6 ms·

Very interesting to watch what a coordinated attack can do to a website. Always sad to see when people rally behind better/stronger censorship. Companies should

by stfu 15y ago

Very interesting to watch what a coordinated attack can do to a website. Always sad to see when people rally behind better/stronger censorship. Companies should get attacked for taking freedoms away and not the other way around. If they had illegal content on their sites, than by all means report it etc. But I still believe that anything legal SHOULD be allowed. On the other hand it might be more a personal thing against Reddit for freeriding/pretending ownership of ideas with might have originated in other places.

kmfrk 15y ago
What about the freedom of the children in the pornographic images? That important to you? Something Awful/SRS launched the campaign, because all efforts to curb these images had failed, so they took it upon themselves - as a last frustrated resort - to bring people's attention to this.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - Gygash 15y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test
- adbge 15y ago
  > What about the freedom of the children in the > pornographic images? That important to you? The OP explicitly stated that he believes anything legal should be allowed. At any rate, this kind of remark really doesn't facilitate the kind of thoughtful discussion we, as a community, ought to strive for. Interestingly enough, though, by outright banning suggestive images of minors, you are limiting "the freedom of the children," their freedom of expression. It's for the greater good, of course. ;)
  - kmfrk 15y ago
    He's making it an issue of censorship, when the whole reason for this is the child pornography on the website to which this is juxtaposed. The admins have chosen to use a wide net in this case, presumably because they don't have the resources to fine-comb subreddits to determine whether they meet the criteria for child pornography. The concept of censorship and impediment of free speech on a privately held site whose owners are free to do as they please without curbing the constitutional fifth-amendment right of their users is also to blow this completely out of proportions and miss the point entirely. EDIT: alienth confirms my presumption in the first paragraph: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/pmk22/admins_today_we_are_adding_another_rule_no/c3qk6s9?context=1.* http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/pmk22/admins...
w1ntermute 15y ago
What concerns me here is that they made this change not because it was the right thing to do (if that were the case, this would've happened months ago, when the controversy initially surfaced). Instead, they did it after a concerted campaign by SA. Who's to say that SA couldn't/won't do the same to get other topics banned as well? Of course, the nice thing about the internet is that we can route around these issues. The fact that the software powering Reddit is open source[0] only makes it easer. 0: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki
- owenmarshall 15y ago
  Are you honestly trying to set up a slippery slope argument starting with child pornography? There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.
  - doublextremevil 15y ago
    They are cracking down on illegal speech (in the form of blatant CP) in addition to legal speech (in the form of suggestive, but non-pornographic pictures anyone under 18). EDIT: Unless I am mistaken?
    - owenmarshall 15y ago
      You might want to review the Dost test & some of the links I & others have posted in this thread. It's very possible that what you think of as child pornography may only be a subset of what the law holds to be illegal.
      - doublextremevil 15y ago
        Pornographic images are more broadly defined than i had previously realized. Free speech is more restricted under case law than i had imagined, too; if it is "obscene" it can be banned. Not sure if i agree with that, but it is what it is.
kevs 15y ago
Even if the questionable content was legal I still support this. I don't think a website is under any obligation to allow content they don't want strictly to protect free speech. They don't want people posting sexually suggestive images of kids? That's their prerogative.
ugh 15y ago
What the hell?! Is it really so hard to believe that some people honestly think that Reddit should have no Subreddits explicitly catering to pedophiles? Yes, I’m for Reddit taking away the freedom of pedophiles to share photos on Reddit, even if those photos happen to be legal more often than not. Is that really such an outrageous position? Why should Reddit allow everything? I don’t understand the premise. I think there is nothing wrong with asking a medium to have reasonable policies. Reddit did the right thing. Finally. It took ’em long enough. It’s quite sad that it took a coordinated attack to show the admins what’s obvious.
- polymatter 15y ago
  Is it really so hard to believe that some people honestly think that reddit should have no Subreddits explicity catering to hackers? Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of hackers to share code on Reddit, even if that code happen to be legal more often than not. Is that really such an outrageous position? --- Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of religious people to share their religious ideas, even if those religious ideas happen to be legal (and not constitute a hate-crime) more often than not. --- Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of <insert minority interest group here> to share <material>, even if that <material> happens to be legal.

