I think everything that directly hurts someone is out of the question. Your freedom ends where the other person's begins, but everyone's equal. So these celebrities don't have the right to have their photos taken down any more than anyone else who had their photos stolen and posted on the internet, and the opposite counts too. If they do have those rights, why don't the subreddits containing stolen photos get deleted? But what's bad isn't that they've taken the subreddit down, it's that they've taken it down supposedly for moral reasons while a bunch of other women are victims of it and nobody cares.
I 100% percent agree. Selected censoring only proves further that the admins behind reddit did it for image and self preservation and not because they felt the urgency to do it out of empathy towards the people being hurt by the material.
I'm hurt by republican rhetoric and religious dogma. Can I request that all such talk be removed? Illegal content aside, you just can't draw a line between what's acceptable and what's not. You do not have the right to not be hurt.
With reddit, it's important to note the difference between admin actions and mod actions. The admins are there to run a website and enforce it's handful of rules. Moderators are there to enforce their own agenda, and yes some of them will openly censor opinions they don't agree with. While it's no way to maintain a community, it's within the mods every right to do so. It's their community.
Ultimately, it seems admin decisions (if they'll admit it or not) comes down to how much time an issue is taking up. /r/thefappening was suddenly a hotbed of activity and forced the admins to deal with constant (albeit misdirected) DCMA takedown notices. It's only 1 of tens of thousands of subreddits, I can understand why they made their decision. The same thing happened with /r/jailbait after the Anderson Cooper story: it was banned not because of its content but because some users were constantly posting childporn and the mods failed to prevent it.
Directly hurt, that doesn't mean offended. But I see your point and I agree that these kinds of situations must be a pain for admins. But as I said, these are what people cry out about but they're not the worst they've done, the Zoe Quinn scandal and its censorship of even peaceful conversations about the subject is what made me angry at them and why I stopped using it.
And that's the only I'm aware of, who knows if it's the only subject they've censored.
I don't know anything about the "Zoe Quinn scandal" but I assume that any censorship was done by the mods of that subreddit and not the admins. The only thing close to censorship the admins have done is banning entire subreddits or accounts. They're not subtle about it.
There are proofs that 2 admins were shadowbanning them. There are these images that show the person asking for a justification, then the admin just tells them 4chan raid. Then the person said but I don't even go on 4chan and the admin just responds vote manipulation. And they deleted entire threads too and even banned people for upvoting these threads. Even a mod on /r/games got demoted because of it.
It's really weird, they just censored the whole thing, and there are solid proofs. I'll post the imgur album if I find it.
I 100% percent agree. Selected censoring only proves further that the admins behind reddit did it for image and self preservation and not because they felt the urgency to do it out of empathy towards the people being hurt by the material.
I'm hurt by republican rhetoric and religious dogma. Can I request that all such talk be removed? Illegal content aside, you just can't draw a line between what's acceptable and what's not. You do not have the right to not be hurt.
With reddit, it's important to note the difference between admin actions and mod actions. The admins are there to run a website and enforce it's handful of rules. Moderators are there to enforce their own agenda, and yes some of them will openly censor opinions they don't agree with. While it's no way to maintain a community, it's within the mods every right to do so. It's their community.
Ultimately, it seems admin decisions (if they'll admit it or not) comes down to how much time an issue is taking up. /r/thefappening was suddenly a hotbed of activity and forced the admins to deal with constant (albeit misdirected) DCMA takedown notices. It's only 1 of tens of thousands of subreddits, I can understand why they made their decision. The same thing happened with /r/jailbait after the Anderson Cooper story: it was banned not because of its content but because some users were constantly posting childporn and the mods failed to prevent it.
Directly hurt, that doesn't mean offended. But I see your point and I agree that these kinds of situations must be a pain for admins. But as I said, these are what people cry out about but they're not the worst they've done, the Zoe Quinn scandal and its censorship of even peaceful conversations about the subject is what made me angry at them and why I stopped using it.
And that's the only I'm aware of, who knows if it's the only subject they've censored.
I don't know anything about the "Zoe Quinn scandal" but I assume that any censorship was done by the mods of that subreddit and not the admins. The only thing close to censorship the admins have done is banning entire subreddits or accounts. They're not subtle about it.
There are proofs that 2 admins were shadowbanning them. There are these images that show the person asking for a justification, then the admin just tells them 4chan raid. Then the person said but I don't even go on 4chan and the admin just responds vote manipulation. And they deleted entire threads too and even banned people for upvoting these threads. Even a mod on /r/games got demoted because of it.
It's really weird, they just censored the whole thing, and there are solid proofs. I'll post the imgur album if I find it.
Here: https://imgur.com/a/f4WDf