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.
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?