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.
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'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.
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.