Yes, you did say one thing over and over. And yes, I did say a different thing later on.
I made one top-level comment, the one you initially replied to. There was no "over and over", nor was there a "later on". Again, it was one comment.
The simple fact is, you used a ridiculous example to try and equate offensive speech with physical violence. And the reason I know that's what you were doing is because that's literally what you wrote:
So if you've having a party at your house and it's crashed by asshats fighting with chains and knives, your best move then is to invite more, even closer, friends? Because freedom of expression.
Again, there was no discussion here, and no conversation; you were replying to a top-level comment-- the only comment I had made at that point.
If you want to have a discussion about censorship by social media companies, and free speech in the marketplace, then I'm all for it. If you want to keep spouting nonsense and making fallacious arguments, then Reddit's that way. ----------------->
Figured I'll jump in to clarify a few things. A while back, in July of last summer there were a number of redditors here during the PAO drama that was happening (the banning of fatpeoplehate, etc.).
One of the new members asked about our policy on banning hateful, bigoted and or abusive comments/users/tribes with which I replied "absolutely". I used a similar argument comparing the Snapzu community platform as a private enterprise ran buy a few hosts, and literally compared it to a house party where any friend can invite another friend to come over (think of our invite system).
In the argument I made it very clear that the rules were written up on a sign outside on the lawn just next to the door, and if those rules were broken, you're out. So now, if one of those people you invited was going around and being racist, bigoted and generally making the rest of the party feel uncomfortable, people would be able to come to the host and let them know what's happening. I believe the point was actually about tribes like fatpeoplehate and others that follow that same abusive principle, which I compared to as rooms within the house that were dedicated to such behavior.
I can safely say that our rules have not changed since then, and if the same thing was happening where people were "free to express themselves" in any way they want, yet their "expression" was breaking our rules, they would be out of the party very quickly free to go down the street and drunkenly yell any racist, bigoted, abusive comments they want, of course until such a time that the cops picked them up for disturbing the peace and being drunk in a public place :)
I've never had an issue with any private website (Twitter, Reddit, Snapzu, etc.) setting their own rules, and banning people who break them. To go it a step further, I don't even really have a problem with users being arbitrarily banned by a site for no reason. Again: "Their house. Their rules.". My point was that, not only is it almost never effective, but it nearly always ends up making things worse than they were to start with.
Since you mentioned the PAO drama, specifically "The Fattening", then I'm sure you remember what happened after Reddit banned those particular sites. For about a week, it was flooded with new copycat subs, and then when that finally died down, the users who, up to that point had been in their own little corner of the playground, migrated into the other subs, bringing their nonsense with them. Now I know Reddit didn't want to let the inmates run the asylum, but I think everyone would agree that it was much easier for users to ignore one subreddit than it is to ignore a few thousand individual users who are now spread across a couple dozen of the most popular subreddits, and who are still posting the same nonsense to this day, more than a year later.
Funny, maybe, but it makes a point and I feel at the end of the day that that's the most important part. This is a private social community, it has rules, those rules are set up by private individuals that have every intention of keeping a certain set of rules alive. For those who feel these rules are not to their liking they have a decision to make when they join, if they don't wish to abide by them, they can leave or be helped to leave, for admins it's one and the same.
. I agree. That's why I come here and post. I like this community and
I find it a comfortable place to interact. I don't like free-for-all- whatever websites
and don't use them.
Honestly thought, dont you think this problem existed in the first place because reddit let that problem grow for far too long? I mean if you let a squatter live at your house for far too long, they start thinking its theirs and its much harder to remove them and their friends after its been such a long time. I figure if we continue enforcing the rules, we wont let those types of individuals to setup camp in the first place.
This whole drama is ridiculous, people should know by now that trolls love to find boundaries, step over them, and press buttons, and with juvenile shock racist/sexist humour being able to be get a rise out of a celebrity, and being spread, being quoted by the likes of the bbc and the NYTimes. Anyone wants insight into the thought processes behind the sustained racist tweets, this is a forum link I saw tweeted. We are in an age where Carlin's seven words you won't hear on television is quaint, and old fashioned. When you understand there is an entire culture of using 10 minute email services as a way to make troll accounts on twitter, it starts to make sense. snapzu has never been a "bastion of free speech" the same way as twitter or reddit. twitter, and DNS servers were being used as graffiti to bypass government limits on speech. That's why I ditched reddit, because I never got an answer as to if 09 F9 11 02 9D ... was against their terms of service.
I know people hate brietbart, same way its readers hate vox, themarysue, salon, it is modern media and how it gets out a message. Brietbart had a series of "the left is controlling twitter, and here is how" articles all lined up for when Milo was going to be banned for being Milo. Like this one. Brietbart just needs to prove twitter's hypocrisy when it comes to their enforcement of their rules, and suddenly, they are not spouting some form of crazy right wing conspiracy, but actual modern issues in the digital age.
(and yes, I find this shit fascinating, I blame Metal Gear Solid 2). EDIT: spelling mistake, and an incomplete sentence.
Honestly thought, dont you think this problem existed in the first place because reddit let that problem grow for far too long?
Reddit never saw it as a problem though. They spent years branding themselves as a bastion of free speech, and consistently telling people that they wouldn't ban controversial/offensive subreddits, so long as the content were legal. So to use your metaphor, these weren't squatters. These were people that Reddit invited in, told them to make themselves at home, used them to help renovate the house, and then busted in one morning, threw their shit out onto the street and told them they had to go.
