Reddit Bans Subreddits about Making Fun of Fat People, Neogaf, and others.

[AgedGrunt]

Wait, I'm actually curious now, what did Tesla do to harm the Feelz Brigade? I admit I don't know a huge amount beyond the normal things you pick up, but how is he politically controversial?

I'll rephrase: people were posting articles about Tesla Motors in r/technology, and they were popular. A Reddit mod went ahead and banned that subject material, and when contested claimed that electric cars were not different enough from petrol cars to qualify them under that subreddit as "technology".

My conjecture is that Tesla Motors itself is politically controversial, and has dealt with a lot of discrimination and harassment to keep it from gaining popularity. Probably not why it happened on Reddit, though, considering how FUBAR r/technology became.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Why do people only freak out about "free speech" on the internet. Folk will rally for FPH on reddit but no one gives a damn if Food Network magazine doesn't print articles about sports cars. How is that not the same thing?

Because both reddit and the internet as a whole was built from the ground up as a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas, thoughts and anything else people could think of so long as it wasn't illegal. A magazine, on the other hand, is not. That's like asking why ABC not advertising R rated movies during prime time is not considered the same as YouTube removing all of the videos which Google feels shouldn't be there, but don't brake any laws or rules of the site. It's a false equivalence of the highest order.

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

All I see from Reddit banning only a handful of subs, even a sub for whale watching, actual whale watching, as in being on a boat and looking at whales (granted though, it came back up).

So I guess Reddit is a-okay with subs like Coontown, SRS, Ghazi, and cutedeadgirls.

Good to know Reddit is a bunch of sickos and racists still. But hey, now people like Boogie wont be harassed, so that's a good thing.

(shhh, it's not like those people from those banned subs will just go other places and keep their harassment going)

Captcha: Hear me roar! would a "dook dook" suffice?

Did you just believe whoever told you about the whale watching one without much investigation? From what I've seen the whale watching posts were 2 years old and the very trustworthy informant left out the newer posts. I wonder if you can guess what those were like.

 

[Zontar]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

Weather intended or not (and given how it was intended as a means for universities to communicate with each other an grew from there when merged with other networks such as DARPA, that's definitely one of its main foundations if not the single largest) during the 90s and early 2000s that is exactly what it was, with no possibility of being interpreted otherwise. It has been, if not in intent, then simply in deed, a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas.

Reddit, on top of that, has explicitly been about freedom of speech since its foundation, and even now continued to claim to be as such, even if recent events show that it is no longer the case.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

Weather intended or not (and given how it was intended as a means for universities to communicate with each other an grew from there when merged with other networks such as DARPA, that's definitely one of its main foundations if not the single largest) during the 90s and early 2000s that is exactly what it was, with no possibility of being interpreted otherwise. It has been, if not in intent, then simply in deed, a bastion of free speech and the propagation and discussion of ideas.

Reddit, on top of that, has explicitly been about freedom of speech since its foundation, and even now continued to claim to be as such, even if recent events show that it is no longer the case.

If not intended then it is foolish of them to be surprised if the Internet does not remain as such. Not to mention their idea of almost absolute free speech is hardly an ideal shared by all.

Also the CEO said they are not trying to be an absolute free-speech platform. Maybe they were before but it does not seem that they are claiming to be such.

 

[Zontar]

[

If not intended then it is foolish of them to be surprised if the Internet does not remain as such. Not to mention their idea of almost absolute free speech is hardly an ideal shared by all.

Also the CEO said they are not trying to be an absolute free-speech platform. Maybe they were before but it does not seem that they are claiming to be such.

No one is claiming that the internet is about absolute free speech, to say so is lunacy. Being a place where it is the foundation of what has been built, however, that the internet very much is. It is because of that freedom that the internet became an instrumental part of modern society, and it is for this reason that Reddit became one of the biggest sites on the web. They are, in the long run, shooting themselves in the foot revenue wise. This isn't going to attract people, and is going to repel others who otherwise would have stayed.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

[

If not intended then it is foolish of them to be surprised if the Internet does not remain as such. Not to mention their idea of almost absolute free speech is hardly an ideal shared by all.

