6 ms·

I don't like it, but Reddit can do whatever it wants with it's platform. Reddit is not a "free speech platform", it is whatever it wants to be at any moment. I

by Vaskivo 11y ago

I don't like it, but Reddit can do whatever it wants with it's platform. Reddit is not a "free speech platform", it is whatever it wants to be at any moment. In Portugal we have a saying that translates to something like this: "Who is not well/happy, should move to another place". And that's whats going to happen. Some users will go to another platforms. And, in the end, we'll always have the chans...

Karunamon 11y ago
That is exactly what it is, by their own reckoning[1]: Create a safe space to encourage participation. Embrace diversity of viewpoints. Allow freedom of expression. Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself. As long as they claim to be holding themselves to that standard, people are fully within their rights to call them out on hypocrisy. [1]:https://www.reddit.com/about/values https://www.reddit.com/about/values
- mhomde 11y ago
  Yeah, but it also says "a safe space", obviously some rules would have to be in place for that
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It doesn't say Embrace all viewpoints. Allow total freedom of expression. There is a long tradition of seeking robust debate. There is also a long tradition of expecting some measure of decorum.
  - talmand 11y ago
    I would say the original statements and your version of the statements are the same thing. If they were not they should read as: Embrace some viewpoints. Allow some freedom of expression. With whatever variation on the language as necessary. If the statement doesn't originally place a restriction on the idea, then it isn't necessary to specifically state there is no restriction. Therefore, I would say that technically: Embrace viewpoints. Embrace all viewpoints. Are, in fact, the same thing. As for maintaining decorum, that where the restrictions come into play and have to be specifically stated: Embrace diversity of viewpoints by permitting all statements that follow community guidelines on language pertaining to harassment, crudeness, personal attacks, etc. Any statements may be censored for not following community guidelines.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      It's a fuzzy statement of values from a corporation. Reading it as if it is a computer program is a mistake. I guess you can choose to give them more or less credit based on how closely they hew to a pedantic squeezing of the meaning, but my point was that they do not emphasize that they are absolutes (even where simple language is available to do so).
      - talmand 11y ago
        While true, that doesn't give you license to decide the definition of their statements.
- jerf 11y ago
  I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced. I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something. Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are hard.
  - jklinger410 11y ago
    Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. The concept of a universal "safe space" is an impossibility in that regard.
    - untog 11y ago
      A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on. Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.
      - jerf 11y ago
        "It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on." Actually, nothing even precludes them from discussing religion. Just because we're wired to get into angry shouting matches on the matters that pertain to tribal identification (which I used descriptively, not perjoratively... human psychology can not be understood until you understand that we are deeply tribal, and religion is a huge component of that) does not mean that we are obligated to give in to those impulses. It's just... really hard. For everybody. And increasingly, giving in to those impulses is being held up a virtue, rather than vice. This bodes poorly for the future of civil society.
- Vaskivo 11y ago
  To me, as a channer, those values are "iffy". What to you mean by "Create a safe space to encourage participation". Define a safe space. I can't physically hurt anyone, so that's a given. But are they considering a "safe space" a place where I can't say anything potentially insulting, offending or hurtful? In that case, I don't have freedom of expression and neither is Reddit encouraging (my) participation.
mrec 11y ago
The British equivalent comes from this famous WW1 cartoon by Bruce Bairnsfather : http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/bb02a.JPG http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/bb02a.JPG
mikeash 11y ago
We say similar things in English. One might seriously say, "If you don't like it, move to Russia." Implying that if you disagree with anything then you're sympathizing with the enemy, and that as long as we're better than somebody it doesn't matter what's wrong. Maybe the Portuguese version doesn't have those implications, but I find it to be one of the worst arguments a person can make.
- untog 11y ago
  Eh, that is usually applied to discussions about living in America, not using a specific service. After all, it doesn't even make any sense in this context (move to Russia and... use Reddit still?). You're right that this one is an awful argument because it's not within anyone's power to move to Russia, usually (or otherwise move away from the various laws and regulations that apply to them in the US). However, they absolutely can use a site other than Reddit without problems.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Um, yes, that specific phrase would be applied to living in the US, not using a specific service. I'm describing a similar kind of statement with an explicit example, not saying that exact phrase also applies here. And the problem is not that you can't do it, it's that it's a way of shutting down criticism without addressing it. It's inherently a non sequitur. It basically says, "The problems you point out are not actually problems, because you can go away."
- Vaskivo 11y ago
  In portuguese it literally means "going someplace else". An example: I enter the subway and sit next to a man. For some reason, I stink. The man is unconfortable and asks me to move. I shouldn't move. I am OK where I am. If he's not OK he should be the one moving somewhere else.
smrtinsert 11y ago
Anything banned from reddit that is only allowed on chans does not constitute free speech in my opinion. Most likely it is hateful, or immoral. I think that probably aligns reddit closer with the USs definition of free speech.
- lmeter 11y ago
  A definition of free speech that excludes 'hate speech' is faulty. "Hate speech is not free speech" is a remarkably inane statement. If you are against hate speech, you are against free speech. Opposing free speech is not an unacceptable position however.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    idealistically, yes. practically, there has to be a limit on speech. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is the canonical example of this.
    - lmeter 11y ago
      I'm in favour of a few criminal limits - perjury can't be allowed for example. A person who supports placing legal limits on expression because they offend a group, religion, political party, etc. can't sincerely claim to be an advocate for free speech. Better to avoid the doublethink and stop defining free speech as speech that you approve of.
    - briandh 11y ago
      With respect to that "canonical example": http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackney...
      - mreiland 11y ago
        The protections are practical and necessary, someone complaining that the example gets overused and abused in random arguments isn't really relevant to this discussion.

