5 ms·

It feels like reddit changed in line with the rest of the Internet though. In 2022 you have the choice of a) "suppressing free speech" or b) "platforming racis

It feels like reddit changed in line with the rest of the Internet though. In 2022 you have the choice of a) "suppressing free speech" or b) "platforming racists" and there is no middle ground and no way to win. You can't pass the buck to moderators. The choice did not feel so stark in 2005.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- knowaveragejoe 5y ago
didericis 5y ago
Self moderation was and still is a way out. If there were better tools to allow users to say "I don't like this person, I don't want to hear more from then" and "Bill likes this person, maybe I'll hear him out." or "I don't want to deal with this kind of thing in this room, can you talk about it elsewhere"? The tools we have for those things are not nearly as sophisticated as what exists in real life with body language, facial expressions, physical distance, symbols, demeanor, conversation timing, etc. Our tools to self moderate and separate into amicable groups which still permit crossover in real life are much better. The major problem with most internet platforms is the boundaries and user controls are non existent. Everything is open for everyone to see and no one can control who is in their network. Only a handful of moderators and platforms have control over both visibility and membership/rules, and those controls are limited and primitive. Feeds which magically select content users are supposed to like and the attempt to eliminate user settings to make platforms more accessible and magical contribute to this problem. Creating effective and easy to use self moderating tools is a difficult enough problem on its own; when you also have to fight a lot of entrenched design philosophy, it's even harder.
- HappyDreamer 5y ago
  > If there were better tools to allow users to say "I don't like this person, I don't want to hear more from then" That's not a solution in the cases when those people, are using the platform to gather a group of angry people and then will go and kill you and your family and those who look like you. Now, I'm guessing this isn't a problem in _your_ case -- but it is, for some others (see e.g. FB and Myanmar, or WhatsApp lynch mobs). Another problem is when the one's you don't want to hear, are spreading propaganda supporting a want-to-be-dictaor. And then eventually they succeed, because those who didn't like the dictator, just ignored them (let them spread the propaganda unhindered). -- What's the likelihood that the US is still a democracy in 30 years. (Btw I didn't downvote your comment)
  - didericis 5y ago
    I'm surprised that other comment wasn't received well. Will try to articulate myself more and see if that changes anything. I'm not saying self moderation would eliminate bad groups. I think it would better contain them. I think having more siloed, fragmented, and naturally evolving online ecosystems would prevent any of the problems you mention from spilling over and infecting the entire culture. I don't think any of those risks you mentioned are solved by centralized moderation. I think they're made worse, as everyone becomes incentivized to fight for control of moderation and is pulled towards ousting the other to recreate the groups those in power naturally feel most comfortable with. I firmly believe the social dilemma people are currently in is a result of the entire world trying to make rules for one big room, and no one is happy because people come from vastly different contexts that could never be properly accounted for in one room and one set of rules. Allowing people to make their own decisions about association and information is far more scalable, democratic, and corruption resistant than trying to make platforms that appeal to all and respect all people from top down moderation. It allows people to let off steam privately and meet in designated rooms in the middle. That may seem terrifying given some of the people and groups out there. But I think recent history is a pretty good indicator that trying to forcibly educate and moderate people that are deemed a problem backfires severely. Malicious and violent groups can and should be contained and watched by others, but trying to prevent association and people deciding whats good and whats bad for themselves drives more people to opposition and affiliation with potentially violent groups than they would otherwise associate with. If people are able to express certain ideas without being automatically ousted from certain groups and affiliated with extremists, that lessens the pull to extremism. There is no perfect solution, and I do not think that every forum should avoid top down moderation or that certain associations shouldn't be watched or potentially dealt with in the real world if dangerous enough. I just think more user directed moderation is in general the least worst option. What's worse: a group spreading messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people made up of those who voluntarily choose that group over others in a world where other groups can counter message and organize and defend themselves, or a group that controls global messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people and bans all counter messaging? What's worse: propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading in a forum of voluntarily associated zealots which bans and ignores criticism, but has no power over alternative group organization, or propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading on a global platform that bans and ignores criticism of all other groups?
