Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Continues To Protect Racist Language In Favor of Free Speech (digitaltrends.com)
In a thread about Reddit's 2017 transparency report, a user asked CEO Steve Huffman whether posts containing racism or racial slurs violate Reddit's terms. Huffman revealed that said speech are permissible on the site. "On Reddit, the way in which we think about speech is to separate behavior from beliefs," Huffman clarified. "This means on Reddit there will be people with beliefs different from your own, sometimes extremely so." Digital Trends reports: It's unclear if Huffman's comments are representative of Reddit's company policy, but protection of hate speech can -- and do -- lead to online harassment and cyberbullying. A recent study from Pew revealed that as many as 40 percent of Americans have experienced some form of harassment online. And even if hate speech may still be protected content on Reddit, Huffman was quick to point out that any threat of violence is not tolerated on the site. "When users actions conflict with our own content policies, we take action," he said. This distinction is consistent with Reddit's prior policies for enforcement. "Going forward, we will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise we will also take action against content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals," the updated terms read, noting that "context is key."
So why are you making it sound like it's a bad thing?
Because it is the most repellent speech that MUST be protected, or 'freedom of speech' means nothing.
Adults understand that words only "hurt" people that allow them to.
(To be clear, Reddit's is their META policy; subreddits are allowed to have whatever policies their founders choose, really.)
-Styopa
In America, "Hate Speech" and "cyberbullying" aren't illegal because they aren't codified as crimes.
There is no statute for hate speech to follow, likewise for cyberbullying.
Your expectation that a corporation or organization can somehow match up to your own personal definitions and expectations is completely childish and unproductive.
If you want these things to be stopped, talk to your members of congress and get a law passed.
Until then, kindly shut up about your pretend crimes.
Thanks,
The internet.
... protected from government censoring in the US.
Added some context.
I just pooped your party.
Free speech was kinda considered a big deal by some important people in the past. If you start cherry picking what is considered free speech based on you local ideology or even worse political goals, then what is left is not really free speech is it. Free speech has to be both good and bad to work. And with free speech eroding on the internet and in general, what is next? Tought police?
Mel Brooks made a brilliant, funny and subversive movie back in the 70s called "Blazing Saddles". The reason why it made it so subversive was that he used all these racial slurs and vulgar adolescent humor to paint the racist town folks as being quite stupid and ignorant.
When one see the butchered for television version that removes everything that can offend anyone, it loses its edge and point.
Folks are too easily offended and I think many folks really aren't - they just like the power trip of shutting others up. Just a bunch of PC retards.
Around four-in-ten Americans (41%) have been personally subjected to at least one type of online harassment – which this report defines as offensive name-calling online
Whenever you see some statistic like "40 percent of Americans have experienced some form of harassment online" you know they have jiggered the definition to inflate the numbers. By the report's definition, probably everyone on /. is a "victim".
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I disagree whole hardhearted. Its their money, its their Site. Dont like it? go make your own hate/lawful activity allowing site..reedit doing you a favor kudos to them but tomorrow if they decide not to allow it kudos to them its their business not mine. Stop expecting other to fight your battles and expect them to pay for it as well.Amazing how free people are with other peoples money today. And name one law the government is using to force reddit or any other site to stop hate speech?
Jack of all trades,master of none
But we can force a business to bake a gay weedding cake... Just not to allow all to speak... Pathetic.
All wedding cakes are gay.
There is no need to protect non-offensive speech.
No one is going to go after speech that they agree with. It is only speech with which we don't agree that is in need of protection. Because if we don't, eventually, someone who doesn't agree with us is going to prevent us from speaking.
It really is that simple.
Check your premises.
Thats not how the leftists think. The leftists think its all about power and the government is power. Nothing else but power matters to them.
Oh, please. Everyone thinks that, not just leftists. Rightists want to use the power of government to tell people whom they can marry, whom they can have sex with and when, and whether or not they can have an abortion or use birth control. Everybody wants to rule the world.
Reddit has been shutting down many, many subreddits recently.
They are taking responsibility for user-generated content, and once they do that they don't get to only take responsibility for some.
I think it would have been much smarter for Reddit to remain neutral and claim "common-carrier" status, but their virtue-signaling management wouldn't have it.
I hear Voat.co is where the banned communities are going and their stack happens to still be open source, so that's an additional level of transparency.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Hell, no. Do you want a Christian institution to seek to uphold Atheist or Muslim speech in their congregations
Of course not, but that is not at all what I said.
You have the right to say what you want, but you have no right to stand on my soapbox when doing so.
And what *I* am saying, is that if I choose to let someone on MY Soapbox you have not right to knock it out from under them, and are morally wrong to try.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not the same thing.
Okay, look, as a business of public accommodation (a business open to the public), they are required to not discriminate against customers. That is to say, they are not allowed to refuse service to a customer on the sole reason of that customer falling in a protected class.
Federally protected classes include, but are not limited to, race, age, sex, national origin or ancestry, religion or creed, and physical or mental disability. (I may have missed a couple in there.)
States are allowed to add to the federal list, but they are not allowed to remove anything from the federal list. In the state that the "gay wedding cake" occurred in, sexual orientation is also a protected class. So, the bakery in question was not allowed to deny them service solely on that basis.
Now, if the bakery had been booked solid, and would have been unable to produce the wedding cake by the time of the wedding, and they'd denied service based on that? Not discrimination.
If the bakery didn't do wedding cakes at all, as in it wasn't a service they offered, and had denied service based on that? Not discrimination.
Now, Reddit probably doesn't count as a business of public accommodation. While anyone can read most Reddit posts, you have to login to comment. It requires membership to access certain services. They are free to set the Terms and Conditions under which they will allow those services. And they are free to say what constitutes a violation of those Terms and Services. (Although, let's face it, while they should be consistent in that application, it's practically impossible to prove that.)
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Curious.
Does your definition of "liberty" include forcing privately-owned and operated Web sites to carry and publish material that the proprietors may fundamentally disagree with?
Would the proprietors of these Web sites fall under your definition of "evil men that would do us harm" if they attempted to establish and enforce their own principles on their own private property?
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
"The left" isn't okay with it. Some people on the left are okay with it, and other people - like you - generalize their beliefs to make a point that has no merit. Your idea isn't terribly fleshed out. Let's say a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for me because I'm black. No problem, right? I'll just go to another baker who will. Except, I live in a town with a bunch of racist fucks like this guy and the one black lady who wants to be a baker can't open a store because the racist building owners won't rent to blacks, the racist service workers wouldn't hook up her utilities if they did, the racist supply company won't sell her ingredients, and the racist bank wouldn't lend her money to start the business, and racist media wouldn't let her advertise to grow it. You can't just give your money to someone else if there's literally no one else to give it to because your minority status is at odds with the rest of your community. And I can already hear your next argument: well move someplace where that's not the case! Just re-read that paragraph and instead of a single business, apply it to entire towns, counties, even states. The entire point of these laws is that this actually happened in America and we agreed that we're better than that.