Reddit turns political in regards with censorship

[ARikozuM]

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Reddits Admin layer is rather heavily compromised. Cash, threats and a few NSL letters later, and you can expect Reddit to tow the exact same political/ideological line as the rest of Silicon Valley. Descent from that line will be crushed, but they can't be too obvious about it.

 

Minus LinkedIn removing people that other websites removed in obvious group collusion activities. 

Just letting you know that it's "dissent", not "descent". 

 

I'd like to add that having two or three fundamental groups only serves to have them vying for power. The only thing we can hope for is that someone makes a website that does not moderate for different beliefs. It's easy to see social engineering at play these days.

[Underwrought]

This surprises people?  LOL.  Reddit(main sub's) has been a far left enclave for a while that has been censoring content.

 

And the South Africa situation is super crazy not for what may or may not be going on there, but the reaction from the left to try and shut down ANY discussion of it at all costs.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

They don't like The_Donald. They don't have a good reason to convince everyone to get rid of it, so they do what they feel like and count on censorship saving them from their lack of reasoning.

 

Censorship is all that saves them when they have no answer and no argument. It's a general problem on all kinds of websites, particularly popular ones like Reddit, Quora, YouTube, et cetera. You can read through every answer of a tempting question like this one and look at the vast majority of answers parroting the same lazy strawman where they reframe concerns about freedom of expression as a purely constitutional 1A issue so they can tell you all about how the constitution doesn't apply to businesses.

 

It's not intelligent because the strategy is not to be intelligent, or win people over. It's to do whatever you want anyway and shut down all who oppose or disagree with you, and then you win.

And that's what concerns me: I understand if people don't like T_D; I know a lot of people here don't, and it's definitely not for everyone. BUT, to me anyway, Reddit isn't in the right for intentionally going out of their way to censor a subreddit because "we don't like it", especially when the subreddit tries to follow the Reddit guidelines.

 

It's the very same thing for me concerning Alex Jones: I understand if many don't like him, he's not for everyone, BUT them banning someone not only as firebrand as Infowars but as perplexing as Alex Jones doesn't bode well for them when they didn't do anything particularly wrong. The funny thing about it is that it seems like it's backfired on them; Infowars' BitChute channel has grown quite a bit and the viewership of their radio shows has gone up.

[Chett_Manly]

There is a lot of people on Reddit, and the company itself, who stood up for net neutrality, yet while they demand that ISPs treat all content coming across their networks neutrally and fairly, here they are taking it upon themselves to censor content they dislike, to remove people they disagree with. They think Comcast should have to carry The New York Times, yet they should not have to allow a news post they dislike. I find it highly hypocritical.

 

The internet, social media, is a space people use to discuss things publicly. We should have the same rights in it as the public space in the physical world. We should not allow a handful of corporations that are practical monopolies to dictate what is acceptable conversation. 

[airdeano]

hummm, i wonder if there were a way to make your own type of forum/site/chatboard, host it and allow it to be public like other popular sites?

i'm sure they do not own the sole-rights to do such practices. sneaky little s**ts.

 

if only these walled-gardens didn't have a lock on societal evolution with patents, ideas, or planning. oh wait, do they have no patent rights? any design rights?

you mean someone could make their own platform and market it to others in a different light that those other disagreeable places do?

 

there is prolly so much 'outrage' that a band of entrepreneurs could set-forth and design similar platforms that replicates those views but the opposite to best suit one's taste.

huh? so lambasting and complaining how you are not getting a fulfillment requirement from someone else's design work and they are 'stifling' your voice. those bastards!

instead you'd rather complain and scoff about other's public works than create your own. keyboard away.. 

[Amazonsucks]

3 hours ago, CUDAcores89 said:

Reddit is a private company and they may do as they please with their platform. 

 

What is right or wrong to you isn't up to you, that's reddit's job.

 

If you don't agree with reddit, don't use it. Simple as that.

What about the fact that people are considering twitter, reddit, and other services like them as a public forum?

 

Certain factions USUALLY hate the idea of private entities saying what they will or wont do, like that wedding cake that went to the supreme court. Then when the tables are turned, they cry about how its a private company, including publically traded companies whose function is that of a public forum.

 

They only seem to like private entities to have autonomy when it suits their agenda. Refuse to bake a cake and they claim its wrong, silence the other side and its suddenly "its a private company, they can do whatever they want!"

 

As @Chett_Manly said, its funny how hypocritical certain factions are when it comes to issues like censorship of the views they disagree with.

