3 ms·

> It's not, and it shouldn't be, and you should be ashamed of even thinking it. I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for the enablement of modera

> It's not, and it shouldn't be, and you should be ashamed of even thinking it. I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content within a community. Do you think LGBTQ spaces on reddit - for instance - should be prevented from banning users that compare them all to child molesters? Is that "censorship" that the OP should be ashamed of? Must all spaces be entirely laissez-faire about all user-generated content legal within the confines of the law? I do not think so. You may quibble with a segment of our population being derided as "groomers" as "not hate speech", but at the very least it is received as hateful by many. We're not talking about legal statutes in this conversation, we're talking about community moderation. Frankly, I think you should be ashamed of your own comment. It was incredibly aggressive, presumptuous, and built on a straw-man argument.

the_doctah 4y ago
Your argument for "spaces" and "communities" goes out the window when moderators of subreddits are forced to make sure their space adheres to what Reddit wants. That's not your space, it's Reddit's. No one is stopping subreddits from moderating how they want, the problem is when they are forced to moderate how Reddit wants. Furthermore, your "communities" and "spaces" are nothing more than an excuse to create echo chambers, which are not productive for free speech either, but that's just Reddit for you.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  Forgive me, but I'm copy-pasting my comment from elsewhere. ---- I can't quite get a clear picture of what you actually believe. Come down to my level and talk specifics vs. generalities: 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating a content-specific space for user interaction should not have any right or ability to moderate the content? 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle should have no ability to moderate that content? 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-generated conversation and content necessarily welcome all contributions? In other words, should everything goes, everywhere, in all communities where user interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point semantically? I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.
Gareth321 4y ago
>I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content within a community. This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users is censorship. I've often found that Americans confused "censorship" with "violating the Constitution." Most of us are not given Constitution protections because we don't live in America. Further, the Constitution only covers some kinds of free speech, not all. Censorship is much more broad than the Constitution, and covers private companies censoring citizens.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  > This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users is censorship. You are using "censorship" as a big scary word when talking about generalities. I can't quite get a clear picture of what you actually believe. Come down to my level and talk specifics vs. generalities: 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating a content-specific space for user interaction should not have any right or ability to moderate the content? 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle should have no ability to moderate that content? 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-generated conversation and content necessarily welcome all contributions? In other words, should everything goes, everywhere, in all communities where user interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point semantically? I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.

the_doctah 4y ago

Your argument for "spaces" and "communities" goes out the window when moderators of subreddits are forced to make sure their space adheres to what Reddit wants. That's not your space, it's Reddit's. No one is stopping subreddits from moderating how they want, the problem is when they are forced to moderate how Reddit wants. Furthermore, your "communities" and "spaces" are nothing more than an excuse to create echo chambers, which are not productive for free speech either, but that's just Reddit for you.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
Forgive me, but I'm copy-pasting my comment from elsewhere. ---- I can't quite get a clear picture of what you actually believe. Come down to my level and talk specifics vs. generalities: 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating a content-specific space for user interaction should not have any right or ability to moderate the content? 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle should have no ability to moderate that content? 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-generated conversation and content necessarily welcome all contributions? In other words, should everything goes, everywhere, in all communities where user interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point semantically? I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.

Gareth321 4y ago

>I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content within a community. This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users is censorship. I've often found that Americans confused "censorship" with "violating the Constitution." Most of us are not given Constitution protections because we don't live in America. Further, the Constitution only covers some kinds of free speech, not all. Censorship is much more broad than the Constitution, and covers private companies censoring citizens.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
> This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users is censorship. You are using "censorship" as a big scary word when talking about generalities. I can't quite get a clear picture of what you actually believe. Come down to my level and talk specifics vs. generalities: 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating a content-specific space for user interaction should not have any right or ability to moderate the content? 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle should have no ability to moderate that content? 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-generated conversation and content necessarily welcome all contributions? In other words, should everything goes, everywhere, in all communities where user interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point semantically? I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.