I feel like the admins need to take a more clear stance on this. I've heard them saying that racism and hate speech is something they "don't support", but I've also heard things such as that the people promoting those "won't get banned".
Now that means that fatpeoplehate can technically still function just fine, doesn't it?
How are we supposed to react when a group of people comes and starts upvoting fatpeoplehate content up to the front page? Do I downvote them because I don't like their content?
Edit: I've thought this through and have come to the conclusion that the admins might be busy with more poignant issues at the moment - such as keeping the site running, or their actual work (from what I understand this is a hobby-like project of theirs).
We should take into consideration that for the moment the situation is unclear and it is up to us to only support the things that are good for us and that we want to see in this site.
If something you don't like(I'm assuming something like the promotion of ISIS.) is upvoted to the front page, a large user base would have to upvote it. Would you downvote that content? If fatpeoplehate content is appreciated by many users on snapzu, should it not reach the front page?
That's my question exactly. If fatpeoplehate content naturally gets upvoted to the top, then that means that they've earned their right to be here?
Because then the message of this thread is false, and fatpeoplehate has just as much power here as it does on reddit, provided it is supported by the people.
My questions were rather rhetorical ones. If the upvotes that fatpeoplehate posts receive is high enough that it reaches the front page, it should be there. As the access to Snapzu is rather limited, these type of posts will never reach the front page as long as other content is upvoted and the hateful posts do not appeal to a large amount of users in the Snapzu community.
I believe /u/BlueOracle messaged the admins and they said that if hate speech/racism wasn't automatically removed by the community via downvotes, they would step in and remove it. See her comment here.
The problem I see is that hate speech is explicitly forbidden in the etiquette guidelines for the site. I really don't care how popular it is or becomes, I would absolutely support any admin intervention to remove hateful content.
As I've said elsewhere, disagreement or disapproval is one thing, hate is another altogether. It's not like your only two options are full support or hate and an entire tribe dedicated solely to the hatred of a specific group of people, regardless of what it is, is fundamentally against the values that Snapzu has outlined for themselves. That isn't the kind of community the people running the servers want to foster and ultimately the decision should stay with them. They are in no size, way shape and/or form beholden to the popular opinions of their users.
Regardless of any of that, if I see any hateful content coming up, I will be downvoting it and specifying the reason for that downvote as hateful content. It violates the etiquette of the site and does not contribute to any meaningful conversation.
If the content posted falls under any of these items, the content will be removed. If a tribe exists ONLY to create and propagate racist, hateful and abusive content it will also be subject to closure. This needs to be a case by case sort of enforcement, it's impossible otherwise to imagine every scenario of abuse.
To over simplify, freedom of speech/public opinion does not equal tolerance/acceptance. If I were to build a website to attract like minded people, why should I allow them to espouse the vitriol I am trying to get away from?
I do understand what you are saying. If I were to build a site that relied on most popular vote, then yes, I would have to let them stay, but it seems snapzu is not that type of forum for which I am glad.
As the admins should control how they want people to perceive their site and the content that the community is exposed to, I concur. The only reason I argued for popular opinion is due to the lack of admin action(other users' speculation only, no proof), although I do realize this may not be the admins' most prominent issue.
I have a suggestion. I think there should be no censorship on anything, until it hits legal issues. However, any tribe deemed "bad" would not have any posts going onto the frontpage and will be filtered out. The people who participate in the tribe are happy, and the people who browse the frontpage and do not like hatetribes like that don't need to see them.
Well, that's misunderstanding snapzu to be a democracy rather than a benevolent dictatorship that encourages autonomy. At the end of the day, democracy is less favourable. All hail our mighty overlords.
Certain freedoms, yes, but we're specifically talking about speech here. What other freedoms are relevant to a website? If free speech is only free as long as you don't offend somebody, that is an oxymoron.
The fatpeoplehate group has the word hate in it. It was a sub devoted to the hatred of a specific group of people. I'm pretty sure the admins here have been pretty vocal in their dislike of hate groups in general. A policy that I agree with. There are other places to go if you're looking for that kind of free speech. This isn't a democracy, it's a website that is free to have it's own rules about what content is posted.
Yeah, let's ban anything we don't agree with personally. I disagree with feminism and violet sports. Let's ban all sports tribes and all women from Snapzu.
That's a slippery slope argument and it just doesn't make sense. You can always draw lines. Like at hate speech where it is now. Just ban hate speech and racism. That seems fair enough.
"I never encountered it because the communities worked pretty well and subreddit admins have an incentive to keep it that way."
On Snapzu though, everything is cross-posted to the front page. So that could be a pretty big issue. Also, I feel like a lot of people think that "what is illegal and what is not" is the only acceptable line to draw, when even as you said, that is a grey area too anyhow. Tons of subreddits have had success drawing the line around hate speech so there's no reason to assume it's too much of an issue for a website to handle.
I think the big thing is when does censorship stifle ideas? For instance feminism, if you reversed the genders, would be considered by the standards of today, hate.
I feel like the admins need to take a more clear stance on this. I've heard them saying that racism and hate speech is something they "don't support", but I've also heard things such as that the people promoting those "won't get banned".
Now that means that fatpeoplehate can technically still function just fine, doesn't it?
How are we supposed to react when a group of people comes and starts upvoting fatpeoplehate content up to the front page? Do I downvote them because I don't like their content?