 

"We need net neutrality now because of evil greedy private ownership!"

 

Then in the next breath "well its a private company, dont like it dont use it!"

 

Guess thats what happens when one cant defeat their opponent ideologically: they use hypocritical rules to silence the opposition. These rules apply to one set of people but not to the other.

[Amazonsucks]

19 minutes ago, airdeano said:

hummm, i wonder if there were a way to make your own type of forum/site/chatboard, host it and allow it to be public like other popular sites?

i'm sure they do not own the sole-rights to do such practices. sneaky little s**ts.

 

if only these walled-gardens didn't have a lock on societal evolution with patents, ideas, or planning. oh wait, do they have no patent rights? any design rights?

you mean someone could make their own platform and market it to others in a different light that those other disagreeable places do?

 

there is prolly so much 'outrage' that a band of entrepreneurs could set-forth and design similar platforms that replicates those views but the opposite to best suit one's taste.

huh? so lambasting and complaining how you are not getting a fulfillment requirement from someone else's design work and they are 'stifling' your voice. those bastards!

instead you'd rather complain and scoff about other's public works than create your own. keyboard away.. 

Because entrenched companies like the tech giants never try to stifle newcomers and keep their market cornered through the use of the politicians and special interests they pay billions to in order to wipe out competition.

[Mooshi]

Lol irony...complaining about politics while sourcing a site that also gets wrapped in stupid politics.

[airdeano]

4 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

-snip-

BS, capitalism is the root, politics makes it stupid harder to crack the nut.

 

reddit has 'quashed' how many of these little startups? it's just a glorified BBS (bulletin board system) chatboard from the late 80's early 90's.

 

c'mon, i know it is fashionable to blame richy rich and those old white guys sitting in fancy chairs, but the oil industry mentality of 'control' is over-exaggerated.

IPO startups happen daily, it doesn't take billions to start a new social platform. it takes the billions to maintain it once the idea is realized.

writing code costs nothing, maybe some time proving it works. but it makes that initial spark and then with the proper alignment of entrepreneurs, matures into technology.

 

don't like they way they do business, take your business elsewhere or make your own business. somebody's bound to like the same things you do and support you as well.

[Guest]

I'm following this because of the atrocities in SA. Little bit of an update from the same news company: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12111384

 

Censorship of this sorta stuff is not OK on any means - not when lives are at stake. Those moderators should rethink their lives and I'm not being frank here. 

[Aetheria]

8 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

And that's what concerns me: I understand if people don't like T_D; I know a lot of people here don't, and it's definitely not for everyone. BUT, to me anyway, Reddit isn't in the right for intentionally going out of their way to censor a subreddit because "we don't like it", especially when the subreddit tries to follow the Reddit guidelines.

I'm not sure you could have picked a worse example, though. T_D bans dissenting users at the drop of a hat, and is a huge circlejerk. If it organically floats to the top, reddit as a whole quickly becomes even more useless. It's like when Digg went general news and suddenly fucking UFO and Ron Paul shit dominated the whole site. Reddit's homepage needs more curation, not less. Just viewed the homepage logged out, and there was one anti-Trump meme but about 30 shitposty/memey screenshots of phones and twitter which are practically unintelligible. The whole site has become a black hole of moronic garbage which would barely pass muster on facebook, and it won't be fixed with anything less than hand-picking what appears on that homepage.

[mr moose]

I read a really good research paper on the internet's effect on people some time ago.  If I can find it I'll post it,  basically they determined that all internet services that provide a social/reciprocating environment for knowledge nearly always tend to favor a specific narrative that slowly grows to be self motivating. It doesn't mater if that narrative was intentionally seeded or the result of a "personal opinion".  It's like that condition in human interaction that causes a smaller misunderstanding to become commonly repeated as a fact  (E.G early Christians thought the world was flat and all AMD CPUs run slow and hot). 

 

I personally avoid discussing issues like the one in the OP, only because they require the time and effort to fully appreciate and I don't think much of the internet has that,  its mostly has self important opinions that deteriorate into arguments that go no where.

 

[Okjoek]

"This topic has a possible tendency to turn political."

 

Anyway I feel like Reddit's a great forum for communication, but it seems like everyone there has a chip on their shoulder about something.

[Aetheria]

15 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

but it seems like everyone there has a chip on their shoulder about something.

They want to win a popularity contest. It's horrible, you post a comment along the lines of "I like the colour purple", and you'll get replies along the lines of "You're insulting all the orange fans in the thread and I highly suspect you're a psycho who murders hitchhikers". It's like everyone is running for office and you're their opponent, where every discussion becomes an attempt to start a dogpile.