version_five 5y ago
Just because you think the choice needs to be framed that way doesn't make it true. This reminds me of the political mailers that the Canadian conservatives used to send out: it was something like "do you support our reform of law X or do you support keeping child molesters on the street". Its a pretty low form of rhetoric.
triactual 5y ago
There never has been middle ground. Why do you think the ACLU defended KKK members.
- alex_young 5y ago
  The ACLU defended the public speech of the KKK. Is Reddit a public place?
  - version_five 5y ago
    Um, the upstream post presented a false dichotomy of either supporting free speech (as in reddit allowing people to say whatever) or racism. The parent comment to yours cited the ACLUs defence of public speech as a precedent for the importance of letting people say what they want even if you dont agree with it. Nobody argues that reddit is constitutionally bound to host free speech. The point is that what's right in a public forum is also right for a company. You appear to be focusing on an irrelevant technicality or parroting the "they can build their own Twitter" defence, but neither of those is relevant here, the only point being made is that free (independent of constitutional obligation) speech is good, and should be broadly supported by platforms
    - alex_young 5y ago
      > The point is that what's right in a public forum is also right for a company. I don’t think we’ve established that, and I’m fairly confident that the ACLU doesn’t think so either for that matter. If corporate speech, or individual speech had to embrace all viewpoints without restriction it would cease to be independent at all wouldn’t it? In other words, protecting the right of individuals to express the viewpoints they choose to is in fact the more democratic ideal isn’t it? Separately, please refrain from speculation about what I or others _appear_ to be saying. If I intend to say something I have no problem doing so.
      - soundnote 5y ago
        The ACLU are full throttle political partisans today, and don't give a fuck about free speech except in the same sense Stalin does: What they like should be allowed and what they don't like should be banned, and they act accordingly.
jonhohle 5y ago
And? Are racists really worse than other types of bigots (misogynists, intellectuals, anti-intellectuals, eugenicists, radical anarchists, religious zealots, anti-religious zealots, republicans, democrats, etc.)? There are definitely approved forms of bigotry that are tolerated on just about every social media platform. I’ve never seen a post promoting death to unvaccinated moderated, for example. I really hate the idea that because a site has racist users that it would be considered a racist platform. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. On sites like reddit, I can ignore hateful subreddits just as easily as other topics I’m not interested in. I don’t think it’s reasonable that there is an expectation that every platform police everything that might offend someone and I don’t know of any platform that attempts to. Certain bigotry is just less tolerated by admins than others. r/conspiracy is an interesting example. Opposing views on just about any topic are accepted and there’s genuinely a lot of critical thinking and research that goes into many of the comments. Sure it’s filled with crap posts, loonies, and paranoids, but constructive, respectful discussion is had about topics considered too taboo for most other subreddits. And they are maligned by most of Reddit to the point where certain subs will ban you just for subscribing or posting to it. Disclaimer: of course racism is awful and stupid. I’m not advocating promoting racists or misogynists or any other hate group. I just think the benefits of open, free discussion out way the drawbacks of hateful, stupid discussion.
- supernovae 5y ago
  They disrupted reddit to the core and got the ceo fired. The hijacking of “freedom of speech” in order to sustain a fascist movement was about the most bullshit thing ever and it nearly ruined reddit for good.
  - jonhohle 5y ago
    I'm not sure to what you're referring. I can't find reference to any reddit CEO being fired. Ellen Pao resigned, but the catalyst for her resignation wasn't related to fascism as best I can tell, it was related to firing the person most responsible for AMAs without any suitable replacement.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
In 2022 you have the choice of a) "suppressing free speech" or b) "platforming racists" There's a great example of the False Choice fallacy. "Free Speech" = "Racism" is the implication of your choice -- one which authoritarians would indeed embrace. The Soviets considered free speech dangerous, too; and so does the CCP.
jjeaff 5y ago
Ya, if you take a look at any of these supposedly free speech platforms they are just intolerable, gross places.
- soundnote 5y ago
  That happens when you ban witches from everywhere. Anytime you get a platform that's not an insufferably clamped-down moderation hellhole, the cranks concentrate there and the site's just too cranky to be useful, even if cranks in small numbers could even be valuable. Sadly, what passes for moderation at most places nowadays is even worse. It's hideous and stifling. If the cranks make places too annoying to stay at, woke moderation makes places feel pointless to participate in.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

