Reddit turns political in regards with censorship

[Sakkura]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

Because that's what Reddit would be without this kind of "censorship." See Voat for evidence.

 

The South Africa story is being twisted by right-wing tabloids, which are not Nazis, but you can be sure some of the people posting that kind of content on social media have political affiliations even further to the right.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Because that's what Reddit would be without this kind of "censorship." See Voat for evidence.

I am not sure I agree that if stories going against the left-wing narrative were allowed, that Reddit would become a nazi website like Voat.

 

You can point to Voat as an example but the reason why Voat is the way it is, is because it's populated by people who were forced off sites like Reddit because of their views.

If left-leaning people were forced off Reddit and created a new website, then that website would be full of people from the left. That's just common sense.

 

The fewer platforms a certain group of people have to express their ideas on, the more concentrated they become.

 

 

Basically, different websites cater to different people, and I don't think there is any evidence that if left unchecked, one website that currently leans towards one particular opinion would do a 180 turn and become the opposite.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The South Africa story is being twisted by right-wing tabloids, which are not Nazis, but you can be sure some of the people posting that kind of content on social media have political affiliations even further to the right.

If a news story contains factual errors then I believe they should be corrected, not deleted.

You won't change anyone's opinion by not letting them speak. You do so by calmly explaining why they are incorrect. Even if they won't change their minds, someone on the fence looking at the conversation might be persuaded.

 

When I am on the fence on some issue and one side is trying to discuss something, while the other constantly tries to censor their opposition then I generally tend to side with the one who tries to have a conversation.

To me, censorship is a sign that you do not have any valid arguments. You might have valid arguments, but unless you express them I won't know what they are.

 

Side note: I am not saying that the attacks on white people in south africa should be discussed on here. LTT is a forum for technology, not politics and racism.

However, I think the discussion belongs on Reddit's news section.

[Syntaxvgm]

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.. 

Voat. You get Voat.


Voat is why it's important that either the popular platform remains neutral and only censors truely hateful speech (transparently) or declines quickly. When the disenfranchised leave, it turns out that the first to be alienated were indeed the actual racists, and because of that alternative platforms get taken over by them

Also they were literally caught stealth editing peoples comments to make them look bad. 

[Aetheria]

6 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

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.

I don't know about /politics, but the vast majority of stuff I see from the first two is newsworthy. Whatever fuckery they're engaged in behind the scenes, having those as default subs doesn't make reddit any shittier. And the comments sections are certainly not echo chambers (at least not any moreso than the average sub).

 

Where do you stand on subs like /nottheonion? Every second thread you enter for one of those stories, it is locked before you get there. There doesn't appear to be a particular slant; they just seem to have intensely lazy mods.

 

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

However, what I am saying is that it to me goes against what I perceive Reddit to be.

I perceive reddit to be a fundamentally broken shithole, so I find it hard to care about the abstract fallout from basic housekeeping. That's obviously not the case in suppressing news out of SA, but excluding memeboards, porn, etc is reasonable. I think the best solution for the site is to stop letting subs (especially something as broad as 'news') be run like their own little fiefdoms by whoever called 'first', and to hand-pick at least most of what appears on the default homepage.

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

I'd compare it more to the blatant shitposting I see get locked here regularly, if not that consistently.

[Amazonsucks]

41 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.

Its completely off base? As part of the LGBT community myself, i used the example in the hope that someone would say something like you just did.

 

If i was marrying another guy and needed a cake made i sure as shit wouldnt force someone to make my cake who felt it was wrong to do so. I dont want to be tolerated, because tolerance implies that the other person doesnt like you in some way.

 

Id go find a different baker, not sue them. Why? Because of the reason i just stated about only going where im wanted for one. 

 

And much more importantly, because i dont wish to be discriminated against by universalizing the principle that his religious beliefs are wrong even though hes keeping to himself and not harming me. If the baker initiated force, then thats a different story. 

 

Why is this applicable here? Because one side is made to tolerate the ideology of the other, then they are censored on college campuses, online, in public forums irl and online through the use of intimidation, violence, riots, shadowbans, algorithmic censorship, demonetization and this kind of BS.

 

Silicon valley and big tech tries to not only monopolize information but shape the narrative through high and low tech censorship and outright propaganda. Look no further than Wojicki and her actual propaganda vids on yt. Reddit is conde nast, same propaganda pushers who endorse political candidates at Wired and Arse Technica. Reddit is just as propagandist and one sided as the rest of conde nast.

[Sakkura]

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not sure I agree that if stories going against the left-wing narrative were allowed, that Reddit would become a nazi website like Voat.

 

You can point to Voat as an example but the reason why Voat is the way it is, is because it's populated by people who were forced off sites like Reddit because of their views.

If left-leaning people were forced off Reddit and created a new website, then that website would be full of people from the left. That's just common sense.

 

The fewer platforms a certain group of people have to express their ideas on, the more concentrated they become.

 

 

Basically, different websites cater to different people, and I don't think there is any evidence that if left unchecked, one website that currently leans towards one particular opinion would do a 180 turn and become the opposite.

