4 ms·
In my opinion the issue is relatively simple. If the content is illegal, then remove it. If it is not, then it stays. It can not be the task of a platform prov
by stfu 14y ago
In my opinion the issue is relatively simple. If the content is illegal, then remove it. If it is not, then it stays.
It can not be the task of a platform provider to conduct an in-depth investigation on who agreed or did not agree on a picture being taken. Otherwise you would need to include with every picture some form of a weaver were all persons displayed state their real age and consent to the picture.
- tptacek 14y agoWell then you agree with the point I made, which is that you can't stand on the ceremony of "free speech" while forbidding forms of otherwise lawful speech that happen to challenge the mores of the group, such as the names and employers of pseudonymous members of the group.
- stfu 14y agoSure, I am all for removing illegal content. But I am absolutely against per-emtive attempts to censor the incredible diversity that Reddit has to offer.
- danielweber 14y agoLots of platform providers explicitly decide to moderate things that aren't illegal. There are lots of perfectly legal things that HN won't let me discuss, as is their right. A rule of "no candid photographs" isn't as impossible to set up as you think. Sure it will have some false positives and false negatives, just like filters on porn, on spam, on off-topic posts, and so on.
- stfu 14y agoIt depends on the type of community. Reddit positions itself as a platform infrastructure for a rich diversity of communities. HN has a relatively narrow approach, trying to keep discussions as focused and as on topic as possible. It is more or less a traditional forum, only that the rules are relatively clear and moderators (i.e. PG) don't overplay their authority.
- MartinCron 14y agoIf the content is illegal, then remove it. If it is not, then it stays Then you're OK with this completely legal statement "The real name of Violentacrez is Michael Brutsch"?