5 ms·

I do not think people would be pissed about reddit enforcing the bans if they did not market themselves as a bastion of free speech on the internet. It was not

by pavanky 11y ago

I do not think people would be pissed about reddit enforcing the bans if they did not market themselves as a bastion of free speech on the internet. It was not just Yishan who did it. Redditors even created a new sub[1] showing all instances where someone belonging to reddit has said or implied that they are for free speech on the internet. People who are pissed are angry because it looks and sounds like bait and switch. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/BoFS http://www.reddit.com/r/BoFS

austenallred 11y ago
Absolutely. Very few are sad to see that /r/coontown is going to be banned; they're frustrated because the goalposts are moving and they don't know where they will end up. Usually the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but if a company says "our standard is and always will be 1" and then comes out later and says "our standard is 2," it's hard to believe.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Well the real problem is that they are at 4 or 5 now. Slippery slope may be a fallacy, but when you look up and see that you've been going down a slide, the intelligent thing to do is to assume you are, in fact, on a slide.
differentView 11y ago
They should ask for a refund.
- chc 11y ago
  Unfortunately, no one can refund time.
- maaku 11y ago
  Har har har. But in all seriousness Reddit become the phenomenon it is because of its users, and the many hours, days, weeks, and months they each individually put in to build communities. To create something with value, larger than themselves. Who's going to rufund that time investment?
  - mcphage 11y ago
    > Who's going to rufund that time investment? Well, what's that time worth? If they can find a site that will pay them all for that time investment, then maybe we could start to attach a value to it.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    The people who invested in /r/coontown and /r/fatpeoplehate don't deserve a refund from Reddit (or anyone else, for that matter). Most of Reddit's users aren't going to find their subreddits of choice interfered with. And honestly, the people who are going to get smacked by this are well capable of forming social connections that transcend Reddit, so they haven't lost all of their investment. But investment of time doesn't in itself guarantee a refund---never does, shouldn't be expected to without a contract in place.
fixermark 11y ago
This is going to sound very Animal Farm, but I'm going to lay it out there because it's the truth of the matter. There's free speech and free speech. Reddit can advocate that it's in favor of free speech while simultaneously banning the sharing of child pornography, bestiality, death threats, and revenge porn. So does Twitter. So does Facebook. So does Google. If there's an argument to be had here, it's an argument about where the line should be drawn between "acceptable" and "never acceptable." Reddit's in favor of moving the line to acquire more interest from the outside world---a world that has generally (read: "in the markets Reddit's funders care about") categorized revenge porn and overt racism to be never acceptable. The existence of the line itself is not in question, and entities that have such a line are not in general accused by reasonable people of standing against free speech.
- ocfx 11y ago
  Child porn, beastiality, death threats, ande revenge porn are illegal, being racist or hating fat people isn't.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    Why are they illegal? Revenge porn specifically? (Follow the train of thought to its conclusion).
  - tripzilch 11y ago
    Twitter, Facebook, Google and Reddit are operating internationally. So either you can draw this distinction by saying "these topics are legal/illegal in most countries", at which point IMO you're back at making a subjective call. OR, you could say they are operating from within the legal framework of the country from where they run their main business. Which is the USA. I'm not even sure whether this can still be said about Google or Facebook, given their Irish/Dutch tax haven constructions (I'm unaware if Reddit and Twitter do this too). But then you have to claim the USA legally has the most free-est speech in the world, the superset of all things considered freedom of speech globally (admittedly, the US has less restrictions on free speech than the Netherlands, where I live), which I don't think is the case actually (though the US' few particular restrictions are quite sensible IMO). I'm quite happy with the fact that we don't (really) have a global encompassing legal framework to define what is and what is not free speech. Even if that means some (nation) states will get it "wrong", it provides us with perspective, hopefully both with examples to avoid, and others to look up to. This makes Freedom of Speech, in the context where it does not pertain to legality within a particular (nation) state, but in the context of transnational businesses like Reddit/FB/G/Twitter/etc, more an ethical consideration rather than a legal one. And I prefer it that way, laws are just The Rules, you need to follow to (say) operate a business (hopefully the Rules work for the greater good of that particular society). But Ethics is the stuff that makes your decisions Right or Wrong. And that is what I'm going to judge a company by, if they operate where I live, but are bound by legal rules from elsewhere.

