Fired Reddit Exec Launches Competing Site (thenextweb.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "Dan McComas, the former second-in-command at Reddit -- and vocal critic of its more inflammatory groups -- wants to build a better Reddit, one that focuses on 'healthy, positive communities,'" reports TheNextWeb. Raising $3 million, Imzy.com quietly launched earlier this year with over 500 discussion forums, aspiring to become an advertising-free space where content creators can interact with their fans. Moderators and users of Imzy can be "tipped" with online payments from other users, while the site hopes to remain advertising-free by taking a cut from on-site transactions. But "at its core though, Imzy wants to provide a safe place to share and discuss without the fear of being harassed, a problem Reddit has struggled with for several years."

Comments

define healthy

[turkeydance]

oh, and positive, too.

Re:define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

am i the only one that felt the cult vibe from the website?

Re:define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

A community that focuses on giving wealth and general messages of positivity and encouragement to a person in a leadership role encased in a cutesy art style? Never.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

A community where minorities and women are gods and the straight white man is not allowed unless he denigrates his own kind to bow to his new overlords.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

No dissenting opinions allowed. The biggest progressive echo chamber imaginable, where no one is allowes to question this ideology. And no one is allowed to say anything remotely controversial or offensive because it might "trigger" someone's negative feelings and cause untold "psychological" damage.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

..only a slight amount of bias there buddy.. Of course, imzy would welcome such commentary openly. However, if you were to post

"I thought the bernie sanders worshiping marxist tax'n'spend omg everyone's a victim of straight white men sjw tards were pretty popular here?" on imzy, you'd probably be banned pretty quickly.

In contrast, slashdot allows much more open discussion which places it several cuts above most other sites and far above moronic hugboxes like imzy.

Re: define healthy

[AmiMoJo]

So, I checked out the site and it's invite only. Did you get an invite? Have you actually confirmed that it discriminates against straight white men?

There are too many perpetual victims on Slashdot these days.

Re: define healthy

[serviscope_minor]

A community where minorities and women are gods and the straight white man is not allowed unless he denigrates his own kind to bow to his new overlords.

It's terrible. That was literally the only place on the internet where a straight white man could feel comfortable and it's been ruined. There is officially nowhere else for you. You are now an oppressed minority.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 2016 and people have different opinions from mine? Lunacy!

Re: define healthy

[Mashiki]

It's terrible. That was literally the only place on the internet where a straight white man could feel comfortable and it's been ruined. There is officially nowhere else for you. You are now an oppressed minority.

"We demand xyz groups let us in, if they don't they're sexist/racist/homophobic!" Groups let them in.

Same said people who were whining: "We're creating safe spaces for xyz groups! Look how progressive we are!" People face palm from the hypocrisy.

Sorry, the real problem is the unbelievable hypocrisy and demands from the perpetual whiners when they want something and decide to invade someone else's places, while demanding privileges and expecting that content creators or societies bend over backwards for them. All the while, they're also running around and making segregated spaces while claiming they're ever so progressive and really, really, really, help people out. Yep it is terrible, that there's such a huge double standard.

Re: define healthy

[Mashiki]

Trouble is that people like you seem to believe the entire world is your space, because when someone creates a new place (what this thread is about), people like you start whining horribly like someone has stolen something from you.

You seem to be kind of dense, so I'll use smaller words. See it's not me that believes the entire world is my space. I have my spaces, it's when those perpetual whiners want to invade those spaces that are mine and take them away. Easy isn't it?

Indeed, so when someone actually starts using their free speech and freedom of assosciation, the perpetual whiners like you are all over it because apparently they used their freedoms wrong and that makes you sad and cross.

Very strange, considering the people(aka progressives) who are the perpetual whiners that want people not to have their own spaces(like golf courses, lounges, etc) and demand that they allow admittance are applauded. When those same people(progressives) then turn around and create those spaces on their own where others aren't allowed in...they're also applauded. You should also remember that making statements against those "spaces they're creating" is also racism, homophobia, sexism and so on.

This isn't rocket surgery. If need be, I can explain it again but you should be smart enough to figure it out.

Re: define healthy

[serviscope_minor]

it's when those perpetual whiners want to invade those spaces that are mine and take them away.

So why are you whining all over this thread then, given that this is about creating a whole new place? The founders of the new place haven't taken anything away from you yet you whinge and throw insults like you're 5.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[dadelbunts]

Oh no no. I guarantee you it will still have the internet hate machine elements, just for "acceptable" topics such as all white people being racist and how REAL women are all superobese.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Distan]

It looks to me just to be "take what is killing reddit and amplify it", not an attempt to build a healthy reddit.

What is harrassment?

[thomasdz]

As we've learned from the new Social Justice Warriors movement, many people feel "harassed" just by comments or actions that aren't intended to be harassing... hell, I've probably scared at least three people to their safe place just by this post alone.

Re:What is harrassment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you don't have know that you're harassing someone to harass them.

The legal definition of harassment is repeated undesired contact with the intent to cause (psychological) trauma. If you are told to stop calling them, and you don't, then you know you're "harassing".

However, the claims of psychological trauma are so over inflated today that SJWs say they get PTSD from Twitter -- Even though Twitter has a block function, and the service must be interacted with by the user via their choice. It's not like people can tweet @you unless you actually go to twitter, unlike a phone where anyone in the world can call and cause your phone to ring repeatedly. The problem is that "harassment" is claimed over things that you can close your eyes to make disappear. Some claim that certain people are very sensitive and get their PTSD "triggered" by certain phrases they read. If they know they are this psychologically damaged and yet willfully engage in risky behavior, such as reading a book, then they should seek help, not punishments for those who wrote words that offended them.

Imagine if history teachers had to provide "trigger warnings" and allow black students not to have to learn about slavery because it triggers the manifestation of their ancestral PTSD in their own minds. This actually is a thing. Some professors are catching flack for refusing to put trigger warnings on history... These type of "hypersensitive" people are mentally ill, and should be in an asylum (provided they're not faking for elevated victim status, which they are). Should we make the entire world a padded cell just because there are a few crazies about? If reading a book could "trigger" you, then you should know better than to be on Twitter or the Internet in general -- It's not the author's fault.

No one is responsible for what goes on in your head but you. If you can't be held responsible for the thoughts you think, then how can you hold anyone else responsible? If you wish to punish others for your own actions, such as thinking certain things, then you are legitimately insane, IMO.

I don't get reddit

[future assassin]

it looks like someone used craigslist css to for a forum and tried to make it seems like Usenet?

Am I the only one

[rsilvergun]

getting tired of people railing against social justice? Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

Re:Oh HELL no

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the SJW tactic. They swarm and bully people. They amplify the drama to drown out rational thought.