Edit: I've thought this through and have come to the conclusion that the admins might be busy with more poignant issues at the moment - such as keeping the site running, or their actual work (from what I understand this is a hobby-like project of theirs).
We should take into consideration that for the moment the situation is unclear and it is up to us to only support the things that are good for us and that we want to see in this site.
If something you don't like(I'm assuming something like the promotion of ISIS.) is upvoted to the front page, a large user base would have to upvote it. Would you downvote that content? If fatpeoplehate content is appreciated by many users on snapzu, should it not reach the front page?
That's my question exactly. If fatpeoplehate content naturally gets upvoted to the top, then that means that they've earned their right to be here?
Because then the message of this thread is false, and fatpeoplehate has just as much power here as it does on reddit, provided it is supported by the people.
My questions were rather rhetorical ones. If the upvotes that fatpeoplehate posts receive is high enough that it reaches the front page, it should be there. As the access to Snapzu is rather limited, these type of posts will never reach the front page as long as other content is upvoted and the hateful posts do not appeal to a large amount of users in the Snapzu community.
I believe /u/BlueOracle messaged the admins and they said that if hate speech/racism wasn't automatically removed by the community via downvotes, they would step in and remove it. See her comment here.
The problem I see is that hate speech is explicitly forbidden in the etiquette guidelines for the site. I really don't care how popular it is or becomes, I would absolutely support any admin intervention to remove hateful content.
As I've said elsewhere, disagreement or disapproval is one thing, hate is another altogether. It's not like your only two options are full support or hate and an entire tribe dedicated solely to the hatred of a specific group of people, regardless of what it is, is fundamentally against the values that Snapzu has outlined for themselves. That isn't the kind of community the people running the servers want to foster and ultimately the decision should stay with them. They are in no size, way shape and/or form beholden to the popular opinions of their users.
Regardless of any of that, if I see any hateful content coming up, I will be downvoting it and specifying the reason for that downvote as hateful content. It violates the etiquette of the site and does not contribute to any meaningful conversation.
If the content posted falls under any of these items, the content will be removed. If a tribe exists ONLY to create and propagate racist, hateful and abusive content it will also be subject to closure. This needs to be a case by case sort of enforcement, it's impossible otherwise to imagine every scenario of abuse.
Case by case then? Thank you for stating that. There will be a time in the future where certain topics fall in a gray area.
To over simplify, freedom of speech/public opinion does not equal tolerance/acceptance. If I were to build a website to attract like minded people, why should I allow them to espouse the vitriol I am trying to get away from? I do understand what you are saying. If I were to build a site that relied on most popular vote, then yes, I would have to let them stay, but it seems snapzu is not that type of forum for which I am glad.
As the admins should control how they want people to perceive their site and the content that the community is exposed to, I concur. The only reason I argued for popular opinion is due to the lack of admin action(other users' speculation only, no proof), although I do realize this may not be the admins' most prominent issue.
I have a suggestion. I think there should be no censorship on anything, until it hits legal issues. However, any tribe deemed "bad" would not have any posts going onto the frontpage and will be filtered out. The people who participate in the tribe are happy, and the people who browse the frontpage and do not like hatetribes like that don't need to see them.
Yeah I look forward to a friendly place not full of snark for the sake of it and this goes for all the more extreme sides of every viewpoint.
Well, that's misunderstanding snapzu to be a democracy rather than a benevolent dictatorship that encourages autonomy. At the end of the day, democracy is less favourable. All hail our mighty overlords.
That sounds like an oxymoron. You either encourage autonomy or you're a dictatorship. You can't do both.
Of course you can. You can be a dictator who permits certain freedoms and autonomy - see Singapore for example.
Certain freedoms, yes, but we're specifically talking about speech here. What other freedoms are relevant to a website? If free speech is only free as long as you don't offend somebody, that is an oxymoron.
Most open-source projects are a "benevolent dictatorship". For example, Linux with Linus as the dictator.
Would you argue that everybody working on the Linux kernel is "autonomous", though?
The fatpeoplehate group has the word hate in it. It was a sub devoted to the hatred of a specific group of people. I'm pretty sure the admins here have been pretty vocal in their dislike of hate groups in general. A policy that I agree with. There are other places to go if you're looking for that kind of free speech. This isn't a democracy, it's a website that is free to have it's own rules about what content is posted.
I wish the admins would just go ahead and take a stance on it, one way or another.
IMO there are websites out there for that FREE SPEECH™ bullshitery, so I say let those sites be the quarantine zone, and ban it here.
Better make it clear now than wait years to ban it, thus pissing off the community. Like what happened at "that other site."
Yeah, let's ban anything we don't agree with personally. I disagree with feminism and violet sports. Let's ban all sports tribes and all women from Snapzu.
That's a slippery slope argument and it just doesn't make sense. You can always draw lines. Like at hate speech where it is now. Just ban hate speech and racism. That seems fair enough.
I disagree with and we disagree with are two entirely different things, though, aren't they?
[This comment was removed]
On Snapzu though, everything is cross-posted to the front page. So that could be a pretty big issue. Also, I feel like a lot of people think that "what is illegal and what is not" is the only acceptable line to draw, when even as you said, that is a grey area too anyhow. Tons of subreddits have had success drawing the line around hate speech so there's no reason to assume it's too much of an issue for a website to handle.
I think the big thing is when does censorship stifle ideas? For instance feminism, if you reversed the genders, would be considered by the standards of today, hate.