rhaksw

27 ms·

211.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I'm happy to do it, I've learned a ton about speech, myself, and society along the way. I also enjoy getting feedback, positive or negative, so please shoot me a note if you're thinking anything either here, via the address l
212.
by rhaksw 4y ago
There are a lot of fun things you find when you start working on this. Virtually nobody else is doing it because they all think it's wrong without realizing it's the right thing to do. For example, you could reverse engineer autom
213.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Looks like libreddit links to another site whose differences I mentioned here [1]. See here for example [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33478793 [2] https://libreddit.spike.codes/r/meirl&#
214.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> When I use services like Reveddit I often notice [removed too quickly] where I'm guessing moderators get to it before the scraper can archive it. What type of timeframe do you guys typically work with before it gets removed? Any i
215.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I see you've added a modal that explains how to get it to work with FF. My bad, I think I used Unddit in the past which didn't say this. I'll use Reveddit instead. No worries. I'll just share the differences with Un
216.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I'm not using reddit anymore anyway. Secretive removals happen on all of the platforms (see 5:50 in the talk [1]). Plus, the groups who are brainwashed by it are large enough to have an impact in the real world. I don't think
217.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Blocking trackers is a feature not a bug. I didn't say it was a bug, I said the list of websites broken by that feature are tracked in a bug.
218.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I see. I don't see a specific mention about the link itself in the rules for Show HN. I also think customs are less fixed than rules and don't need to be moderated. https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
219.
by rhaksw 4y ago
My focus has always been to reveal secretive removals to authors, and Reveddit has never shown author-deleted body text, https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#user-deleted
220.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I love reveddit.com, it's hilarious to look at the typical r/science post and see 60%+ of comments removed on average (the 'controversial' ones go 75%+). Yeah I mention r/science at 7:00 in the linked video. &g
221.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Just tested this on my 15-year-old account and it's really well executed. Great work! Thanks! > The main link here should be to reveddit, not the video at cantsayanything as it is now. I intended to share the video because it&#
222.
Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation(cantsayanything.win)
180 points by rhaksw 4y ago|185 comments
223.
Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation(cantsayanything.win)
2 points by rhaksw 4y ago|0 comments
224.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I didn't see any discussion of shadow moderation, so here's my 2c. It's wrong, let's get rid of it: https://cantsayanything.win/2022-10-transparent-moderation/
225.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Yeah, Substack is something new and seems to be gaining traction. I wonder if its success has contributed at all to Reddit's CEO saying he wants users to earn money, > Spez - I want our users, user-users and moderator users, to make
226.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> You didn't actually answer my request for evidence, though I agree with the NYT that censorship is rooted in fear [1]. Evidence is aplenty of the benefits of open discourse. In real-world places where open discourse is encouraged,
227.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> And speakers show up to be shouted down. That's right. It can be a political win for you when people don't let you speak. The audience wants to hear both sides. Anyone who acts censoriously comes off as afraid of words, as if
228.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I owe you an apology. For what? I don't think we conversed yet in this thread. > I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true. I can see that the context changed the meanin
229.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence. > For my part, I’v
230.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Thanks, I did so in this case, though in general I'm wary of that button. The system could count against me if I "vouch" for something that people later downvote. We don't knowfor sure what happens because they don'
231.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I'm (still) strongly sympathetic to Baldwin's point of view, but the GP also has a valid point, in that liars have gained most of the benefit of the civil-libertarian point of view since the rise of the Internet. These days,
232.
by rhaksw 4y ago
That's not what I wrote. I said he was already a popular figure whose views should be publicly refuted. The fact that he later became a presidential contender isn't Yale's fault, but rather the unfortunate result of a lack o
233.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is possible to have an open and civil debate with them? Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, said this [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there
234.
by rhaksw 4y ago
It was a classic argument made during his lifetime, from the 1910s until 1981 when that video was made.
235.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I don't find it particularly convincing Can you elaborate on what you find unconvincing about appeals to open discourse? Are you saying you think censorship is more effective?
236.
by rhaksw 4y ago
So, I like the voting system on social media because it surfaces good comments. But I don't like when the vote ranks stifle good retorts, which is what has now happened here. Logged out users won't see this entire thread of replie
237.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I wasn't comparing academia to nazis. Rather, I was saying that even in the most extreme situations e.g. nazis and communists, open and civil discourse is still better than censorship. It's also worth noting that FIRE was expres
238.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. Precisely. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board from 1991-2008, argues that censorship helped the Nazis [1] > "In the Weimar Republic there were laws very similar to
239.
by rhaksw 4y ago
The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work . Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [1], > Host: "What possible reason is t
240.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways.

More ›