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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most open-source projects are a "benevolent dictatorship". For example, Linux with Linus as the dictator.
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.
Would you argue that everybody working on the Linux kernel is "autonomous", though?