by pavanky 11y ago

austenallred 11y ago

Absolutely. Very few are sad to see that /r/coontown is going to be banned; they're frustrated because the goalposts are moving and they don't know where they will end up. Usually the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but if a company says "our standard is and always will be 1" and then comes out later and says "our standard is 2," it's hard to believe.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Well the real problem is that they are at 4 or 5 now. Slippery slope may be a fallacy, but when you look up and see that you've been going down a slide, the intelligent thing to do is to assume you are, in fact, on a slide.

differentView 11y ago

They should ask for a refund.

chc 11y ago
Unfortunately, no one can refund time.
maaku 11y ago
Har har har. But in all seriousness Reddit become the phenomenon it is because of its users, and the many hours, days, weeks, and months they each individually put in to build communities. To create something with value, larger than themselves. Who's going to rufund that time investment?
- mcphage 11y ago
  > Who's going to rufund that time investment? Well, what's that time worth? If they can find a site that will pay them all for that time investment, then maybe we could start to attach a value to it.
- fixermark 11y ago
  The people who invested in /r/coontown and /r/fatpeoplehate don't deserve a refund from Reddit (or anyone else, for that matter). Most of Reddit's users aren't going to find their subreddits of choice interfered with. And honestly, the people who are going to get smacked by this are well capable of forming social connections that transcend Reddit, so they haven't lost all of their investment. But investment of time doesn't in itself guarantee a refund---never does, shouldn't be expected to without a contract in place.

fixermark 11y ago

This is going to sound very Animal Farm, but I'm going to lay it out there because it's the truth of the matter. There's free speech and free speech. Reddit can advocate that it's in favor of free speech while simultaneously banning the sharing of child pornography, bestiality, death threats, and revenge porn. So does Twitter. So does Facebook. So does Google. If there's an argument to be had here, it's an argument about where the line should be drawn between "acceptable" and "never acceptable." Reddit's in favor of moving the line to acquire more interest from the outside world---a world that has generally (read: "in the markets Reddit's funders care about") categorized revenge porn and overt racism to be never acceptable. The existence of the line itself is not in question, and entities that have such a line are not in general accused by reasonable people of standing against free speech.

ocfx 11y ago
Child porn, beastiality, death threats, ande revenge porn are illegal, being racist or hating fat people isn't.
- fixermark 11y ago
  Why are they illegal? Revenge porn specifically? (Follow the train of thought to its conclusion).
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Twitter, Facebook, Google and Reddit are operating internationally. So either you can draw this distinction by saying "these topics are legal/illegal in most countries", at which point IMO you're back at making a subjective call. OR, you could say they are operating from within the legal framework of the country from where they run their main business. Which is the USA. I'm not even sure whether this can still be said about Google or Facebook, given their Irish/Dutch tax haven constructions (I'm unaware if Reddit and Twitter do this too). But then you have to claim the USA legally has the most free-est speech in the world, the superset of all things considered freedom of speech globally (admittedly, the US has less restrictions on free speech than the Netherlands, where I live), which I don't think is the case actually (though the US' few particular restrictions are quite sensible IMO). I'm quite happy with the fact that we don't (really) have a global encompassing legal framework to define what is and what is not free speech. Even if that means some (nation) states will get it "wrong", it provides us with perspective, hopefully both with examples to avoid, and others to look up to. This makes Freedom of Speech, in the context where it does not pertain to legality within a particular (nation) state, but in the context of transnational businesses like Reddit/FB/G/Twitter/etc, more an ethical consideration rather than a legal one. And I prefer it that way, laws are just The Rules, you need to follow to (say) operate a business (hopefully the Rules work for the greater good of that particular society). But Ethics is the stuff that makes your decisions Right or Wrong. And that is what I'm going to judge a company by, if they operate where I live, but are bound by legal rules from elsewhere.