4 ms·

> Reddit is and should remain amoral You realize that this is impossible, right? Reddit cannot be amoral, it makes moral decisions all over the place. Why did

> Reddit is and should remain amoral You realize that this is impossible, right? Reddit cannot be amoral, it makes moral decisions all over the place. Why did they ban the jailbait subreddit? They made a moral decision to ban it. Why don't they allow doxing people? They made a moral decision to ban it. They make many other moral decisions in the breach; it's just easier to see their decisions when you look at what they don't allow rather than what they do. Simply hosting and allowing /r/creepshots to exist is a moral decision. Reddit provides them support, legitimacy, a platform, and server space by allowing them to use reddit. This is a moral decision. You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it". You are, to some extent, responsible, and to deny that is immoral.

graue 14y ago
Absolutely. And I think it’s worth noting that by allowing creepshots, but banning doxxing those who post creepshots, Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions, but it’s not okay to call someone out on that. I find that position repugnant, and I’m sickened people keep talking about this situation as if it’s Michael Brutsch who’s the victim here. Adrian Chen on Twitter: “Why I felt OK outing Violentacrez: Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. VA wasn't that.” (https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984 https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984)
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions" Oh come on, that's bull. This is the exact same line of reasoning as "if you're not with us you're against us" - not being against something does not indicate that one is for something, or even condoning of something. Reddit's position against doxxing means Reddit is against doxxing - any further extrapolations are your own. Reddit's stance on doxxing may result in women being harassed and photographed in compromising situations, but that in no way means that, quote, "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions". That is a patent falsehood, and I find your entire post deeply offensive. This is the same exact argument right-wing politicians have used in the past to take us to war. By your logic, the burger you had for lunch last week expresses your moral preference for factory farming practices and the grave environment impact of meat consumption. Guilt by association much?
  - indiecore 14y ago
    >By your logic, the burger you had for lunch last week expresses your moral preference for factory farming practices and the grave environment impact of meat consumption. A lot of people do believe that though, sadly "with us or against us" is really really common.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - graue 14y ago
    You quoted only part of the sentence. “...but it's not okay to call someone out on that.” Reddit has decided to allow one form of legal(?) content (invasive, sexually exploitative photos) but disallow another (publicizing the name of people who post such photos). By doing so, they are explicitly privileging the former over the latter and that is a moral preference. The Reddit community is all in favor of free speech when women are being harassed, but opposes free speech when the name of a harasser is being published. In other words, this is not about free speech at all.
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      That isn't the part of the post that's offensive, and therefore wasn't the part I quoted. I do not take issue with your line of argument re: free speech, though I disagree with it. I do take strong issue with your baseless ad hominem attack against every person who works for Reddit. Their actions (or rather, lack thereof) is not an "expression of moral preference" for the harassment of women. That portion of your post was deliberately intellectually dishonest to the highest and most vindictive degree.
      - makomk 14y ago
        It's not terribly surprising though. This isn't actually the first time I've come across a bunch of left-wingers using the exact same bullshit arguments as the right wing this week; ran across the incident described in http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frankly-i-dont-care-how-due-process-makes-you-feel/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frankly-i-dont-care-how-du... a few days ago which is about typical.
- pnathan 14y ago
  > Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. What about anonymity should be valued, period, end of story? Otherwise "some are more equal than others"...
  - Evbn 14y ago
    The powerful are not as equal as the powerless. That should not be ignored.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dlgeek 14y ago
I'd call those legal decisions rather than moral ones. Reddit banned those subreddits because they were worried about their liability exposure, not any moral issue.
fab13n 14y ago
You can be amoral, by not basing your actions on moral considerations. That's what's expected of judges, cops etc.: they (ought to only) consider whether you broke the law, not whether you're a good person. Reddit banned jailbait because it was bound to host a lot of illegal material, not because it was disgusting. > You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it". I understand their position as "we materially support everything that interest some people and doesn't break the law, irrespective of our personal opinion about it". It means sometimes supporting stuff they might sometimes find personally appalling, just as a lawyer sometimes has to try and get out of jail a person he personally despises. Besides, supporting freedom of speech forces to support questionable expressions: speeches which don't offend anyone don't need to be protected.
- llimllib 14y ago
  > I understand their position as "we materially support everything that interest some people and doesn't break the law, irrespective of our personal opinion about it" That is a morality! That's a moral decision. What I'm disagreeing with is the notion you proposed that reddit could be "amoral". Every decision you make has a moral component; keeping /r/creepshots alive is one of them.
  - libria 14y ago
    > That is a morality! That's a moral decision. I understand it to be more of an economic/legal decision, not moral. Laws are crafted after morals, but following the law does not make you morally sound. It only allows you to maintain your freedom by avoiding prosecution. > Every decision you make has a moral component; What we're discussing here is the moral motivation (or lack of it) of Reddit. Any moral implications it has for the population are irrelevant.
  - timwiseman 14y ago
    Not every decision has a moral component. Deciding whether to have cucumbers in my salad today at lunch does not have a moral components (its mostly about how fresh they look that day.) Here, I see how you could say they made a moral decision. But in this case they made one moral decision of essentially "We allow all legal speech here". After they made that call, there is no further moral decision in keeping any particular, (legal) thread alive. Had they decided "We will exercise some editorial discretion beyond just what is needed to comply with the law" then every single thread becomes a moral decision. If you want to be precise, reddit has made the single moral decision that they will permit (legal) free-speech and beyond that point they have chosen to be amoral.