Also the CEO said they are not trying to be an absolute free-speech platform. Maybe they were before but it does not seem that they are claiming to be such.

No one is claiming that the internet is about absolute free speech, to say so is lunacy. Being a place where it is the foundation of what has been built, however, that the internet very much is. It is because of that freedom that the internet became an instrumental part of modern society, and it is for this reason that Reddit became one of the biggest sites on the web. They are, in the long run, shooting themselves in the foot revenue wise. This isn't going to attract people, and is going to repel others who otherwise would have stayed.

I am skeptical of an off the cuff analysis of what made the Internet successful and so important. I rather think easy communication is valuable itself.

 

[Zontar]

I am skeptical of an off the cuff analysis of what made the Internet successful and so important. I rather think easy communication is valuable itself.

But there was already ease of communication. In terms of making communication easier, the internet wasn't as big of a leap as people think on the micro scale, compared to things like phones at the time. It's only once one gets to the macro scale, when talking with people you've never met, like we are here, that the internet starts to have actual change. It's probably the reason why for years the bulk of websites where forums.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I am skeptical of an off the cuff analysis of what made the Internet successful and so important. I rather think easy communication is valuable itself.

But there was already ease of communication. In terms of making communication easier, the internet wasn't as big of a leap as people think on the micro scale, compared to things like phones at the time. It's only once one gets to the macro scale, when talking with people you've never met, like we are here, that the internet starts to have actual change. It's probably the reason why for years the bulk of websites where forums.

Well it's easier when you don't need to call a place to see information about a business for example. Information out there helps make it big, Wikipedia and Google. Websites like Amazon that let you buy stuff. News online instead of a paper limited by geography. Videos. Those make it worthwhile to use the Internet and are not things you can do by phone.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.[/quote]

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Pretty open, not some bastion of absolute free speech. Also noting that the CEO said it wasn't supposed to be...

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.[/quote]

So you're counting the claim that people should argue and not 'hide' as your argument? You have failed to clarify what part is supposed to be the argument. I asked and you haven't confirmed.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Pretty open, not some bastion of absolute free speech. Also noting that the CEO said it wasn't supposed to be...

Free speech isn't a continuum.

Also: which CEO? Pao or the previous guy?

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.

So you're counting the claim that people should argue and not 'hide' as your argument? You have failed to clarify what part is supposed to be the argument. I asked and you haven't confirmed.[/quote]
I don't want to be silenced because people disagree with me. To avoid hypocrisy, I should also not silence others because I find their ideas disagreeable.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do you have any particular evidence the point of Reddit and the Internet as a whole was to be a 'bastion of free speech'?

It sounds like a personal belief that people are disappointed was bunk.

reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules:

Don't spam.

Don't ask for votes or engage in vote manipulation.

Don't post personal information.

No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors.

Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.

Note: 'free speech place'.

Also: to quote the place which shouldn't be named:

There's a canard that we don't understand the right to free speech - how its just a limitation placed on government action. It doesn't obligate Reddit, Kotaku, or whoever to give us space on their platform. It's not that we fail to understand this distinction - we reject it. Free speech is not just a legal right, but a moral right, and an ideal about how society should function. People should debate challenging ideas rather than hiding from them. The recent censorship on Reddit is couched in the rhetoric of "safety", echoing the campus usage of the term, where to be unsafe means to be criticized. This stands in proper Orwellian style in total contrast to being actually physically threatened.

Pretty open, not absolute.

Nowhere in the other rules any limitation on free speech outside 'don't dox or post CP'. These subreddits (FPH and NeoFag, in any case, don't know about the other ones, never went there) were banned for no reason which is in the rules of reddit.

I don't care for shifting the goal post here. I objected to someones idea about 'free speech bastions'.

