3 ms·

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 ca

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.

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.