 

 

If a news story contains factual errors then I believe they should be corrected, not deleted.

You won't change anyone's opinion by not letting them speak. You do so by calmly explaining why they are incorrect. Even if they won't change their minds, someone on the fence looking at the conversation might be persuaded.

 

When I am on the fence on some issue and one side is trying to discuss something, while the other constantly tries to censor their opposition then I generally tend to side with the one who tries to have a conversation.

To me, censorship is a sign that you do not have any valid arguments. You might have valid arguments, but unless you express them I won't know what they are.

 

Side note: I am not saying that the attacks on white people in south africa should be discussed on here. LTT is a forum for technology, not politics and racism.

However, I think the discussion belongs on Reddit's news section.

This goes beyond just "stories going against the left-wing narrative" though.

 

The news story is twisted and spammed all over the place to drive a narrative. Where you draw the line in moderating that will be difficult, but the refusal to moderate just means you get Voat.

 

And do bear in mind, while places like Reddit may feel very grassroots-y, a lot of this is not just average Joes posting articles they find interesting. There are bots and shills and operatives and whatnot involved as well.

 

I agree that the underlying subject matter probably isn't valid for debate here. We'll have to focus on the moderation aspects.

26 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Its completely off base? As part of the LGBT community myself, i used the example in the hope that someone would say something like you just did.

 

If i was marrying another guy and needed a cake made i sure as shit wouldnt force someone to make my cake who felt it was wrong to do so. I dont want to be tolerated, because tolerance implies that the other person doesnt like you in some way.

 

Id go find a different baker, not sue them. Why? Because of the reason i just stated about only going where im wanted for one. 

 

And much more importantly, because i dont wish to be discriminated against by universalizing the principle that his religious beliefs are wrong even though hes keeping to himself and not harming me. If the baker initiated force, then thats a different story. 

 

Why is this applicable here? Because one side is made to tolerate the ideology of the other, then they are censored on college campuses, online, in public forums irl and online through the use of intimidation, violence, riots, shadowbans, algorithmic censorship, demonetization and this kind of BS.

Well if you don't technically/legally have the ability to "force" someone to do it, then it means gay people can be discriminated against at will. That's the problem.

[iBabySlapper]

What do you expect from one of the largest social media websites on the internet?

[CaptainGazzz]

It really depends on the subreddit, r/news has some pretty terrible mods that are willing to censor people for saying something that doesn't fit their agenda. Lots of subreddits have a great community but are completely ruined by their abusive mods. Unfortunately this is how the site operates, its up to the mods to moderate their subs and Reddit doesn't seem to care that mods abuse their power.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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

 

The oxford dictionary defines censorship as:

 

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.

The government is not in the definition, but it's the only entity that actually has the power of suppressing something. Because no, refusing to host something on your website is not the same as suppressing it. Suppressing content would be to force the author to delete it and prevent anyone from publishing or hosting it. If by not giving something a platform I were suppressing it, then literally every outlet in the world would be conducting censorship. Do you have a private website? If I came to you and demanded you host my videos, would you call your refusal censorship?

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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.

I'm not saying anyone deserves anything, I'm saying there's more to it than the government expropriating farm land on a whim. Two wrongs don't make a right - unless someone starves because you didn't commit the second "wrong". Black or white really doesn't matter, it just so happens that the white population inherited most of the farm land, thanks to a long history of apartheid that only ended a few decades ago and is still very much apparent in economical disparity. If the reason for this was "they're white" or petty revenge on descendants of racists (although since apartheid only ended recently, it's very possible that many of the land owners took part in enforcing it), you'd be absolutely right - but if the survival of the nation's population is at stake I think some compromises are necessary.

 

Do you know what the ratio or land ownership between white and black people is? I do:

http://www.plaas.org.za/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/No1 Fact check web.pdf

And while I'll admit that the figures have been exaggerated on both sides, right now the situation is still heavily imbalanced in favour of the white population and the only reason it's not as bad as it was 40 years ago is because of reforms and redistributions like this one.

 

The people who I've seen making most of the fuss about the supposed racist government in SA seem to shy away from showing any statistics on this, despite being very quick to use them as a shield whenever societal inequalities are pointed out to them.

 

I'm sure it's nowhere near perfect, it's rare for reforms of this sort to go through smoothly - but to completely refuse the idea of redistribution and dismissing these efforts as purely racist is, at best, misinformed.

[Syntaxvgm]

55 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The government is not in the definition, but it's the only entity that actually has the power of suppressing something. Because no, refusing to host something on your website is not the same as suppressing it. Suppressing content would be to force the author to delete it and prevent anyone from publishing or hosting it. If by not giving something a platform I were suppressing it, then literally every outlet in the world would be conducting censorship. Do you have a private website? If I came to you and demanded you host my videos, would you call your refusal censorship?

