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.
Means no more page views from me. I really enjoyed the idea of a site that managed to keep the racists corralled into their own little playpen while the adults had quality discussion.
"we don't have any obligation to support them."
Nor do the redditors have any obligation to keep visiting the site.
This isn't about obligations, it's about ethics.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
How about adult subreddits? Fetishist subreddits? Political subreddits that you might find offensive, such as Men's Rights? Religious subreddits that you probably find offensive, like Scientology? Do we ban vaccine deniers and conspiracy theorists? People that talk about piracy?
In Reddit's quest to become mainstream, it has lost something.
The problem is that the definition of "punks, assholes, douchebags and morons" can change.
until you defend someone else's right to say something you disagree with. As for the pictures, if they're real, then that's already illegal and I have no doubt a dozen TLAs are already watching.
Having an outlet in text for these kinds of things is far better than having none and then having these people act it out for real in their areas. It can also give people a head's up since some of these people post their manifesto before they act out.
Life is full of unpleasant things. Making it illegal to talk about them does not make them go away; it just allows them to grow in the dark.
What don't you get about free speech?
What YOU don't apparently get is that when we talk about "free speech," we're talking about your speech being free from government infringement. That has nothing to do with private businesses and gathering places. They have the freedom to assemble and conduct themselves as they see fit, without you telling them that they must support, for example, rape/race/kiddie forums, just because you think they should. That's the whole point. If YOU think that's the sign of freedom, YOU can run your own web site where those are the things that are celebrated.
The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must shut down race-baiting or fat-shaming forums. That's a personal editorial decision made by the people who actually own and operate the site. That you can't make the distinction between government limits on speech and editorial decisions made by private businesses suggests that you should really stop saying anything on the subject, because you're just poisoning the well. Also, please do not vote - you're too uneducated to do it safely.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. 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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
"as a community need to decide together what our values are".
I am pretty sure that is the same kind of "community" that Mark Shuttleworth had. We vote on everything and we all have a voice. Till he moves the window controls from the top right hand side (windows style) to the top left hand side (mac os style). The community voted to move them back. At which point Mark said he listens to community input but ultimately it is his decision.
The board of directors at Reddit have decided what their values are, and the new CEO has agreed with them to get the job. Now they will do an AMA where they put forth as many of their values as possible in such a way that it looks like the community came up with them. The remaining values they will Mark Shuttleworthed on the community.
Thank you for playing.
vi +
No, censorship is when something is censored. Government censorship is when the government censors something. Someone might even self-censor to avoid offending others, even out of pure politeness. That's what the word means. You do touch on one reason why we consider non-government censorship to be much less of a concern: competition. If one channel won't air something, another might not. Generally speaking, we don't have as many options regarding our government, so we take government censorship much more seriously.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Yes, that is censorship. Censorship is a big boy and is capable of existing without the word government in its definition.
Non-government entities can feel free to censor all they want. But we don't have to change the definition of the word just because some people can't understand the concept that censorship is not always illegal or even always a bad thing.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.