followed tags: 0
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 0
member for: 2336 days
Once again, I'll need specific examples of brigading before I'll accept that. As far as the admins of imgur go, it looks like they were making fun of them on their own subreddit. As far as users going to other subreddits and expressing their opinion, that is their right. It's the right of others to downvote them if they want to or for mods to enforce subreddit or site-wide rules.
Look, to be honest, I'm not sure why you're supporting out-right censorship. Even if Reddit wasn't built around the principle of free speech, this is a huge violation of the sovereignty of subreddits. In the past, subreddits have fought against each other with brigades and hate, but they never completely dissolved unless they were illegal. I've seen moderation coups and admin sponsored civil war, but unless it was illegal, the subreddit itself was bound to stay.
Without specific examples, I can't really have an opinion on whether or not the popularity of those posts were the result of brigading by any specific subreddit, or whether it was just due to regular upvotes. Usually bots will point out in the comments when a post has been linked to in another subreddit. Always happens for posts linked to by SRD and such.
If a user is following another user around and commenting on everything they do, the solution there is to ban a user, not a subreddit. Targeting a user for parody is something I believe should be allowed. For example, if someone wants to target President Bush and imply he's a sexual deviant of some sort, I believe that they should be allowed to. I don't believe they should be able to call his phone at all hours of the day and night to personally harass him, but in public places and in their own forums, they should be able to lampoon as much as they like.
Why is it acceptable to ban subreddits in the name of harassment? Do you have examples of any brigading? Other subreddits brigade all the time, and it's not that big of a deal. SRS used to do it all the time, and their subreddit is just fine.
I've always had the idea that Reddit was a place where you could say anything, as long as it wasn't illegal. You might get downvoted to oblivion, but you could still say what you wanted to say. While the subreddit they banned was distasteful and cruel, it wasn't illegal.
When free speech is shuttered because people are offended by what they're hearing, it just seems wrong to me. In addition, because that subreddit existed, that sort of attitude was basically confined there. It was a very poor decision to ban it in my opinion.
So, what do you think about this whole debacle? Are you acquainted with what happened?
Most of the people are going to voat.co it seems. Hubski is a bit too different than Reddit for most users' liking, so I expect the migration to here to be small.
Hey there! I'm a computer embedded engineering technology student, and I enjoy playing games like Terraria and Don't Starve. Old and new here. Have had an account since forever, but never used it (not many people around).
Dang... I used to love Reddit because it was a good way to keep in touch with the sentiment of the internet. I almost always browsed /r/all where I could see the most popular posts, free from filters or bias.
Now I can't rely on Reddit to give me an unbiased view. I could accept when subreddits sharing illegal content were banned. I wouldn't have wanted redditors to end up in prison. But these new policies Reddit is enforcing... I don't agree with most of what FPH did, but they weren't doing anything illegal. It would have been so easy for people to filter out FPH on /r/all with RES.
Instead they compromised the integrity of the site and went with the nuclear option. Unfortunate.
China's allowing foreign internet companies to host internet service there it looks like, so who knows, it might be ok?
In the USA, it seems like the large news sources have little journalistic integrity. I wonder if this has been a problem in the past, or if there was ever a period when there were good sources of news. If there were, I want to know if it was because news outlets kept the other news outlets in check. If one source got it wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if the other outlets made a big deal about. It doesn't seem like there's much fact checking going on between the outlets in the present, leaving the populace (who don't have the resources) to verify the truth.
Whoops, I must have missed your earlier link to his work. Perhaps my ability to make relationships has been crippled both inside and outside the sphere of the internet, but to me it doesn't make a lot of difference. All I know is my perspective, I've never experienced anything else. While you may find that regrettable, I see no difference at all. My relationships feel deep and meaningful to me, so why should I seek something different?