5 ms·

I understand the difficulties. However, just as I would not support a lawless society, I do not support the laissez-faire attitude of the reddit admins. And the

by iherbig 12y ago

I understand the difficulties. However, just as I would not support a lawless society, I do not support the laissez-faire attitude of the reddit admins. And the reasons are much the same. We choose between letting everyone go free and dealing with the consequences, or restricting people and living with the consequences. There is no right answer.

tomp 12y ago
> We choose between letting everyone go free and dealing with the consequences, or restricting people and living with the consequences. There is no right answer. There is no right answer, but restricting information is the wrong answer, primarily because it doesn't work. The leaked nudes are still available, even if not on reddit. You can still download pirated movies, even if it's not as simple as it used to be. Eventually, we'll have to figure out ways of preventing/minimizing the consequences, without restricting information.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > The leaked nudes are still available, even if not on reddit. That's the point - I can dump uuencoded blobs of text in HN that are stolen nudes. I'd be downvoted to hellban if I tried. Online communities create their own standards. Reddit's standards exclude some groups of people. That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions.
  - tomp 12y ago
    > That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions. So you're suggestion that instead, in the name of safety, we should create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people (banning them) to make sure they can't express their opinions?
    - hey_lu 12y ago
      Why is it an opinion to be able to destroy the lives of other people?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > So you're suggestion that instead, in the name of safety, we should create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people (banning them) to make sure they can't express their opinions? If their opinion is "You should die you stupid fucking cunt" or "I'm going to find you and rape you and then kill you" then yes, ban those people. "I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder." "I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie." I find it fucking baffling that you chose to defend those people, the people saying stuff like that, at the cost of their victims. Caroline Criado Perez was not complaining about one or two people sending a few dozens of messages that were a bit mean. She was inundated with thousands of messages, from many people, threatening sexual violence and death. One man was sending 50 messages per hour, over about 12 hours. Another woman sent hundreds of messages. Perez's "crime"? She campaigned to have a woman on British banknotes after the Bank of England phased out Elizabeth Fry on the £5 - leaving no women on the banknotes. I would be proud to ban those people from any service I ran.
      - tomp 12y ago
        > I find it fucking baffling that you chose to defend those people, the people saying stuff like that, at the cost of their victims. Oh well, I find it weird that you're twisting my words so much, but I won't insult your intelligence because of it. Anyways, I don't defend those people - I think they're morons, I would shame them, etc. (I would defend them in court, though, unless they actually (physically) harm anyone - because freedom of speech). The problem is (1) banning/censorship is a slippery slope, and will inevitably results in censoring some inconvenient truth, and (2) it doesn't work, because the trolls can just make a new account. IMO, personal filters that each user can activate and tune to their desire (akin email spam filters) would work much better.
      - Torgo 12y ago
  - theorique 12y ago
    > Online communities create their own standards. Reddit's standards exclude some groups of people. That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions. Who's being excluded by reddit's standards? Aside from egregious racists who become nuisances to others, and/or child porn distributors (both good exclusions, IMO), it seems like a free-for-all. You want to create a subreddit reflecting your odd interests, go ahead!

by iherbig 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

> We choose between letting everyone go free and dealing with the consequences, or restricting people and living with the consequences. There is no right answer. There is no right answer, but restricting information is the wrong answer, primarily because it doesn't work. The leaked nudes are still available, even if not on reddit. You can still download pirated movies, even if it's not as simple as it used to be. Eventually, we'll have to figure out ways of preventing/minimizing the consequences, without restricting information.

DanBC 12y ago
> The leaked nudes are still available, even if not on reddit. That's the point - I can dump uuencoded blobs of text in HN that are stolen nudes. I'd be downvoted to hellban if I tried. Online communities create their own standards. Reddit's standards exclude some groups of people. That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions.
- tomp 12y ago
  > That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions. So you're suggestion that instead, in the name of safety, we should create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people (banning them) to make sure they can't express their opinions?
  - hey_lu 12y ago
    Why is it an opinion to be able to destroy the lives of other people?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > So you're suggestion that instead, in the name of safety, we should create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people (banning them) to make sure they can't express their opinions? If their opinion is "You should die you stupid fucking cunt" or "I'm going to find you and rape you and then kill you" then yes, ban those people. "I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder." "I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie." I find it fucking baffling that you chose to defend those people, the people saying stuff like that, at the cost of their victims. Caroline Criado Perez was not complaining about one or two people sending a few dozens of messages that were a bit mean. She was inundated with thousands of messages, from many people, threatening sexual violence and death. One man was sending 50 messages per hour, over about 12 hours. Another woman sent hundreds of messages. Perez's "crime"? She campaigned to have a woman on British banknotes after the Bank of England phased out Elizabeth Fry on the £5 - leaving no women on the banknotes. I would be proud to ban those people from any service I ran.
    - tomp 12y ago
      > I find it fucking baffling that you chose to defend those people, the people saying stuff like that, at the cost of their victims. Oh well, I find it weird that you're twisting my words so much, but I won't insult your intelligence because of it. Anyways, I don't defend those people - I think they're morons, I would shame them, etc. (I would defend them in court, though, unless they actually (physically) harm anyone - because freedom of speech). The problem is (1) banning/censorship is a slippery slope, and will inevitably results in censoring some inconvenient truth, and (2) it doesn't work, because the trolls can just make a new account. IMO, personal filters that each user can activate and tune to their desire (akin email spam filters) would work much better.
    - Torgo 12y ago
- theorique 12y ago
  > Online communities create their own standards. Reddit's standards exclude some groups of people. That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions. Who's being excluded by reddit's standards? Aside from egregious racists who become nuisances to others, and/or child porn distributors (both good exclusions, IMO), it seems like a free-for-all. You want to create a subreddit reflecting your odd interests, go ahead!