5 ms·

> “Hate is an unpleasant side-effect of hosting unfettered free speech in exactly the same way that cancer is an unpleasant side-effect of selling cigarettes.”

> “Hate is an unpleasant side-effect of hosting unfettered free speech in exactly the same way that cancer is an unpleasant side-effect of selling cigarettes.” What did he mean by that? They're both side effects...is he saying that the downsides of free speech outweight the benefits, as many would agree is the case with cigarettes?

threeseed 11y ago
I assume he is referring to unfettered free speech. In most countries there is no such thing as true free speech. There are defamation, anti-racism and anti hate laws that protect individuals and minorities. Getting rid of those so you can have true free speech arguably does nothing other than invite and support hatred which I assume is the point he is making.
Rusky 11y ago
His biggest point is that Reddit is (trying) profiting from hosting that speech and thus the downsides of supporting Reddit outweigh the benefits. Not necessarily free speech in general.
potatolicious 11y ago
> "is he saying that the downsides of free speech outweight the benefits" The downsides of no-holds-barred, absolutist free speech outweigh the benefits - the qualification is important. The proof is readily examinable from the site. The subreddits with greater representation (beyond young, white, and male) are all heavily moderated around-the-clock - e.g.,: askhistorians, iAMA, askscience. They are also unsurprisingly the only subreddits that aren't actively embarrassing when exposed to the outside world. Meanwhile the laissez-faire subreddits are absolute cesspools in the comments - e.g.,: worldnews, videos, funny... The white supremacist subreddits routinely raid the comment sections of posts (particularly anything relating to black men) with impunity. Reddit isn't just a good example of what happens when unfettered free speech is prioritized above the safety of individual users, it's also a good example of what happens when there is active community leadership and the willingness to shut down the most toxic members of a community. It shows brilliantly the results of years of completely unrestrained free speech vs. moderated speech, and I think the results speak for themselves. The problem is IMO twofold: - Reddit the corporation profits (or at least tries to) off of the hate speech that, while largely practiced by only a small minority of the userbase, is commonly found throughout its site, not just the dark corners. - The existence of these hate communities on Reddit without rebuke, censure, or in fact any consequence, creates more work for the already-overworked and unpaid moderators. White supremacist communities (among other hate communities on Reddit) are emboldened to post their shit far and wide, well beyond the confines of their own communities. Reddit's tolerant attitude towards hate groups on its site actively makes the site worse for everyone else, and massively increases the workload of unpaid volunteers who are already frustrated at poor tools and lack of support from site owners. As a side note: I don't think there's any disagreement that moderation is fraught with dangers, and that drawing the line between acceptable content vs. unacceptable content will be exceedingly difficult in many cases. Reddit's response to this difficulty so far has been to - instead of tackling a very hard problem - absolve themselves of doing anything, an attitude that IMO has caused great harm to itself and its users.

threeseed 11y ago

I assume he is referring to unfettered free speech. In most countries there is no such thing as true free speech. There are defamation, anti-racism and anti hate laws that protect individuals and minorities. Getting rid of those so you can have true free speech arguably does nothing other than invite and support hatred which I assume is the point he is making.

Rusky 11y ago

His biggest point is that Reddit is (trying) profiting from hosting that speech and thus the downsides of supporting Reddit outweigh the benefits. Not necessarily free speech in general.

potatolicious 11y ago

> "is he saying that the downsides of free speech outweight the benefits" The downsides of no-holds-barred, absolutist free speech outweigh the benefits - the qualification is important. The proof is readily examinable from the site. The subreddits with greater representation (beyond young, white, and male) are all heavily moderated around-the-clock - e.g.,: askhistorians, iAMA, askscience. They are also unsurprisingly the only subreddits that aren't actively embarrassing when exposed to the outside world. Meanwhile the laissez-faire subreddits are absolute cesspools in the comments - e.g.,: worldnews, videos, funny... The white supremacist subreddits routinely raid the comment sections of posts (particularly anything relating to black men) with impunity. Reddit isn't just a good example of what happens when unfettered free speech is prioritized above the safety of individual users, it's also a good example of what happens when there is active community leadership and the willingness to shut down the most toxic members of a community. It shows brilliantly the results of years of completely unrestrained free speech vs. moderated speech, and I think the results speak for themselves. The problem is IMO twofold: - Reddit the corporation profits (or at least tries to) off of the hate speech that, while largely practiced by only a small minority of the userbase, is commonly found throughout its site, not just the dark corners. - The existence of these hate communities on Reddit without rebuke, censure, or in fact any consequence, creates more work for the already-overworked and unpaid moderators. White supremacist communities (among other hate communities on Reddit) are emboldened to post their shit far and wide, well beyond the confines of their own communities. Reddit's tolerant attitude towards hate groups on its site actively makes the site worse for everyone else, and massively increases the workload of unpaid volunteers who are already frustrated at poor tools and lack of support from site owners. As a side note: I don't think there's any disagreement that moderation is fraught with dangers, and that drawing the line between acceptable content vs. unacceptable content will be exceedingly difficult in many cases. Reddit's response to this difficulty so far has been to - instead of tackling a very hard problem - absolve themselves of doing anything, an attitude that IMO has caused great harm to itself and its users.