a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Remember the Ayyyyyyylmao: Censorship, Fat-Shaming and the Reddit Revolt




jleopold  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

But it was so far from the only subreddit harassing people.

low_ho_fosho  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

When you have alternative websites to use, like Hubski, like 4chan, 8chan, voat.co, youtube, facebook, the ability to create your own website, any complaints about "censorship" just come off as silly and melodramatic. Reddit doesn't have a monopoly on discussion on the internet. Us being here is proof of that.

tacocat  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The average American is so far removed from anything approaching censorship that I assume anyone who uses that word online is some ignorant child

jleopold  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Can those who have never experienced a famine not say they're hungry?

tacocat  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That depends on whether you have a functional understanding of the difference between using someone else's platform to say whatever you want and eating food. In this case, no, what you said has no correlation to what I said about free speech in America, so no. The answer is no by virtue of irrelevance. I may be entitled to food but I'm not entitled to go to any restaurant , eat for free, then kick the server in the dick.

jleopold  ·  3207 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Wow. I meant it as an analogy. Simply because one has never experienced the full horrors of a problem doesn't mean one is entirely ignorant of the issue overall. In the same way that people who have never been in a famine can say they're hungry, Americans can be aware of, and complain about, censorship. The issue to me isn't legal. Of course they were well within their legal rights. It's a moral issue that has a tendacy over the past couple of days to be overly simplfied. The number of players ibvovled stretches well beyond just /r/fatpeoplehate and Pao, the issues go beyond just fat shaming and political correctness, and the history of the company and the users. For me, the main issues were that (1) the company had previously expressed that it wouldn't do exactly this i.e. outright banning entire subreddits that appeared to be following the site wide rules and (2) that subreddits that even sounded like they had a similar goal were also banned, while subreddits advocating far worse ideologies and illegal activities. Besides, censorship is not something that can only be implemented under strong-arm regimes. Any community or organization anc partake in censorship, including the state (of course), academia, and, as in this instance, a company.

Quatrarius  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

But it was still harassing people. Just because other people do it doesn't mean that it's okay.

jleopold  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

And I guess I'd say the same about censorship.

user-inactivated  ·  3208 days ago  ·  link  ·  

They own and control the site. They're allowed to dictate the terms of use. If I ever had my own site, I'd have a long list of rules. No harassing, no spamming, no hate speech, no obscene images, on and on and on. I'm all for free speech, but I'd not allow a single bit of that on my site. Know why? Cause I don't want to have to hassle with the eventual consequences.

I don't have a problem in the slightest with Reddit banning those subreddits. If it was my company, I'd ban more subreddits than that. That's not what I'm upset with them about though. The whole place seems to have become one giant corporate shill. That's something I can't support.

nothingleftinside  ·  3207 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think they partly made the decision about those five subs because of the volume of reports, how egregious the transgressions were, and the fact that the mods of those subs were not doing anything to stop or slow it- in some instances even encouraging it.