by Vaskivo 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

That is exactly what it is, by their own reckoning[1]: Create a safe space to encourage participation. Embrace diversity of viewpoints. Allow freedom of expression. Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself. As long as they claim to be holding themselves to that standard, people are fully within their rights to call them out on hypocrisy. [1]:https://www.reddit.com/about/values https://www.reddit.com/about/values

mhomde 11y ago
Yeah, but it also says "a safe space", obviously some rules would have to be in place for that
maxerickson 11y ago
It doesn't say Embrace all viewpoints. Allow total freedom of expression. There is a long tradition of seeking robust debate. There is also a long tradition of expecting some measure of decorum.
- talmand 11y ago
  I would say the original statements and your version of the statements are the same thing. If they were not they should read as: Embrace some viewpoints. Allow some freedom of expression. With whatever variation on the language as necessary. If the statement doesn't originally place a restriction on the idea, then it isn't necessary to specifically state there is no restriction. Therefore, I would say that technically: Embrace viewpoints. Embrace all viewpoints. Are, in fact, the same thing. As for maintaining decorum, that where the restrictions come into play and have to be specifically stated: Embrace diversity of viewpoints by permitting all statements that follow community guidelines on language pertaining to harassment, crudeness, personal attacks, etc. Any statements may be censored for not following community guidelines.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It's a fuzzy statement of values from a corporation. Reading it as if it is a computer program is a mistake. I guess you can choose to give them more or less credit based on how closely they hew to a pedantic squeezing of the meaning, but my point was that they do not emphasize that they are absolutes (even where simple language is available to do so).
    - talmand 11y ago
      While true, that doesn't give you license to decide the definition of their statements.
jerf 11y ago
I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced. I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something. Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are hard.
- jklinger410 11y ago
  Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. The concept of a universal "safe space" is an impossibility in that regard.
  - untog 11y ago
    A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on. Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.
    - jerf 11y ago
      "It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on." Actually, nothing even precludes them from discussing religion. Just because we're wired to get into angry shouting matches on the matters that pertain to tribal identification (which I used descriptively, not perjoratively... human psychology can not be understood until you understand that we are deeply tribal, and religion is a huge component of that) does not mean that we are obligated to give in to those impulses. It's just... really hard. For everybody. And increasingly, giving in to those impulses is being held up a virtue, rather than vice. This bodes poorly for the future of civil society.
Vaskivo 11y ago
To me, as a channer, those values are "iffy". What to you mean by "Create a safe space to encourage participation". Define a safe space. I can't physically hurt anyone, so that's a given. But are they considering a "safe space" a place where I can't say anything potentially insulting, offending or hurtful? In that case, I don't have freedom of expression and neither is Reddit encouraging (my) participation.

mrec 11y ago

The British equivalent comes from this famous WW1 cartoon by Bruce Bairnsfather : http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/bb02a.JPG http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/bb02a.JPG

mikeash 11y ago

We say similar things in English. One might seriously say, "If you don't like it, move to Russia." Implying that if you disagree with anything then you're sympathizing with the enemy, and that as long as we're better than somebody it doesn't matter what's wrong. Maybe the Portuguese version doesn't have those implications, but I find it to be one of the worst arguments a person can make.

untog 11y ago
Eh, that is usually applied to discussions about living in America, not using a specific service. After all, it doesn't even make any sense in this context (move to Russia and... use Reddit still?). You're right that this one is an awful argument because it's not within anyone's power to move to Russia, usually (or otherwise move away from the various laws and regulations that apply to them in the US). However, they absolutely can use a site other than Reddit without problems.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Um, yes, that specific phrase would be applied to living in the US, not using a specific service. I'm describing a similar kind of statement with an explicit example, not saying that exact phrase also applies here. And the problem is not that you can't do it, it's that it's a way of shutting down criticism without addressing it. It's inherently a non sequitur. It basically says, "The problems you point out are not actually problems, because you can go away."
Vaskivo 11y ago
In portuguese it literally means "going someplace else". An example: I enter the subway and sit next to a man. For some reason, I stink. The man is unconfortable and asks me to move. I shouldn't move. I am OK where I am. If he's not OK he should be the one moving somewhere else.

smrtinsert 11y ago

Anything banned from reddit that is only allowed on chans does not constitute free speech in my opinion. Most likely it is hateful, or immoral. I think that probably aligns reddit closer with the USs definition of free speech.

lmeter 11y ago
A definition of free speech that excludes 'hate speech' is faulty. "Hate speech is not free speech" is a remarkably inane statement. If you are against hate speech, you are against free speech. Opposing free speech is not an unacceptable position however.
- mreiland 11y ago
  idealistically, yes. practically, there has to be a limit on speech. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is the canonical example of this.
  - lmeter 11y ago
    I'm in favour of a few criminal limits - perjury can't be allowed for example. A person who supports placing legal limits on expression because they offend a group, religion, political party, etc. can't sincerely claim to be an advocate for free speech. Better to avoid the doublethink and stop defining free speech as speech that you approve of.
  - briandh 11y ago
    With respect to that "canonical example": http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackney...
    - mreiland 11y ago
      The protections are practical and necessary, someone complaining that the example gets overused and abused in random arguments isn't really relevant to this discussion.