[Underwrought]

8 hours ago, airdeano said:

hummm, i wonder if there were a way to make your own type of forum/site/chatboard, host it and allow it to be public like other popular sites?

i'm sure they do not own the sole-rights to do such practices. sneaky little s**ts.

 

if only these walled-gardens didn't have a lock on societal evolution with patents, ideas, or planning. oh wait, do they have no patent rights? any design rights?

you mean someone could make their own platform and market it to others in a different light that those other disagreeable places do?

 

there is prolly so much 'outrage' that a band of entrepreneurs could set-forth and design similar platforms that replicates those views but the opposite to best suit one's taste.

huh? so lambasting and complaining how you are not getting a fulfillment requirement from someone else's design work and they are 'stifling' your voice. those bastards!

instead you'd rather complain and scoff about other's public works than create your own. keyboard away.. 

wow so edgy!  I wish any of us had actually ever thought of any of those things.  Yeehaw im going to go out and create my own forum right now!  Oh wait what's that, it has nothing to do with any of that you say?  Oh you just created a straw man argument because you had nothing real to contribute to the conversation you say?

 

The problem has nothing to do with them having the right to control content as they see fit as it relates to them owning their platform, and EVERYTHING to do with pretending to be a social hub where EVERYONE can contribute and post.  Clearly not EVERYONE can and they are hypocrites.  And we the 'internet people' get to control what is said and done too, with the power of our wallets and choosing to use a service.  So its not, "dont like our services then take a hike", its WE don't like YOUR services were outta here with our advertising power and ability for you to get paid.

[TacoSenpai]

4 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

They tried that already, and it didn't work out for them because the internet's backbone is comprised of services from a handful of major companies (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, ...). The monopolisation of resources on the internet is a very serious and potentially grave concern for everyone, because it runs so much deeper than Reddit makes apparent.

This is what I find more concerning than anything else.  Its easy to say well don't buy or use their services if you don't agree with them or are prohibited from using their services.  Ok I absolutely agree to an extent but then before you know it when nearly all if not most of the infrastructure needed to connect or get on the internet and have a presence is controlled by them then before you know it Silicon Valley CEO so and so is up on their high horse saying they won't license you server software or a few loud mouths take to the ISPs on twitter and say how they should deny you service...because they don't agree with you.  So what's your alternative then? Literally rebuild the entire internet and start laying your own wires all over again and come up with the massive amount of funds from where?

 

 

That being said I do think now more than ever you are seeing alternatives begin to rise up and grow to be the exact opposite of what the Silicon Valley Oligarchy are.  Whether they succeed in the long-term or are stifled by the powers that be remains to be seen.

 

For video sharing you have bitchute.com which has been adding features and getting funded to develop even more quite rapidly.  Also the concept of P2P to reduce costs of running it is also very interesting.  Not to mention it gives the option to tip creators directly either with monetary funds or cryptocurrency. 

For social media you have minds.com which shows you what you're subscribed to with little to no algorithmic change and they are pushing blockchain heavily.

Email you have various encrypted services popping up such as Tutanota and ProtonMail that offer both paid and free versions.

Search Engine wise you have duckduckgo which is pure simple search without tracking and they even have a quick start page.

 

I for one have a minds.com account and use protonmail as my primary email even started to move some of my videos to bitchute and set duckduckgo as my default search engine on everything.  I really do hope to see these services succeed as I think competition is long overdue for Silicon Valley and that competition in these critical services can only benefit everyone.  Though I do realize that in the current circumstances it only takes someone or a group of people at Google, Microsoft, Apple, or Facebook etc deciding they want to deny a license to server software or prevent the release of on app on the app store for them to hamper if not outright prevent competition.  

[Sauron]

Reddit generally doesn't moderate subreddits directly, it's up to that subreddit's mods... unless it's about banning the whole subreddit.

 

By the way, I don't think the content of the article is irrelevant to the discussion - if the moderators felt it would spark an unwanted flamewar, which it very well could, they may have decided it wasn't worth the trouble. It's also possible that the user who posted it had a history of making intentionally inflammatory posts. If the article is completely factual and not political, why are you claiming it's removal was of political nature...?

 

The nzherald also looks like the worst of tabloids to me, but that's just my opinion. In general though, if you want unmoderated political discussion you're free to start your own subreddit - just be aware that it will go downhill very quickly.

13 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It's a pretty damn active subreddit, one of the most, so why deny it the attention it obviously gets?