knowaveragejoe 5y ago

didericis 5y ago

Self moderation was and still is a way out. If there were better tools to allow users to say "I don't like this person, I don't want to hear more from then" and "Bill likes this person, maybe I'll hear him out." or "I don't want to deal with this kind of thing in this room, can you talk about it elsewhere"? The tools we have for those things are not nearly as sophisticated as what exists in real life with body language, facial expressions, physical distance, symbols, demeanor, conversation timing, etc. Our tools to self moderate and separate into amicable groups which still permit crossover in real life are much better. The major problem with most internet platforms is the boundaries and user controls are non existent. Everything is open for everyone to see and no one can control who is in their network. Only a handful of moderators and platforms have control over both visibility and membership/rules, and those controls are limited and primitive. Feeds which magically select content users are supposed to like and the attempt to eliminate user settings to make platforms more accessible and magical contribute to this problem. Creating effective and easy to use self moderating tools is a difficult enough problem on its own; when you also have to fight a lot of entrenched design philosophy, it's even harder.

HappyDreamer 5y ago
> If there were better tools to allow users to say "I don't like this person, I don't want to hear more from then" That's not a solution in the cases when those people, are using the platform to gather a group of angry people and then will go and kill you and your family and those who look like you. Now, I'm guessing this isn't a problem in _your_ case -- but it is, for some others (see e.g. FB and Myanmar, or WhatsApp lynch mobs). Another problem is when the one's you don't want to hear, are spreading propaganda supporting a want-to-be-dictaor. And then eventually they succeed, because those who didn't like the dictator, just ignored them (let them spread the propaganda unhindered). -- What's the likelihood that the US is still a democracy in 30 years. (Btw I didn't downvote your comment)
- didericis 5y ago
  I'm surprised that other comment wasn't received well. Will try to articulate myself more and see if that changes anything. I'm not saying self moderation would eliminate bad groups. I think it would better contain them. I think having more siloed, fragmented, and naturally evolving online ecosystems would prevent any of the problems you mention from spilling over and infecting the entire culture. I don't think any of those risks you mentioned are solved by centralized moderation. I think they're made worse, as everyone becomes incentivized to fight for control of moderation and is pulled towards ousting the other to recreate the groups those in power naturally feel most comfortable with. I firmly believe the social dilemma people are currently in is a result of the entire world trying to make rules for one big room, and no one is happy because people come from vastly different contexts that could never be properly accounted for in one room and one set of rules. Allowing people to make their own decisions about association and information is far more scalable, democratic, and corruption resistant than trying to make platforms that appeal to all and respect all people from top down moderation. It allows people to let off steam privately and meet in designated rooms in the middle. That may seem terrifying given some of the people and groups out there. But I think recent history is a pretty good indicator that trying to forcibly educate and moderate people that are deemed a problem backfires severely. Malicious and violent groups can and should be contained and watched by others, but trying to prevent association and people deciding whats good and whats bad for themselves drives more people to opposition and affiliation with potentially violent groups than they would otherwise associate with. If people are able to express certain ideas without being automatically ousted from certain groups and affiliated with extremists, that lessens the pull to extremism. There is no perfect solution, and I do not think that every forum should avoid top down moderation or that certain associations shouldn't be watched or potentially dealt with in the real world if dangerous enough. I just think more user directed moderation is in general the least worst option. What's worse: a group spreading messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people made up of those who voluntarily choose that group over others in a world where other groups can counter message and organize and defend themselves, or a group that controls global messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people and bans all counter messaging? What's worse: propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading in a forum of voluntarily associated zealots which bans and ignores criticism, but has no power over alternative group organization, or propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading on a global platform that bans and ignores criticism of all other groups?

version_five 5y ago

Just because you think the choice needs to be framed that way doesn't make it true. This reminds me of the political mailers that the Canadian conservatives used to send out: it was something like "do you support our reform of law X or do you support keeping child molesters on the street". Its a pretty low form of rhetoric.

