Slashdot Mirror
Reddit CEO: Site Is 'Not a Bastion of Free Speech,' Change Coming
An anonymous reader writes: Reddit's new CEO, cofounder Steve Huffman, has made a statement regarding the site's controversial racism- and abuse-related community "subreddits." He said, "we don't have any obligation to support them." In the brief announcement, Huffman explains that a robust content policy is something they have "been thinking about for quite some time" and is in the cards in the near future. It has also come to light via former CEO Yishan Wong that ousted interim boss Ellen Pao was one of the few defenders of the controversial subreddits, favoring a strategy of coexistence over the board's plan to eliminate problem communities. Wong blames another co-founder, Alexis Ohanian, for strategy changes that led to the firing of "Ask Me Anything" administrator Victoria Taylor whose unexpected absence crippled that component of the site.
Then you haven't been to reddit. What you are asking for has NEVER been the way that site works.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
So... a virtual lynchmob went after Pao because they decided she must be an "SJW" because she once sued a former employer for sexual harassment.
Not really, no, it was the endless wave of mass media news articles about how she was tackling misogyny in Silicon Valley and standing up to those patriarchal neckbeards, a wave she was all too happy to ride, that did that.
They interpreted a closure of a subreddit that was harassing people in real life as being content based, and by Pao, because they assumed that was what a straw-SJW would do.
What appeared to be a hardline feminist was put in charge, next thing you know subreddits are being shut down and people are getting fired. Of course members were getting agitated.
And it turns out that Pao was supporting them all along - that is, arguing against a board that did actively want to remove the more offensive subreddits, and not actually the person who pushed out the fired employee.
We only have one person's word for that.
I'm seeing a hell of a lot of people who:
1. Label someone who says something that makes them slightly uncomfortable an "SJW".
2. Assume that because their victim is an SJW (because they labelled them one), they must be a straw-SJW
3. Ascribing positions and acts to their victims, misinterpreting the words they say, and creating the most absurd conspiracy theories about their victims, simply because that's what a straw-SJW would do.
SJWs hate it when their own tactics are turned back on them.
it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor
I see. So, who is preventing you from voicing your opinions about, for example, rape and race-baiting? Is Reddit somehow preventing you from setting up a web site and hosting all the conversations you could possibly want on the subjects? No, they're not. They can't. They are unable to censor you. Censorship of your views is not taking place, and you're confused about the difference between being forced to be silent vs. having some third party not being in the mood to spend money to provide you a free platform from which to amplify your views. Amazed that you can't understand the difference, but you're in good company with a lot of other muddle-headed people. Again, please do not vote.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.
No, that's not censorship. That's an editorial decision being made by a private company as they choose what to include in what they publish - something that you are freely choosing to consume, or not. Their decisions have absolutely NO ability to prevent you from putting up your own web site, where all you show, 24x7, is anatomically correct sports event streakers. Censorship is when the government steps in and says you can't do that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.
It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.
It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets censorship as the act or practice of controlling or suppressing the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
When I've down-modded something for being non-factual, it's been for things that are actually non-factual and fact-checkable, as opposed to subjective statements like "Reddit has NEVER been about free speech!"
Even then, if something is factually wrong, Troll/Flamebait are inappropriate, since that wasn't the original intent. I use "overrated," especially if it was modded up, as the post is not a high enough quality to support its "high" (which might be the default) mod value.
The politically correct crowd will willingly ignore horrible behavior as long as the person is otherwise supportive of their cause. I point to William Jefferson Clinton (Bill) as my defacto example of someone, who had they been had an (R) after their name, would have been judged completely differently by the PC (read, liberal) crowd.
So I take the cries of the PC crowd to be largely hypocritical.
In what sense?
I assume you're referring to his affair, I'd say the reaction seems mild because a) affairs are tough for the family and a personal indictment but not really a public policy issue and are generally ignored, b) Clinton never presented himself as an example of a perfect family man so it wasn't very hypocritical, c) the reaction of the Republicans was completely over the top.
I don't deny that the PC crowd can be hypocritical but I don't think they're moreso than any other group.
His "affair"? No, his multiple affairs, his predatory sexual assaults on subordinates, and his perjuring himself in a lawsuit (while also suborning perjury through witness coaching) were the issues that the liberals overlook and continue to try to obfuscate (as you've done above). Had a Republican done even half of that we would still be reading about it in the press.
Do you have ESP?
No the point is that some shitty behavior is not relevant to issues at hand. Yes, Benjamin Franklin loved his prostitutes, but that didn't make him any less of a brilliant inventor and leader.
The question that needs to be answered isn't how to stop people from being shitty, but when does being a shitty person begin to infringe on the rights of others. Take a few examples: In scenario 1 someone calls me an asshole. Certainly if said with n provocation that is a shitty statement to make, but it doesn't infringe on my rights in any way. Even if that person calls me an asshole I do not have to change my way of going about my life to accommodate their behavior.
In scenario 2 an anonymous individual on the internet tells me that they will feed me feet first through a wood chipper. Without any other supporting statements this still does not infringe upon my rights because by itself it is not a credible statement. despite being a shitty thing to say it is indistinguishable from basic hyperbole, and doesn't require me to change my life style.
In Scenario 3 some tells me that they will be waiting out side my house (providing a specific address) with a gun on xxx date at xxx time. THIS is where my rights are infringed because the threat is credible. It has tangible specifics about time and location, and assuming the threat resulted from a heated discussion (not a far fetched idea on the internet) there is motive. A threat like this is when I have to legitimately change my behavior to accommodate their speech out of fear for my well being.
As for shitty behavior in general, why should we be outraged? Are you or I under any obligation to listen to them? Of course not. They are free to speak, and we are free to ignore them, as long as their speech does not infringe upon our own rights.
I had never heard of r/FPH/ before this fiasco, and out of curiosity I went to check it out. Needless to say most people are right when they said the place was truly a den for some of the shittiest people imaginable, but that didn't matter because no matter how hard I looked I couldn't find a instance where the rights of others were being violated. The site shames fat people. I'm sorry but an individual being ashamed of being called fat is not and infringement of their rights no more than it is infringing on someones rights if I call them an asshole. You don't have a right to not be offended, and you are not obligated to be outraged at the words of shitty people.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"