I made one top-level comment, the one you initially replied to. There was no "over and over", nor was there a "later on". Again, it was one comment.
The simple fact is, you used a ridiculous example to try and equate offensive speech with physical violence. And the reason I know that's what you were doing is because that's literally what you wrote:
Again, there was no discussion here, and no conversation; you were replying to a top-level comment-- the only comment I had made at that point.
If you want to have a discussion about censorship by social media companies, and free speech in the marketplace, then I'm all for it. If you want to keep spouting nonsense and making fallacious arguments, then Reddit's that way. ----------------->
Figured I'll jump in to clarify a few things. A while back, in July of last summer there were a number of redditors here during the PAO drama that was happening (the banning of fatpeoplehate, etc.).
One of the new members asked about our policy on banning hateful, bigoted and or abusive comments/users/tribes with which I replied "absolutely". I used a similar argument comparing the Snapzu community platform as a private enterprise ran buy a few hosts, and literally compared it to a house party where any friend can invite another friend to come over (think of our invite system).
In the argument I made it very clear that the rules were written up on a sign outside on the lawn just next to the door, and if those rules were broken, you're out. So now, if one of those people you invited was going around and being racist, bigoted and generally making the rest of the party feel uncomfortable, people would be able to come to the host and let them know what's happening. I believe the point was actually about tribes like fatpeoplehate and others that follow that same abusive principle, which I compared to as rooms within the house that were dedicated to such behavior.
I can safely say that our rules have not changed since then, and if the same thing was happening where people were "free to express themselves" in any way they want, yet their "expression" was breaking our rules, they would be out of the party very quickly free to go down the street and drunkenly yell any racist, bigoted, abusive comments they want, of course until such a time that the cops picked them up for disturbing the peace and being drunk in a public place :)
Edit: Corrected a couple of typos.
[This comment was removed]
I've never had an issue with any private website (Twitter, Reddit, Snapzu, etc.) setting their own rules, and banning people who break them. To go it a step further, I don't even really have a problem with users being arbitrarily banned by a site for no reason. Again: "Their house. Their rules.". My point was that, not only is it almost never effective, but it nearly always ends up making things worse than they were to start with.
Since you mentioned the PAO drama, specifically "The Fattening", then I'm sure you remember what happened after Reddit banned those particular sites. For about a week, it was flooded with new copycat subs, and then when that finally died down, the users who, up to that point had been in their own little corner of the playground, migrated into the other subs, bringing their nonsense with them. Now I know Reddit didn't want to let the inmates run the asylum, but I think everyone would agree that it was much easier for users to ignore one subreddit than it is to ignore a few thousand individual users who are now spread across a couple dozen of the most popular subreddits, and who are still posting the same nonsense to this day, more than a year later.
Funny, maybe, but it makes a point and I feel at the end of the day that that's the most important part. This is a private social community, it has rules, those rules are set up by private individuals that have every intention of keeping a certain set of rules alive. For those who feel these rules are not to their liking they have a decision to make when they join, if they don't wish to abide by them, they can leave or be helped to leave, for admins it's one and the same.
. I agree. That's why I come here and post. I like this community and I find it a comfortable place to interact. I don't like free-for-all- whatever websites and don't use them.
Honestly thought, dont you think this problem existed in the first place because reddit let that problem grow for far too long? I mean if you let a squatter live at your house for far too long, they start thinking its theirs and its much harder to remove them and their friends after its been such a long time. I figure if we continue enforcing the rules, we wont let those types of individuals to setup camp in the first place.
This whole drama is ridiculous, people should know by now that trolls love to find boundaries, step over them, and press buttons, and with juvenile shock racist/sexist humour being able to be get a rise out of a celebrity, and being spread, being quoted by the likes of the bbc and the NYTimes. Anyone wants insight into the thought processes behind the sustained racist tweets, this is a forum link I saw tweeted. We are in an age where Carlin's seven words you won't hear on television is quaint, and old fashioned. When you understand there is an entire culture of using 10 minute email services as a way to make troll accounts on twitter, it starts to make sense. snapzu has never been a "bastion of free speech" the same way as twitter or reddit. twitter, and DNS servers were being used as graffiti to bypass government limits on speech. That's why I ditched reddit, because I never got an answer as to if 09 F9 11 02 9D ... was against their terms of service.
I know people hate brietbart, same way its readers hate vox, themarysue, salon, it is modern media and how it gets out a message. Brietbart had a series of "the left is controlling twitter, and here is how" articles all lined up for when Milo was going to be banned for being Milo. Like this one. Brietbart just needs to prove twitter's hypocrisy when it comes to their enforcement of their rules, and suddenly, they are not spouting some form of crazy right wing conspiracy, but actual modern issues in the digital age.
(and yes, I find this shit fascinating, I blame Metal Gear Solid 2). EDIT: spelling mistake, and an incomplete sentence.
Reddit never saw it as a problem though. They spent years branding themselves as a bastion of free speech, and consistently telling people that they wouldn't ban controversial/offensive subreddits, so long as the content were legal. So to use your metaphor, these weren't squatters. These were people that Reddit invited in, told them to make themselves at home, used them to help renovate the house, and then busted in one morning, threw their shit out onto the street and told them they had to go.