8 ms·

> Further exasperating the issue is the fact we deplatform people with opposing opinions. Now Reddit is even removing people who upvote stories or comments diff

> Further exasperating the issue is the fact we deplatform people with opposing opinions. Now Reddit is even removing people who upvote stories or comments differ from their ideology. What are the opposing opinions and the differing ideologies that you're worried about being silenced?

dcow 6y ago
It actually doesn't matter. "Opposing opinions and differing ideologies" must be protected regardless of what they are. It's pointless to cherry-pick.
- AlexMax 6y ago
  Actually it does matter, if we want to be honest about why we're even having this conversation. Deplatforming and banning doesn't happen because of some abstract whim, so defending it in abstract terms sans context seems like it's overlooking a large chunk of the conversation.
  - dcow 6y ago
    No. It doesn't. We're having this conversation because angry mobs are unjustly destroying peoples lives. If you think that's okay then we're at an impasse. Abstract freedom of expression is a prerequisite for preventing oppression by majority rule. It's fundamental to our core as citizens in the United States.
    - AlexMax 6y ago
      To be clear, are you saying that if I don't agree with preserving the abstract freedom of expression on private social spaces, I am pro angry mob destroying peoples lives?
      - dcow 6y ago
        Not directly, of course. I am saying that the concession that we need to moderate "dirty" behavior is, in and of itself, the rhetoric that validates the mob behavior we're seeing. And there's a difference between dirty and illegal. We do not disagree that unlawful content can responsibly be remove by citizens from the internet. The extrajudicial removal of miscreant expression is what we're talking about.
        AlexMax 6y ago
        > I am saying that the concession that we need to moderate "dirty" behavior is, in and of itself, the rhetoric that validates the mob behavior we're seeing. I think that's a stretch. The problem with Twitter isn't the moderation or the "leaning", it's the sheer size of the thing. Any sort of decent moderation is completely impossible at the scales of Twitter, and I voted with my feet a long long time ago and frankly don't feel like I'm missing anything. On the other hand, there are plenty of smaller social spaces out there that are well moderated, do not treat all viewpoints equally, but at the same time somehow manage to prevent their users from anti-social mob justice.
        dcow 6y ago
        We're probably getting closer to some ground we do agree on. It sounds like we both support the ability for communities to form around a shared set of virtues, moderation philosophy, etc. Totally. And it's okay for those communities to moderate and police themselves. What I disagree with is the idea that it's healthy for speech platforms to operate in a mode such that certain speech universally constitutes e.g. violence and must be banned. I believe that mindset is destructive towards the relatively fair playing field we've laid down at least in the US where we are supposed to protect individuals' right to express themselves. In Twitter's case I think you've nailed it. They're so big that effective moderation that pleases everyone is simply unmanageable. What that signals to me is that practically they should be considered a speech platform. Otherwise any attempts to moderate will feel like social cherry-picking. Once classified as a platform we should treat them differently, both legally and colloquially. Legally platforms would be absolved of taking responsibility for the content posted by individuals. And colloquially if people understand they're a platform, and platforms come with self-service tools to make sure unwanted content doesn't show up front and center in your feed, then I think we can collectively mature in our approach towards and response to "dirty" content. Anyway I don't use twitter either and don't expect nor am I really all that interested in a twitter solution. I'm abstractly defending the social maturity required to tolerate diverging viewpoints without resorting to censoring and banning and extrajudicial mob justice because I believe required to prevent oppressive majority rule.
- jeromegv 6y ago
  What if that ideology encourages violence against a certain class of people? Must that be protected?