I'm not saying anyone deserves anything, I'm saying there's more to it than the government expropriating farm land on a whim. Two wrongs don't make a right - unless someone starves because you didn't commit the second "wrong". Black or white really doesn't matter, it just so happens that the white population inherited most of the farm land, thanks to a long history of apartheid that only ended a few decades ago and is still very much apparent in economical disparity. If the reason for this was "they're white" or petty revenge on descendants of racists (although since apartheid only ended recently, it's very possible that many of the land owners took part in enforcing it), you'd be absolutely right - but if the survival of the nation's population is at stake I think some compromises are necessary.

 

Do you know what the ratio or land ownership between white and black people is? I do:

http://www.plaas.org.za/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/No1 Fact check web.pdf

And while I'll admit that the figures have been exaggerated on both sides, right now the situation is still heavily imbalanced in favour of the white population and the only reason it's not as bad as it was 40 years ago is because of reforms and redistributions like this one.

 

The people who I've seen making most of the fuss about the supposed racist government in SA seem to shy away from showing any statistics on this, despite being very quick to use them as a shield whenever societal inequalities are pointed out to them.

 

I'm sure it's nowhere near perfect, it's rare for reforms of this sort to go through smoothly - but to completely refuse the idea of redistribution and dismissing these efforts as purely racist is, at best, misinformed.

In america, black people own like 1% of rural land despite being 10-13% of the population in these areas. The gap is rooted in slavery, and the post slavery times when black land owners were forced off of their land by mobs, some of it actually retaken from post civil war redistribution. Much of the land ownership is through multiple generations, and it doesn't look promising that this will change because of that. 

Do we start seizing farms here too? 

 

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

In america, black people own like 1% of rural land despite being 10-13% of the population in these areas. The gap is rooted in slavery, and the post slavery times when black land owners were forced off of their land by mobs, some of it actually retaken from post civil war redistribution. Much of the land ownership is through multiple generations, and it doesn't look promising that this will change because of that. 

Do we start seizing farms here too?

Maybe, if a large chunk of the population risked starvation otherwise - it's less a matter of skin color and more a matter of monstrous inequality between the top 0.2% and 70% of the population living in poverty.

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Maybe, if a large chunk of the population risked starvation otherwise - it's less a matter of skin color and more a matter of monstrous inequality between the top 0.2% and 70% of the population living in poverty.

I wouldn't disagree with that problem, but I don't think this will end any other way than Zimbabwe 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-03/zimbabwes-exiled-farmers-urged-to-return/9392322

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I wouldn't disagree with that problem, but I don't think this will end any other way than Zimbabwe 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-03/zimbabwes-exiled-farmers-urged-to-return/9392322

In zimbabwe the farmers were chased out at gunpoint, hardly the same thing.

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

This goes beyond just "stories going against the left-wing narrative" though.

 

The news story is twisted and spammed all over the place to drive a narrative. Where you draw the line in moderating that will be difficult, but the refusal to moderate just means you get Voat.

 

And do bear in mind, while places like Reddit may feel very grassroots-y, a lot of this is not just average Joes posting articles they find interesting. There are bots and shills and operatives and whatnot involved as well.

 

I agree that the underlying subject matter probably isn't valid for debate here. We'll have to focus on the moderation aspects.

Well if you don't technically/legally have the ability to "force" someone to do it, then it means gay people can be discriminated against at will. That's the problem.

Ok lets force the tech companies to stop censoring conservatives then...

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

Ok lets force the tech companies to stop censoring conservatives then...

Conservatives are not a protected class (and shouldn't be).

[Mooshi]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If left-leaning people were forced off Reddit

That's called Tumblr. That lovely community that almost drove a Steven Universe fan to suicide.

[Chett_Manly]

17 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Conservatives are not a protected class (and shouldn't be).

There shouldn't be protected classes in the first place, it spits in the face of equality. 

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

32 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Conservatives are not a protected class (and shouldn't be).

And liberals aren't a protected class?

[Jtalk4456]

On 8/22/2018 at 2:07 PM, weq said:

Is reddit now another crap-platform?

NOW? when weren't they a crap platform?

[2FA]

13 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

And liberals aren't a protected class?

No, don't even bother with that.

Quote

    Race.
    Color.
    Religion or creed.
    National origin or ancestry.
    Sex.
    Age.
    Physical or mental disability.
    Veteran status.
    Genetic information.
    Citizenship.

 

[Sakkura]

22 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

There shouldn't be protected classes in the first place, it spits in the face of equality. 

 

 

Without protected classes, discrimination would be rampant.

15 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

And liberals aren't a protected class?

No, of course not.

[DildorTheDecent]

What a hero.

[Chett_Manly]

27 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Without protected classes, discrimination would be rampant.

 

Discrimination is rampant now, its just lacks legal recourse unless you are a protected class. Protected class is a privileged status conferred upon groups by the state. It is intentional inequality under the law.

[EPENEX]

Censorship on reddit has been pretty bad for awhile. Nearly half the subs I'm subbed to have been removed or quarantined.

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

Discrimination is rampant now, its just lacks legal recourse unless you are a protected class. Protected class is a privileged status conferred upon groups by the state. It is intentional inequality under the law.

Discrimination because of racism etc. is a bad thing we want to prevent.

 

Discrimination for other reasons can be completely innocuous or even arguably beneficial, and thus not something we want to prevent.