8 ms·

I didn't mean to take a position on the misogyny part. I just meant leaving that question aside completely, the point was woefully incomplete. You seem to have

I didn't mean to take a position on the misogyny part. I just meant leaving that question aside completely, the point was woefully incomplete. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control.

mistermann 11y ago
> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control. One of us has a misunderstanding on that and I'm not so sure it's me. I'm aware of the brigading claim, but not of any widespread evidence. And even if so, then how do you defend the inconsistent enforcement of that rule amongst other subreddits like /r/srs? If you're going to use a rule to close a sub, then by god enforce that rule consistently if you want people to take you seriously. https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Shit_Reddit_Says https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Shit_Reddit_Says
- vehementi 11y ago
  How they treated other subs is off topic for the question of why FPH was banned. Fact is, they banned it due to brigading and off site harassment etc. Whether you are personally convinced by the evidence kind of doesn't matter. They have no onus to share it all with you anyway. If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive. As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. Not that I need to defend reddit's decisions, nor automatically become on their side. Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    > How they treated other subs is off topic for the question of why FPH was banned. Fact is, they banned it due to brigading and off site harassment etc. Whether you are personally convinced by the evidence kind of doesn't matter. They have no onus to share it all with you anyway. No evidence was given, so you don't know either. You are correct in that they are free to do as they choose with the website they own, but not taking into consideration your userbase's opinion of your actions seems like not an optimal recipe for success. Treat your users, who produce all your content and manage the majority of your business through voluntary moderation with zero respect, authoritatively decide what is "on or off topic for discussion", and see what happens. > If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive. Oh I'm aware of the stated reasoning, and I: a) reject it on the grounds that it is not consistently applied. If <subreddit x> is banned because of <rule y>, but that rule doesn't apply everywhere, then it wasn't actually banned because of <rule y>, because a "selectively enforced" rule is not really a rule. They're trying to use unemotional logical reason to explain their actions, but they are not acting logically. b) don't believe them, in part because the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech, which is most definitely a change from the original culture and spirit. > As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. I'm not at all aware of the details of this but I would like to learn - is this common knowledge? > Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete. I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background. Or, if you want to exercise your right (as the platform owner) to completely control all content, then simply state that outright. Or don't, and just continue to subtly move in that direction without discussing it, and see what happens, which I'd argue is exactly what has happened here. What happens is, your users (a significant portion at least) revolt, the story ends up being splashed through mainstream media including financial news, and before too long someone "resigns", "because their growth targets were inconsistent with management". (Do you believe that one also?)

mistermann 11y ago

> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control. One of us has a misunderstanding on that and I'm not so sure it's me. I'm aware of the brigading claim, but not of any widespread evidence. And even if so, then how do you defend the inconsistent enforcement of that rule amongst other subreddits like /r/srs? If you're going to use a rule to close a sub, then by god enforce that rule consistently if you want people to take you seriously. https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Shit_Reddit_Says https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Shit_Reddit_Says

vehementi 11y ago
How they treated other subs is off topic for the question of why FPH was banned. Fact is, they banned it due to brigading and off site harassment etc. Whether you are personally convinced by the evidence kind of doesn't matter. They have no onus to share it all with you anyway. If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive. As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. Not that I need to defend reddit's decisions, nor automatically become on their side. Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.
- mistermann 11y ago
  > How they treated other subs is off topic for the question of why FPH was banned. Fact is, they banned it due to brigading and off site harassment etc. Whether you are personally convinced by the evidence kind of doesn't matter. They have no onus to share it all with you anyway. No evidence was given, so you don't know either. You are correct in that they are free to do as they choose with the website they own, but not taking into consideration your userbase's opinion of your actions seems like not an optimal recipe for success. Treat your users, who produce all your content and manage the majority of your business through voluntary moderation with zero respect, authoritatively decide what is "on or off topic for discussion", and see what happens. > If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive. Oh I'm aware of the stated reasoning, and I: a) reject it on the grounds that it is not consistently applied. If <subreddit x> is banned because of <rule y>, but that rule doesn't apply everywhere, then it wasn't actually banned because of <rule y>, because a "selectively enforced" rule is not really a rule. They're trying to use unemotional logical reason to explain their actions, but they are not acting logically. b) don't believe them, in part because the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech, which is most definitely a change from the original culture and spirit. > As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. I'm not at all aware of the details of this but I would like to learn - is this common knowledge? > Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete. I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background. Or, if you want to exercise your right (as the platform owner) to completely control all content, then simply state that outright. Or don't, and just continue to subtly move in that direction without discussing it, and see what happens, which I'd argue is exactly what has happened here. What happens is, your users (a significant portion at least) revolt, the story ends up being splashed through mainstream media including financial news, and before too long someone "resigns", "because their growth targets were inconsistent with management". (Do you believe that one also?)