  - steveeq1 6y ago
    In the same way that gangsta rap music is protected, yes.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    You don't have to protect the actual calls to violence. But if you don't protect the associated ideology, you're going to end up excluding basically all politics. I've never seen a large political movement that didn't contain a few bad actors promoting violence.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    The trouble is that what is considered "violence" varies from person to person, and from ideology to ideology.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Exactly. Because once everything isn't protected, someone gets to choose. So what we need are systems where content can't be removed, and users can't be banned, by design. And yeah, we also need usable and effective filtering, so everyone can choose what to see.
  - AlexMax 6y ago
    > Exactly. Because once everything isn't protected, someone gets to choose. So what we need are systems where content can't be removed, and users can't be banned, by design. This is naive at best. I know of no social space on the internet that has light moderation, no moderation, or primarily user-driven moderation that isn't also a dumpster fire. This is the internet. There are uncountable social spaces on it, and the fantastic thing is that the owners of each social space are free to enforce rules as they see fit. If you are unhappy with the moderation of a social space, or if you get booted, find another one. Or, you could even create your own. Heck, because this is the internet, you are likely keeping up with many of the people you know from a social space through multiple other platforms, and if you want to peace out from one, you can coordinate a migration.
    - dcow 6y ago
      So build accountability into interactions with the internet. For example, I believe for most purposes people should use government-issued access to the internet with an identity that ties to their physical self. Anonymity should cost extra and there should be an implicit lack of trust, credibility, etc. from anything anonymous until it can be thoroughly vetted. I like the urbit model for this where short memorable addresses convey value and social reputation whilst fully anonymous entities are allowed but implicitly untrusted.
      - mirimir 6y ago
        You and like-minded peers could have that, for sure. I can see the value for professional networks. Otherwise it'd arguably be far too dangerous.
ahelwer 6y ago
It isn't all right wing stuff. The recent banwave took out probably the largest leftist community on the internet after a long period of banning users who upvoted opinions there, such as: * Slaveowners deserved to die * John Brown is an American hero * Police & large-corporate property constitue legitimate political targets during protests etc. Essentially reddit wants to restrict the scope of permissible discourse to the same region allowed on mainstream news websites: support of neoliberal capitalism with debate focused on how overtly racist the system should be.
- AlexMax 6y ago
  And? What did people expect would happen? You cannot trust large corporations with those kinds of discussions. The thing is, I don't think the solution is to force Reddit to host those kinds of subreddits - the solution it to find or create a different social space. Alternatives to those spaces exist, you just have to look for them.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Yes, things seem to be coalescing around raddle.me.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Reddit itself was such a place not that long ago. Lust for power and money seems to frequently find a way to corrupt even those with the best of initial intentions.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  They threw them under the bus to make the banwave come off as non-partisan.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  "John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave, And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save; Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave, His soul is marching on. He captured Harper's Ferry, with his nineteen men so few, And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled thru and thru; They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew, But his soul is marching on."

