4 ms·

> "How in the world does Huffman think using something so vague as an actual punishable rule will turn out well?" Because it is the only tenable position. As m

> "How in the world does Huffman think using something so vague as an actual punishable rule will turn out well?" Because it is the only tenable position. As much as we want it to exist, there is not a set of hard, bright-line rules possible for governing literally all possible topics of discussion in all contexts in all communities. The expectation that we can make simple, universal rules and have it succeed is part of the problem. Governance is unavoidably complex and resistant to simplistic applications of ideology, in many places its rules must necessarily be vague because its reach is vast and the rule's interactions with the community is hard to predict. Room must be preserved for in-context judgment. > "I feel like voat.co is going to see a very huge increase in numbers during the next few months." Excellent. I can't wait, so long as voat's traffic increase is coupled with a commensurate decrease in reddit traffic from the same people ;)

zxcvcxz 11y ago
>I can't wait, so long as voat's traffic increase is coupled with a commensurate decrease in reddit traffic from the same people Really? Reddit seems to have even more racists and sexists since they all supposedly "left" for voat. But hey.. if that's what you like.
Pyxl101 11y ago
>> "How in the world does Huffman think using something so vague as an actual punishable rule will turn out well?" > Because it is the only tenable position. Is it not tenable to avoid taking a specific position as a website individually, and to simply comply with the laws of the broader society? NearlyFreeSpeech.net seems to have been taking this stance successfully for years, for example. It would not allow them to dodge criticism, since plenty of people wish to manipulate Reddit and other Internet sites into implementing or achieving whatever social objective they have in mind, but it seems as though it ought to be tenable while simplifying the issue and putting it to rest.
- zamalek 11y ago
  > to simply comply with the laws of the broader society That's about as clear cut as it's going to get, agreed. As originally suggested there are really no other reasons Reddit has this rule other than "making scary/ugly things go away." Regardless of whether it's for advertising or personal closed mindedness on behalf of the admins/staff.

zxcvcxz 11y ago

>I can't wait, so long as voat's traffic increase is coupled with a commensurate decrease in reddit traffic from the same people Really? Reddit seems to have even more racists and sexists since they all supposedly "left" for voat. But hey.. if that's what you like.

Pyxl101 11y ago

>> "How in the world does Huffman think using something so vague as an actual punishable rule will turn out well?" > Because it is the only tenable position. Is it not tenable to avoid taking a specific position as a website individually, and to simply comply with the laws of the broader society? NearlyFreeSpeech.net seems to have been taking this stance successfully for years, for example. It would not allow them to dodge criticism, since plenty of people wish to manipulate Reddit and other Internet sites into implementing or achieving whatever social objective they have in mind, but it seems as though it ought to be tenable while simplifying the issue and putting it to rest.

zamalek 11y ago
> to simply comply with the laws of the broader society That's about as clear cut as it's going to get, agreed. As originally suggested there are really no other reasons Reddit has this rule other than "making scary/ugly things go away." Regardless of whether it's for advertising or personal closed mindedness on behalf of the admins/staff.