Maybe they're worried it might give the site a bad image.

14 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

You can blame reddit though, they were in a hissy fit over the_donald hitting the front page and made it where that subreddit, among a few others, no longer show up on the front page for you unless you're subscribed to them

That has nothing to do with the post the OP linked.

[Sauron]

59 minutes ago, Underwrought said:

pretending to be a social hub where EVERYONE can contribute and post.  Clearly not EVERYONE can and they are hypocrites.

You're confusing the ability to post and contribute with the ability to post anything. If you feel a subreddit's moderators went overboard then sure, call them out for it and go elsewhere but... that's not against the site's public policy.

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, CUDAcores89 said:

Reddit is a private company and they may do as they please with their platform. 

 

What is right or wrong to you isn't up to you, that's reddit's job.

 

If you don't agree with reddit, don't use it. Simple as that.

I am honestly getting so sick and tired of hearing this completely inane argument.

 

Your argument is basically "as long as something is legal, people shouldn't complain".

Just because it is legal does not mean people should just accept it and stay quiet.

I would recommend you instead of focus on whether or not something is legal, focus on if what is being done is, in your opinion, a virtues, justifiable and morally sound thing to do.

 

Is it ethical to censor news stories about white people being oppressed? If the answer is yes, would it be ethical to censor news stories about people of other races being oppressed, such as blacks?

If the answer to the latter question is no, then question yourself why you have separate rules for what is and isn't allowed based on the color of someone's skin.

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Certain factions USUALLY hate the idea of private entities saying what they will or wont do, like that wedding cake that went to the supreme court. Then when the tables are turned, they cry about how its a private company, including publically traded companies whose function is that of a public forum.

 

They only seem to like private entities to have autonomy when it suits their agenda. Refuse to bake a cake and they claim its wrong, silence the other side and its suddenly "its a private company, they can do whatever they want!"

For those who might be out of the loop on this.

A gay couple went to a bakery in Colorado and order a cake for their gay wedding.

The baker refused to bake the cake because it was their policy to not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, because it "directly goes against" the Bible, but offered them other things such as birthday cakes and biscuits.

The gay couple then sued the bakery for discrimination. The Supreme court ruled not too long ago that the baker had the right to refuse baking the cake, but made clear that it was just a ruling made for this case and this case alone, and it should not be used as presidency.

[PlayStation 2]

4 hours ago, Aetheria said:

I'm not sure you could have picked a worse example, though. T_D bans dissenting users at the drop of a hat, and is a huge circlejerk. If it organically floats to the top, reddit as a whole quickly becomes even more useless. It's like when Digg went general news and suddenly fucking UFO and Ron Paul shit dominated the whole site. Reddit's homepage needs more curation, not less. Just viewed the homepage logged out, and there was one anti-Trump meme but about 30 shitposty/memey screenshots of phones and twitter which are practically unintelligible. The whole site has become a black hole of moronic garbage which would barely pass muster on facebook, and it won't be fixed with anything less than hand-picking what appears on that homepage.

The subreddit calls itself a circlejerk. I'm not sure if someone could've done less research on a subreddit.

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am honestly getting so sick and tired of hearing this completely inane argument.

 

Your argument is basically "as long as something is legal, people shouldn't complain".

Just because it is legal does not mean people should just accept it and stay quiet.

I would recommend you instead of focus on whether or not something is legal, focus on if what is being done is, in your opinion, a virtues, justifiable and morally sound thing to do.

 

Is it ethical to censor news stories about white people being oppressed? If the answer is yes, would it be ethical to censor news stories about people of other races being oppressed, such as blacks?

If the answer to the latter question is no, then question yourself why you have separate rules for what is and isn't allowed based on the color of someone's skin.

The only thing I have a problem with is calling it censorship when it's not. Blurring the meaning of the word censorship is a problem and ends up letting real censorship go unnoticed. Calling wolf too often has never helped anyone.

 

Other than that, by all means, if you don't like it go ahead and complain. I would hold my horses on the "white people being oppressed" part though - do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of farm lands in SA is in the hands of the white minority? Even with a disadvantageous buyout, those people aren't at any risk of starving. A large part of the black majority, on the other hand, lives in poverty and could really use some land to work on.

[Sakkura]

11 hours ago, airdeano said:

hummm, i wonder if there were a way to make your own type of forum/site/chatboard, host it and allow it to be public like other popular sites?

i'm sure they do not own the sole-rights to do such practices. sneaky little s**ts.

