use their leverage to demand censorship and other changes to site policies. The pendulum will never actually swing the other way on Reddit, which is really the territory that they care about.