Yeah. I see you don't care about shifting of goal posts. I gave proof that reddit was to be a place of free speech, which was what you asked.

Pretty open, not some bastion of absolute free speech. Also noting that the CEO said it wasn't supposed to be...

Free speech isn't a continuum.

Also: which CEO? Pao or the previous guy?

Sure it is.

Pao

Snrk. Moral right? Well then argue it instead of merely saying 'free speech'.

That's what I'm doing, right?

No, that's saying what you, presumably, think free speech is about. That is not saying why it ought to be that way. It is a clarification not an argument for why. I mean unless you're trying to count that hyperbole about hiding from arguments as am argument? It is inaccurate to say the least.

That you think it's not a good one (while not rebutting it) doesn't mean I didn't give an argument.

So you're counting the claim that people should argue and not 'hide' as your argument? You have failed to clarify what part is supposed to be the argument. I asked and you haven't confirmed.

I don't want to be silenced because people disagree with me. To avoid hypocrisy, I should also not silence others because I find their ideas disagreeable.

Well that was not an argument you presented to me before so I could hardly have refuted it.

And I'd say that personally I deserve to be silenced if wrong. I do not think people should want to see my ideas if they are junk. I do not think my ideas need to be out there, right or wrong. I've had stupid ideas before and I'd be more than willing to go back and say "Stfu, moron". I do not think society was any better for them. So I think little of the idea of wanting to have ones ideas out there no matter what. So similarly I don't think I need to extend the courtesy to ideas I strongly disagree with. And in this there is no hypocrisy because I do not ask that people refrain from rendering judgement on my ideas. They will judge mine and I will judge theirs. I despise the idea of keeping junk around for fear of rendering judgement.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

And I'd say that personally I deserve to be silenced if wrong.

And how would you know if you were wrong, if you aren't allowed to speak?

I do not think people should want to see my ideas if they are junk. I do not think my ideas need to be out there, right or wrong. I've had stupid ideas before and I'd be more than willing to go back and say "Stfu, moron". I do not think society was any better for them. So I think little of the idea of wanting to have ones ideas out there no matter what. So similarly I don't think I need to extend the courtesy to ideas I strongly disagree with.

What's wrong with saying 'you're wrong, and this is why'?

And in this there is no hypocrisy because I do not ask that people refrain from rendering judgement on my ideas. They will judge mine and I will judge theirs. I despise the idea of keeping junk around for fear of rendering judgement.

When did I speak of not wanting to judge?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

And I'd say that personally I deserve to be silenced if wrong.

And how would you know if you were wrong, if you aren't allowed to speak?

Well for one it does not go from absolute freedom to no talk ever. After all silencing is apparently possibly something as small as being kicked off one site.

Secondly, why would that make reasons against a position vanish too?

I do not think people should want to see my ideas if they are junk. I do not think my ideas need to be out there, right or wrong. I've had stupid ideas before and I'd be more than willing to go back and say "Stfu, moron". I do not think society was any better for them. So I think little of the idea of wanting to have ones ideas out there no matter what. So similarly I don't think I need to extend the courtesy to ideas I strongly disagree with.

What's wrong with saying 'you're wrong, and this is why'?

Quote where I said there was anything wrong with saying that.

And in this there is no hypocrisy because I do not ask that people refrain from rendering judgement on my ideas. They will judge mine and I will judge theirs. I despise the idea of keeping junk around for fear of rendering judgement.

When did I speak of not wanting to judge?

Well then you are fine with judging which ideas are worth keeping around and which are not, then subsequently tossing the trash? I got the impression you would be against judging that.

 

[SecondPrize]

If that's what they were doing then it's simple matter to post archives of it.

Only necessary if you have the belief that nobody would do this type of shit on a board like that. Since this very thing has happened to myself and to a few different friends on different boards like these, I'd be more surprised if they didn't participate in it.

No, it's only necessary if you ban a board for doing it.