 

if only these walled-gardens didn't have a lock on societal evolution with patents, ideas, or planning. oh wait, do they have no patent rights? any design rights?

you mean someone could make their own platform and market it to others in a different light that those other disagreeable places do?

 

there is prolly so much 'outrage' that a band of entrepreneurs could set-forth and design similar platforms that replicates those views but the opposite to best suit one's taste.

huh? so lambasting and complaining how you are not getting a fulfillment requirement from someone else's design work and they are 'stifling' your voice. those bastards!

instead you'd rather complain and scoff about other's public works than create your own. keyboard away.. 

That alternative version of Reddit already exists anyway, it's called Voat.

 

Predictably, it's crammed full of Nazis. Literally the top post on the front page right now has "mudshark" in the title.

 

I don't really see why people are up in arms about Reddit not wanting to cater to Nazis. Comparisons to the gay wedding cake are completely off base as being gay is something you're born with. Being a Nazi is a political stance that can (and should) change.

[Aetheria]

12 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

The subreddit calls itself a circlejerk. I'm not sure if someone could've done less research on a subreddit.

I'm not sure what your point is. It's politically toxic, vapid (by their own admission, apparently), and in no way an open forum, why shouldn't reddit's management prevent that from showing up on the generic homepage?

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The only thing I have a problem with is calling it censorship when it's not. Blurring the meaning of the word censorship is a problem and ends up letting real censorship go unnoticed. Calling wolf too often has never helped anyone.

I don't see how this isn't censorship though.

 

The oxford dictionary defines censorship as:

Quote

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

 

I am not sure why you don't believe this is censorship.

It is a common misconception that censorship is only when a government does it. However, there is nothing in the definition that states that. I think that misconception comes from the first amendment, which only applies when congress prohibits freedom of expression.

 

All suppression of ideas, speech, writing etc is censorship. However, not all censorship goes against the first amendment.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Other than that, by all means, if you don't like it go ahead and complain. I would hold my horses on the "white people being oppressed" part though - do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of farm lands in SA is in the hands of the white minority? Even with a disadvantageous buyout, those people aren't at any risk of starving. A large part of the black majority, on the other hand, lives in poverty and could really use some land to work on.

Please don't tell me that you're going to make the argument that the white people who are having their property seized in SA "deserve it".

At best that is an argument that two wrongs somehow makes a right, which it doesn't.

At worst it is straight up racism.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That alternative version of Reddit already exists anyway, it's called Voat.

 

Predictably, it's crammed full of Nazis. Literally the top post on the front page right now has "mudshark" in the title.

 

I don't really see why people are up in arms about Reddit not wanting to cater to Nazis. Comparisons to the gay wedding cake are completely off base as being gay is something you're born with. Being a Nazi is a political stance that can (and should) change.

No idea why you are bringing up nazism. Nothing about this has anything to do with nazis.

Someone posted a link to a news story that white farm-owners in south africa are having their property seized, and that person was banned for posting that link. On top of that, several other people who posted the same news story had their threads removed, posts deleted, banned, etc.

Again, nothing to do with nazis.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Aetheria said:

I'm not sure what your point is. It's politically toxic, vapid (by their own admission, apparently), and in no way an open forum, why shouldn't reddit's management prevent that from showing up on the generic homepage?

If you ask me, who dislikes T_D a lot and think it's cancer, creating special rules and regulations to prevent certain types of discussion from appearing on the front page goes against the democratic system Reddit has.

The idea of Reddit, "the front page of the Internet", is that popular content rise to the top. However, in the case of T_D it won't get to the front page no matter how popular it is. It undermines the system Reddit supposedly has.

 

I am in no way saying that Reddit aren't allowed to make sure T_D posts doesn't show up on the front page, nor am I saying that the website is worse because of it.

However, what I am saying is that it to me goes against what I perceive Reddit to be. A place where popular content shows up. It is in actuality a place where certain types of popular content shows up, and what that "certain type" is depends on what the administrators like.

 

If you want a comparison, it's kind of like if LinusTechTips would implement a system where posts about AMD would never be on the first page of any of the subforums.

It is their right to do so, but I would think it wasn't the right thing to do.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Aetheria said:

I'm not sure what your point is. It's politically toxic, vapid (by their own admission, apparently), and in no way an open forum, why shouldn't reddit's management prevent that from showing up on the generic homepage?

Because they also allow r/news, r/worldnews and r/politics to show up. There's been many threads on each of them which went against the grain of their political tolerances that the moderators fucked around with and eventually locked.