dcow 6y ago

It actually doesn't matter. "Opposing opinions and differing ideologies" must be protected regardless of what they are. It's pointless to cherry-pick.

AlexMax 6y ago
Actually it does matter, if we want to be honest about why we're even having this conversation. Deplatforming and banning doesn't happen because of some abstract whim, so defending it in abstract terms sans context seems like it's overlooking a large chunk of the conversation.
- dcow 6y ago
  No. It doesn't. We're having this conversation because angry mobs are unjustly destroying peoples lives. If you think that's okay then we're at an impasse. Abstract freedom of expression is a prerequisite for preventing oppression by majority rule. It's fundamental to our core as citizens in the United States.
  - AlexMax 6y ago
    To be clear, are you saying that if I don't agree with preserving the abstract freedom of expression on private social spaces, I am pro angry mob destroying peoples lives?
    - dcow 6y ago
      Not directly, of course. I am saying that the concession that we need to moderate "dirty" behavior is, in and of itself, the rhetoric that validates the mob behavior we're seeing. And there's a difference between dirty and illegal. We do not disagree that unlawful content can responsibly be remove by citizens from the internet. The extrajudicial removal of miscreant expression is what we're talking about.
      - AlexMax 6y ago
        > I am saying that the concession that we need to moderate "dirty" behavior is, in and of itself, the rhetoric that validates the mob behavior we're seeing. I think that's a stretch. The problem with Twitter isn't the moderation or the "leaning", it's the sheer size of the thing. Any sort of decent moderation is completely impossible at the scales of Twitter, and I voted with my feet a long long time ago and frankly don't feel like I'm missing anything. On the other hand, there are plenty of smaller social spaces out there that are well moderated, do not treat all viewpoints equally, but at the same time somehow manage to prevent their users from anti-social mob justice.
        dcow 6y ago
        We're probably getting closer to some ground we do agree on. It sounds like we both support the ability for communities to form around a shared set of virtues, moderation philosophy, etc. Totally. And it's okay for those communities to moderate and police themselves. What I disagree with is the idea that it's healthy for speech platforms to operate in a mode such that certain speech universally constitutes e.g. violence and must be banned. I believe that mindset is destructive towards the relatively fair playing field we've laid down at least in the US where we are supposed to protect individuals' right to express themselves. In Twitter's case I think you've nailed it. They're so big that effective moderation that pleases everyone is simply unmanageable. What that signals to me is that practically they should be considered a speech platform. Otherwise any attempts to moderate will feel like social cherry-picking. Once classified as a platform we should treat them differently, both legally and colloquially. Legally platforms would be absolved of taking responsibility for the content posted by individuals. And colloquially if people understand they're a platform, and platforms come with self-service tools to make sure unwanted content doesn't show up front and center in your feed, then I think we can collectively mature in our approach towards and response to "dirty" content. Anyway I don't use twitter either and don't expect nor am I really all that interested in a twitter solution. I'm abstractly defending the social maturity required to tolerate diverging viewpoints without resorting to censoring and banning and extrajudicial mob justice because I believe required to prevent oppressive majority rule.
jeromegv 6y ago
What if that ideology encourages violence against a certain class of people? Must that be protected?
- steveeq1 6y ago
  In the same way that gangsta rap music is protected, yes.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  You don't have to protect the actual calls to violence. But if you don't protect the associated ideology, you're going to end up excluding basically all politics. I've never seen a large political movement that didn't contain a few bad actors promoting violence.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  The trouble is that what is considered "violence" varies from person to person, and from ideology to ideology.
mirimir 6y ago
Exactly. Because once everything isn't protected, someone gets to choose. So what we need are systems where content can't be removed, and users can't be banned, by design. And yeah, we also need usable and effective filtering, so everyone can choose what to see.
- AlexMax 6y ago
  > Exactly. Because once everything isn't protected, someone gets to choose. So what we need are systems where content can't be removed, and users can't be banned, by design. This is naive at best. I know of no social space on the internet that has light moderation, no moderation, or primarily user-driven moderation that isn't also a dumpster fire. This is the internet. There are uncountable social spaces on it, and the fantastic thing is that the owners of each social space are free to enforce rules as they see fit. If you are unhappy with the moderation of a social space, or if you get booted, find another one. Or, you could even create your own. Heck, because this is the internet, you are likely keeping up with many of the people you know from a social space through multiple other platforms, and if you want to peace out from one, you can coordinate a migration.
  - dcow 6y ago
    So build accountability into interactions with the internet. For example, I believe for most purposes people should use government-issued access to the internet with an identity that ties to their physical self. Anonymity should cost extra and there should be an implicit lack of trust, credibility, etc. from anything anonymous until it can be thoroughly vetted. I like the urbit model for this where short memorable addresses convey value and social reputation whilst fully anonymous entities are allowed but implicitly untrusted.
    - mirimir 6y ago
      You and like-minded peers could have that, for sure. I can see the value for professional networks. Otherwise it'd arguably be far too dangerous.

ahelwer 6y ago

It isn't all right wing stuff. The recent banwave took out probably the largest leftist community on the internet after a long period of banning users who upvoted opinions there, such as: * Slaveowners deserved to die * John Brown is an American hero * Police & large-corporate property constitue legitimate political targets during protests etc. Essentially reddit wants to restrict the scope of permissible discourse to the same region allowed on mainstream news websites: support of neoliberal capitalism with debate focused on how overtly racist the system should be.

AlexMax 6y ago
And? What did people expect would happen? You cannot trust large corporations with those kinds of discussions. The thing is, I don't think the solution is to force Reddit to host those kinds of subreddits - the solution it to find or create a different social space. Alternatives to those spaces exist, you just have to look for them.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Yes, things seem to be coalescing around raddle.me.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Reddit itself was such a place not that long ago. Lust for power and money seems to frequently find a way to corrupt even those with the best of initial intentions.
Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
They threw them under the bus to make the banwave come off as non-partisan.
perl4ever 6y ago
"John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave, And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save; Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave, His soul is marching on. He captured Harper's Ferry, with his nineteen men so few, And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled thru and thru; They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew, But his soul is marching on."