graue 14y ago

Absolutely. And I think it’s worth noting that by allowing creepshots, but banning doxxing those who post creepshots, Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions, but it’s not okay to call someone out on that. I find that position repugnant, and I’m sickened people keep talking about this situation as if it’s Michael Brutsch who’s the victim here. Adrian Chen on Twitter: “Why I felt OK outing Violentacrez: Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. VA wasn't that.” (https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984 https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/258703898695593984)

potatolicious 14y ago
> "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions" Oh come on, that's bull. This is the exact same line of reasoning as "if you're not with us you're against us" - not being against something does not indicate that one is for something, or even condoning of something. Reddit's position against doxxing means Reddit is against doxxing - any further extrapolations are your own. Reddit's stance on doxxing may result in women being harassed and photographed in compromising situations, but that in no way means that, quote, "Reddit is expressing the moral preference that it’s okay to harass women and photograph them in compromising positions". That is a patent falsehood, and I find your entire post deeply offensive. This is the same exact argument right-wing politicians have used in the past to take us to war. By your logic, the burger you had for lunch last week expresses your moral preference for factory farming practices and the grave environment impact of meat consumption. Guilt by association much?
- indiecore 14y ago
  >By your logic, the burger you had for lunch last week expresses your moral preference for factory farming practices and the grave environment impact of meat consumption. A lot of people do believe that though, sadly "with us or against us" is really really common.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- graue 14y ago
  You quoted only part of the sentence. “...but it's not okay to call someone out on that.” Reddit has decided to allow one form of legal(?) content (invasive, sexually exploitative photos) but disallow another (publicizing the name of people who post such photos). By doing so, they are explicitly privileging the former over the latter and that is a moral preference. The Reddit community is all in favor of free speech when women are being harassed, but opposes free speech when the name of a harasser is being published. In other words, this is not about free speech at all.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    That isn't the part of the post that's offensive, and therefore wasn't the part I quoted. I do not take issue with your line of argument re: free speech, though I disagree with it. I do take strong issue with your baseless ad hominem attack against every person who works for Reddit. Their actions (or rather, lack thereof) is not an "expression of moral preference" for the harassment of women. That portion of your post was deliberately intellectually dishonest to the highest and most vindictive degree.
    - makomk 14y ago
      It's not terribly surprising though. This isn't actually the first time I've come across a bunch of left-wingers using the exact same bullshit arguments as the right wing this week; ran across the incident described in http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frankly-i-dont-care-how-due-process-makes-you-feel/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frankly-i-dont-care-how-du... a few days ago which is about typical.
pnathan 14y ago
> Anonymity should be valued mainly to the extent it helps protect powerless from powerful. What about anonymity should be valued, period, end of story? Otherwise "some are more equal than others"...
- Evbn 14y ago
  The powerful are not as equal as the powerless. That should not be ignored.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dlgeek 14y ago

I'd call those legal decisions rather than moral ones. Reddit banned those subreddits because they were worried about their liability exposure, not any moral issue.

fab13n 14y ago

You can be amoral, by not basing your actions on moral considerations. That's what's expected of judges, cops etc.: they (ought to only) consider whether you broke the law, not whether you're a good person. Reddit banned jailbait because it was bound to host a lot of illegal material, not because it was disgusting. > You don't get to provide material support for a site and at the same time say "we're not responsible for it". I understand their position as "we materially support everything that interest some people and doesn't break the law, irrespective of our personal opinion about it". It means sometimes supporting stuff they might sometimes find personally appalling, just as a lawyer sometimes has to try and get out of jail a person he personally despises. Besides, supporting freedom of speech forces to support questionable expressions: speeches which don't offend anyone don't need to be protected.

llimllib 14y ago
> I understand their position as "we materially support everything that interest some people and doesn't break the law, irrespective of our personal opinion about it" That is a morality! That's a moral decision. What I'm disagreeing with is the notion you proposed that reddit could be "amoral". Every decision you make has a moral component; keeping /r/creepshots alive is one of them.
- libria 14y ago
  > That is a morality! That's a moral decision. I understand it to be more of an economic/legal decision, not moral. Laws are crafted after morals, but following the law does not make you morally sound. It only allows you to maintain your freedom by avoiding prosecution. > Every decision you make has a moral component; What we're discussing here is the moral motivation (or lack of it) of Reddit. Any moral implications it has for the population are irrelevant.
- timwiseman 14y ago
  Not every decision has a moral component. Deciding whether to have cucumbers in my salad today at lunch does not have a moral components (its mostly about how fresh they look that day.) Here, I see how you could say they made a moral decision. But in this case they made one moral decision of essentially "We allow all legal speech here". After they made that call, there is no further moral decision in keeping any particular, (legal) thread alive. Had they decided "We will exercise some editorial discretion beyond just what is needed to comply with the law" then every single thread becomes a moral decision. If you want to be precise, reddit has made the single moral decision that they will permit (legal) free-speech and beyond that point they have chosen to be amoral.