5 ms·
>Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider woul
by chez17 14y ago
>Reddit works precisely because they maintain some sort of "net neutrality" ethics, refusing any editorial meddling. Banning a distasteful content provider would break that neutrality; but hiring him would break it just as much.
This is incorrect. They have banned 'distasteful content' and they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers. Reddit is behaving extremely hypocritical and their PR on this subject is just nonsense. People shouldn't post on subjects on which they don't even have a basic understanding. I don't mean to sound rude, but this post is getting the most votes as of this writing and it's just flat out wrong.
- Karunamon 14y ago>they have banned posts due to pressure from advertisers Citation please.
- lambda 14y agohttp://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_my_post_about_searscoms_urlhackable/c0c95xr http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_m... I should add that this is not direct pressure from their advertisers, but from their parent company, Condé Nast. I'm sure that Sears is and advertiser for at least some Condé Nast properties, so it's effectively the same, though with an extra level of indirection.
- Karunamon 14y agoSome context would be useful here. The post was in relation to a URL exploit on a Sears site, and I can see the justification for a company taking issue with a partner of theirs posting how to exploit their site. This isn't just "Advertiser gets a post banned they don't like", this is "Advertiser asks partner to pull down an exploit". Framing it as the former makes it sound like a capricious, moralizing decision.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- debacle 14y agoThey have banned content which was nearly impossible to properly moderate and could have, from a legal perspective, become a very big problem.
- fab13n 14y agoThis was for legal matters, not for distastefulness. The same obligations fall on network operators, and wouldn't be cancelled by any net neutrality law.
- debacle 14y agoYes, we agree. I don't think anyone else would have looked at the facts and come to a different decision than what reddit did, and I'm sure they did not make the decision easily.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sammythemc 14y agoActually, this is untrue. The r/jailbait drama blew up when someone solicited underage pornography there, but at the end of the day it was banned for "threatening the structural integrity of reddit," ie the fallout from the Anderson Cooper story. Legality had little to do with it, just like you see with the ban on dox; it was banned for making the site look bad.