Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission
Mark Wilson writes If you want to post naked pictures or videos of people on Reddit without their consent, you only have a couple of weeks to do so. As of March, the site is imposing a ban on content of an explicit nature that the subject has not given permission to be posted. The cleanup of the site comes hot on the heels of news from Google that explicit content will be banned from Blogger. It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening which saw a glut of naked celebrity photos leaked online.
Lucky that slashdot's commenting system is so ancient and crappy it doesn't have to worry about people uploading gifs or anything else that isn't ascii.
Until it tries to uphold it.
For one day only..back in 2000.
https://imgur.com/3gOniL8
IIRC it was an exploit in one of the tags.
I have to return some videotapes...
You haven't lived until you've seen a centerfold spread out over six feet of multiple strips of punched paper tape. :/
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable.
1. Reddit cannot, in any way, stop you from expressing your opinion. The most they can do is refuse to facilitate said expression.
2. I find it amusing that such a staunch proponent of True Free Speech would use such a tremendously wiggly, pro-oversight qualifier as legal In defining what they consider acceptable. Legal implies a level of trust in the state that is entirely at odds with the rest of your post.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I was curious about your comment and ended up binge reading stuff about Pao. Based on what I've read, you are spot on.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.
lucm, indeed.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope".
Your first sentence is the definition of a "slippery slope" argument. You even used the most obvious word in slippery slope arguments; "inevitable". As the saying goes, "the only two things that are inevitable are death and taxes". Sure there are places where censorship has gotten out of hand but there are many more places where "censorship" has not. For example, Facebook has restrictions on the content of photos.
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
Do you think because of that they will later censor political speech too? There are lots of sites that restrict sexual content and still have very broad free speech rules.
So now breakup posts of nude pictures that were sent in strictest confidence at a time of lust and love is now a freedom of speech issue? Sorry but ruining someone else's life because they discovered you are a duchbag and you are mad at them is not protected speech.
"It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
Sorry but we live in a world that is not as black and white as you seem to see it. Some speech needs to be restricted as it causes damage without having any redeeming qualities.
Denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.
It has been but it also has been the first step in the creation of a civil society. Criminalizing libel and slander has caused people to be sure of their facts before speaking. Do you believe that accusing an innocent person of pedophilia is free speech? Accusations like that can ruin people's lives. It is impossible to prove a negative like "He is not a pedophile"? There will always be the possibility that the proof of guilt was just not found. Too many people believe the saying "where there is smoke there is fire". Sometimes it is just someone trying to ruin someone else's life. Absolutes like "Never true" cause more trouble than they solve. We should be very careful what kind of speech we restrict. I believe requiring a release to post sexual content pictures is a valid restriction.
Everything is about balance. In this case it is the balance between the right to freedom of speech and and the right to privacy. In this specific instance the right to privacy is more important than the ability to post sexual photos of someone else. Your argument that "if they restrict this they will restrict everything" is just absurd.