by stfu 15y ago

kmfrk 15y ago

What about the freedom of the children in the pornographic images? That important to you? Something Awful/SRS launched the campaign, because all efforts to curb these images had failed, so they took it upon themselves - as a last frustrated resort - to bring people's attention to this.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- Gygash 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test
adbge 15y ago
> What about the freedom of the children in the > pornographic images? That important to you? The OP explicitly stated that he believes anything legal should be allowed. At any rate, this kind of remark really doesn't facilitate the kind of thoughtful discussion we, as a community, ought to strive for. Interestingly enough, though, by outright banning suggestive images of minors, you are limiting "the freedom of the children," their freedom of expression. It's for the greater good, of course. ;)
- kmfrk 15y ago
  He's making it an issue of censorship, when the whole reason for this is the child pornography on the website to which this is juxtaposed. The admins have chosen to use a wide net in this case, presumably because they don't have the resources to fine-comb subreddits to determine whether they meet the criteria for child pornography. The concept of censorship and impediment of free speech on a privately held site whose owners are free to do as they please without curbing the constitutional fifth-amendment right of their users is also to blow this completely out of proportions and miss the point entirely. EDIT: alienth confirms my presumption in the first paragraph: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/pmk22/admins_today_we_are_adding_another_rule_no/c3qk6s9?context=1.* http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/pmk22/admins...

w1ntermute 15y ago

What concerns me here is that they made this change not because it was the right thing to do (if that were the case, this would've happened months ago, when the controversy initially surfaced). Instead, they did it after a concerted campaign by SA. Who's to say that SA couldn't/won't do the same to get other topics banned as well? Of course, the nice thing about the internet is that we can route around these issues. The fact that the software powering Reddit is open source[0] only makes it easer. 0: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki

owenmarshall 15y ago
Are you honestly trying to set up a slippery slope argument starting with child pornography? There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.
- doublextremevil 15y ago
  They are cracking down on illegal speech (in the form of blatant CP) in addition to legal speech (in the form of suggestive, but non-pornographic pictures anyone under 18). EDIT: Unless I am mistaken?
  - owenmarshall 15y ago
    You might want to review the Dost test & some of the links I & others have posted in this thread. It's very possible that what you think of as child pornography may only be a subset of what the law holds to be illegal.
    - doublextremevil 15y ago
      Pornographic images are more broadly defined than i had previously realized. Free speech is more restricted under case law than i had imagined, too; if it is "obscene" it can be banned. Not sure if i agree with that, but it is what it is.

kevs 15y ago

Even if the questionable content was legal I still support this. I don't think a website is under any obligation to allow content they don't want strictly to protect free speech. They don't want people posting sexually suggestive images of kids? That's their prerogative.

ugh 15y ago

What the hell?! Is it really so hard to believe that some people honestly think that Reddit should have no Subreddits explicitly catering to pedophiles? Yes, I’m for Reddit taking away the freedom of pedophiles to share photos on Reddit, even if those photos happen to be legal more often than not. Is that really such an outrageous position? Why should Reddit allow everything? I don’t understand the premise. I think there is nothing wrong with asking a medium to have reasonable policies. Reddit did the right thing. Finally. It took ’em long enough. It’s quite sad that it took a coordinated attack to show the admins what’s obvious.

polymatter 15y ago
Is it really so hard to believe that some people honestly think that reddit should have no Subreddits explicity catering to hackers? Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of hackers to share code on Reddit, even if that code happen to be legal more often than not. Is that really such an outrageous position? --- Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of religious people to share their religious ideas, even if those religious ideas happen to be legal (and not constitute a hate-crime) more often than not. --- Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of <insert minority interest group here> to share <material>, even if that <material> happens to be legal.