triactual 5y ago

There never has been middle ground. Why do you think the ACLU defended KKK members.

alex_young 5y ago
The ACLU defended the public speech of the KKK. Is Reddit a public place?
- version_five 5y ago
  Um, the upstream post presented a false dichotomy of either supporting free speech (as in reddit allowing people to say whatever) or racism. The parent comment to yours cited the ACLUs defence of public speech as a precedent for the importance of letting people say what they want even if you dont agree with it. Nobody argues that reddit is constitutionally bound to host free speech. The point is that what's right in a public forum is also right for a company. You appear to be focusing on an irrelevant technicality or parroting the "they can build their own Twitter" defence, but neither of those is relevant here, the only point being made is that free (independent of constitutional obligation) speech is good, and should be broadly supported by platforms
  - alex_young 5y ago
    > The point is that what's right in a public forum is also right for a company. I don’t think we’ve established that, and I’m fairly confident that the ACLU doesn’t think so either for that matter. If corporate speech, or individual speech had to embrace all viewpoints without restriction it would cease to be independent at all wouldn’t it? In other words, protecting the right of individuals to express the viewpoints they choose to is in fact the more democratic ideal isn’t it? Separately, please refrain from speculation about what I or others _appear_ to be saying. If I intend to say something I have no problem doing so.
    - soundnote 5y ago
      The ACLU are full throttle political partisans today, and don't give a fuck about free speech except in the same sense Stalin does: What they like should be allowed and what they don't like should be banned, and they act accordingly.

jonhohle 5y ago

And? Are racists really worse than other types of bigots (misogynists, intellectuals, anti-intellectuals, eugenicists, radical anarchists, religious zealots, anti-religious zealots, republicans, democrats, etc.)? There are definitely approved forms of bigotry that are tolerated on just about every social media platform. I’ve never seen a post promoting death to unvaccinated moderated, for example. I really hate the idea that because a site has racist users that it would be considered a racist platform. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. On sites like reddit, I can ignore hateful subreddits just as easily as other topics I’m not interested in. I don’t think it’s reasonable that there is an expectation that every platform police everything that might offend someone and I don’t know of any platform that attempts to. Certain bigotry is just less tolerated by admins than others. r/conspiracy is an interesting example. Opposing views on just about any topic are accepted and there’s genuinely a lot of critical thinking and research that goes into many of the comments. Sure it’s filled with crap posts, loonies, and paranoids, but constructive, respectful discussion is had about topics considered too taboo for most other subreddits. And they are maligned by most of Reddit to the point where certain subs will ban you just for subscribing or posting to it. Disclaimer: of course racism is awful and stupid. I’m not advocating promoting racists or misogynists or any other hate group. I just think the benefits of open, free discussion out way the drawbacks of hateful, stupid discussion.

supernovae 5y ago
They disrupted reddit to the core and got the ceo fired. The hijacking of “freedom of speech” in order to sustain a fascist movement was about the most bullshit thing ever and it nearly ruined reddit for good.
- jonhohle 5y ago
  I'm not sure to what you're referring. I can't find reference to any reddit CEO being fired. Ellen Pao resigned, but the catalyst for her resignation wasn't related to fascism as best I can tell, it was related to firing the person most responsible for AMAs without any suitable replacement.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

In 2022 you have the choice of a) "suppressing free speech" or b) "platforming racists" There's a great example of the False Choice fallacy. "Free Speech" = "Racism" is the implication of your choice -- one which authoritarians would indeed embrace. The Soviets considered free speech dangerous, too; and so does the CCP.

jjeaff 5y ago

Ya, if you take a look at any of these supposedly free speech platforms they are just intolerable, gross places.

soundnote 5y ago
That happens when you ban witches from everywhere. Anytime you get a platform that's not an insufferably clamped-down moderation hellhole, the cranks concentrate there and the site's just too cranky to be useful, even if cranks in small numbers could even be valuable. Sadly, what passes for moderation at most places nowadays is even worse. It's hideous and stifling. If the cranks make places too annoying to stay at, woke moderation makes places feel pointless to participate in.